Self-Driving Cars Would Only Prevent a Third of America's Crashes, Study Finds (reuters.com) 219
An anonymous reader quotes Reuters:
Self-driving cars, long touted by developers as a way to eliminate road deaths, could likely only prevent a third of all U.S. road crashes, according to a study released on Thursday. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a research group financed by U.S. insurers, found the remaining crashes were caused by mistakes that self-driving systems are not equipped to handle any better than human drivers.
Partners for Automated Vehicle Education, a consortium of self-driving companies and researchers, said in a statement on Thursday the study wrongly assumed that automated cars could only prevent crashes caused by perception errors and incapacitation. Some 72% of crashes were avoidable, based on the study's calculations, if accidents caused by speeding and violation of traffic laws were included, the consortium said...
[N]ot all human mistakes can be eliminated by camera, radar and other sensor-based technology, according to the IIHS analysis of more than 5,000 representative police-reported crashes nationwide. Most crashes were due to more complex errors, such as making wrong assumptions about other road users' actions, driving too fast or too slow for road conditions, or making incorrect evasive maneuvers. Many crashes resulted from multiple mistakes. "Our goal was to show that if you don't deal with those issues, self-driving cars won't deliver massive safety benefits," said Jessica Cicchino, IIHS vice president for research and a coauthor of the study.
Partners for Automated Vehicle Education, a consortium of self-driving companies and researchers, said in a statement on Thursday the study wrongly assumed that automated cars could only prevent crashes caused by perception errors and incapacitation. Some 72% of crashes were avoidable, based on the study's calculations, if accidents caused by speeding and violation of traffic laws were included, the consortium said...
[N]ot all human mistakes can be eliminated by camera, radar and other sensor-based technology, according to the IIHS analysis of more than 5,000 representative police-reported crashes nationwide. Most crashes were due to more complex errors, such as making wrong assumptions about other road users' actions, driving too fast or too slow for road conditions, or making incorrect evasive maneuvers. Many crashes resulted from multiple mistakes. "Our goal was to show that if you don't deal with those issues, self-driving cars won't deliver massive safety benefits," said Jessica Cicchino, IIHS vice president for research and a coauthor of the study.
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Most crashes were due to more complex errors, such as making wrong assumptions about other road users' actions, driving too fast or too slow for road conditions, or making incorrect evasive maneuvers."
You can solve literally all of those problems with self-driving cars by simply making them leave an adequate cushion, and not drive too fast for conditions. "Driving too slow for road conditions" is really code for "other vehicles moving too fast and/or failing to yield". If you leave an adequate cushion then you don't have to make evasive maneuvers in the first place. If the other cars are also self driving and they don't speed and they let you in, then your speed can't cause an accident.
Re: Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to what you may believe, driving too slow can be dangerous which is why many countries have a minimum speed limit on their highways and here in the UK mopeds and tractors are banned from motorways.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Uh... (Score:3)
The Tesla Autopilot has a crash, on average, once every 3+ million miles. Human drivers have accidents, on average, once 500k miles on highways ( so as to make this an apples to apples comparison ) and once every 165k miles in general.
Autonomous driving continues to improve. Human drivers, not so much. The time will come - in a year or maybe in ten - when autonomous cars will be 10x safer than humans on all roads. At that point weâ(TM)ll start seeing laws limiting driving by those who might be âun
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can only "cause" an accident by going too slow if someone else is going too fast for conditions. You should never outdrive your vision and braking ability. Whether the hazard you're avoiding is that something fell off of a truck or that someone is driving 15 in a 65, this will prevent a collision.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"On a crowded highway you cant always see more than a few vehicles ahead especially if there are lots of trucks around."
Yeah, that's why you have to slow down even while passing in some situations. Life is full of these apparent paradoxes.
"Clearly you dont drive much if at all in busy conditions.-
Clearly you drive unsafely for conditions.
Re: Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think your the one who needs to re-think the situation...driving 50kph on a road with minimum 80kph is looking for an accident. Everybody on that road expects everybody else to be going the minimum.
The 'unexpected' is always what leads to accidents. I lived in a place where they had unmarked intersections with the rule that you always give way to the right side. Worked great when everybody followed the rule. One asshole doesn't follow the rule and boom you have an accident. I used to marvel at watching this one intersection outside my office window. Never work where I live now...here they need 4-way stop signs or everybody gets confused.
Same thing on the motorway or in any other situation where the unexpected occurs. My biggest gripe is people breaking a rule by stopping and 'letting someone turn across traffic' who doesn't have the right of way. Sure they stopped, but doesn't mean the person two lanes over will. If I am the one waiting I stare them down and wait for them to continue on. They should not be stopping. Even if it is 'polite', it is dangerous.
Follow the rules and there will be many fewer accidents. Unexpected stuff like deer on the highway and bicyclists darting out in traffic will still happen but they are the ones not following the rules, and self driving vehicles can be trained only so far in that type of mitigation.
That being said I think there will be significantly fewer vehicular accidents with self driving tech...much to the insurance industries' dismay. Their whole model will need to change.
Re: Uh... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but
1) self driving cars won't drive too slow, eliminating much of the problem
2) driving too slow doesnt directly cause crashes. It causes crashes indirectly through people not paying attention and being prepared for such a slow vehicle, and by causing congestion which puts everyone closer together and makes them a bit more aggressive trying to get around it. When non-self driving cars drive too slowly, other self driving cars around it can deal with both of these indirect causes.
