this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
554 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
60018 readers
2776 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Compared to how many traffic incidents involving human-operated vehicles? Because if that number is greater than 90, the AVs are the safer choice.
Automated cars don't have to be perfect; they just have to be better than people.
Bay Area native here. They're also prone to dead stopping in the middle of the street and other moving violations, blocking emergency services and public transit in addition to normal traffic. Ideally, we'd like these vehicles to be held accountable for these violations like normal drivers: fines, suspensions, impounds. But we'll settle for a human driver on standby who can immediately override the software when a moving violation occurs.
Well that is simply flawed logic. How many autonomous cars are there compared to human-operated? Far far more.
I think you meant less.
Ideally, you'd be correct and we should be looking at per capita incidents- like how many incidents per 100 miles on the road or something. But the article just cited a flat number of incidents without contextualizing, which as you've pointed out can be misleading. Without knowing the ratio of AVs to human-driven vehicles, the best rebuttal that could be offered is "Yeah, but how do those 90 incidents compare to how people drive?"
Yeah sorry - I meant less.
And yep agree on all the rest. I was just triggered by the simple comparison.
The comparison needs to be normalized for distance driven. There's far more human driven cars. But most humans don't spend that long driving (I'm not sure how much of the day is spent driving by these AI cars, but they theoretically could drive all day long).
The quota also does say "involving", which may include accidents where someone else hits an AI driven car. If so, that's highly misleading.
To play devil's advocate, how many AVs are on the road everyday? There are millions of cars on the road so naturally there are going to be a ton of accidents.
And they will definitely be better than people. Just them being able to communicate with each other, even locally, can remove the need for traffic lights already.
What percent uptime does your phone's wifi/bluetooth/mobile internet have? Is it exactly 100%?
All three combined? Yes 100%. I get what you are trying to suggest though.
One of the car companies is quoted as having caused no serious injuries or deaths, so it seems like the 90 incidents number only includes those. Unfortunately the article doesn't question those numbers or explain what is counted, which is very poor journalism. I don't understand how they can write about the protesters' motivations without asking how many moving violations those cars have caused, or at least mention that this number is unknown.
If the numbers indeed don't count the times where they block traffic, stop for no reason or block emergency vehicles where they need to wait for the company to send someone out to the car, then AV's could be far worse than human drivers, not only in the number of incidents but also in the total delays they cause. At least a human driver can be removed from the car so that someone more competent can take over and resolve the situation quickly. And a human generally doesn't just stop in a lane and refuse to move out of the way for a very long time.
Another bonus: a human can just remove a cone from the hood and continue driving.