So I fail to see how sel
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving car
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Uh... (Score:3)
I drive 80% of the time on autopilot, or I did when commuting was still a thing. I would be willing to pay someone to remotely drive my car the other 20% if such a thing were an option. Your right that full autonomy wonâ(TM)t happen for a long time but full autonomy isnâ(TM)t necessary, we only need adequate autonomy combined with effective remote piloting to enable autonomous taxis and autonomous delivery vehicles which would have a huge impact on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean driving slower than everyone else expected you to drive.
If we reduced the standard speed limits within cities to 20mph and actually enforced it, then it would save many lives and avoid many serious injuries. Actually, even just enforcing the 30mph limit would be a start.
Re: Uh... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need V2V/V2I in order to avoid such crashes. You do it the same way a conscientious human does it. You don't speed up and pass on the outside when going past an onramp where you can't see whether anyone is about to merge, for example. Communication with other vehicles or with infrastructure would help, but it's not necessary. The vehicles only have to follow the rules of the road.
Plus, you can't trust any vehicle that requires communication to self-drive anyway, because that only means that i
Re: (Score:2)
"Driving too slow for road conditions" = 55 BS (Score:2)
"Driving too slow for road conditions" = the 55 BS.
Just Try to do 55 on the IL toll way to see that in action
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to drive 55. But if my car drives itself at 55 and I can play with my phone then I'm fine, I'll eat the extra few minutes in the name of safety and fuel efficiency. Over a long trip you might lose an hour, but you'll feel less fatigued when you get there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Do you actually drive yourself, ever?"
Oh look, another patronizing comment from the douche gallery.
"You must not if you think 'leaving an adequate cushion' is actually possible, which it is not."
Tell me all about it, oh wise one.
"Someone will fill the space. Then what do you do? Slow down more?"
That's correct. You know what happens if everyone does that? Everyone gets home quicker because there are less accidents.
"Eventually you're a traffic hazard yourself and maybe get pulled over and ticketed for it, th
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to recall hearing about one city where the police would put a police car in each lane during rush hour and drive the speed limit. Supposedly the end result was better commute times and less accidents. I can't find a reference to it anywhere yet. It makes sense that setting a consistent traffic speed (albeit slower for some) results in a better overall commute time for everyone. It is safer too since many accidents often involve speed differences where cars are driven at significantly difference s
Re: (Score:3)
"many accidents often involve speed differences where cars are driven at significantly difference speeds (slower and/or faster)."
One great example is on mere surface streets where people will often switch lanes to go around a stopped vehicle... Which has stopped for a pedestrian. Maybe they're jaywalking, maybe not (there is such a thing as an implied crosswalk) but either way running into them is an undesirable outcome. So when someone is stopped in the road, you can't just assume that they have stalled ou
Re: Uh... (Score:2)
Ignorant of physics much?
If you leave an adequate gap and someone jumps in, yes you slow down to allow the gap to grow. And if someone else jumps into the new gap, YOU DON'T NEED TO SLOW FURTHER. You're already going slightly slower to allow the gap to grow. So who cares how many impatient idiots jump into the growing gap?
Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
..., or a policy that was documented to prevent 1/3rd of fatal gun deaths each year. would you still dismiss them as "only" eliminating 1/3rd of deaths?
I take your point, but I can't resist pointing out that we already have demonstrated and documented policies that would do a whole lot better than reducing 1/3 gun fatalaties. In this country that would not be considered an achievement. Instead it would be and has been summarily and vehemently rejected multiple times. Guess what "this country" refers to.
Why? Sorry but I'm not going to go there now. There is no point it has been done too many times already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also you're ignoring the deaths caused by a totally inadequate machine that fucks up and gets people killed -- and it will happen, guaranteed, because the technology is inadequate, and always will be because it's a technological cul-de-sac.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that the "only" was related to the idea that developers have long touted by developers as a way to eliminate road deaths.
33% is a LOT of savings, but it's nowhere near eliminating anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh... about 30 deaths a day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's low. The precise value depends on to whom you're talking, but the official figures from various US federal agencies are generally around eight or nine million dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yeah. And then there is the future.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The AI technology has nowhere to improve?
Nope. Not in the half-assed form they have now. It can't 'think' or 'reason' because we don't even know how that works in a living biological brain, and that's the key element that everyone takes for granted -- because it's an innate ability we all use every waking moment, and we take it totally for granted, but no one has any clue how it works, therefore you can't build machines that can do it. 'Deep learning algorithms' and 'neural networks' are only a tiny, miniscule piece of the puzzle. All the 'training data' in the Universe isn't enough. The current crop of SDCs will never cross the finish line to 100% competent drivers compared to humans because it lacks any cognitive ability. Until it has that it'll never be 100% safe, and that deficit is what will make it deadly. You'd be a fool to trust your life to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know academics and journalists are both celebrated for their honesty and commitment to the truth. Right? Right??
So this is useless and clickbait? (Score:3)
A story that is immediately outed as functionally useless in it's own summary. Of course you have to account for all possibilities of accidents to eliminate all those accidents.
IIHS does some good work but I imagine self-driving cars will re-shape the way auto insurance works on a whole, probably something they are worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, "if we have cars that are automated but have no way to sense the level of traction and slow down, that will leave X many accidents on the table"
Or, "if we have self-driving cars, but initially only a few, so drunk drivers are still blowing through red lights at about the same rate, X many self-driving cars will still be hit by them."
Or
not massive? (Score:5, Informative)
"Our goal was to show that if you don't deal with those issues, self-driving cars won't deliver massive safety benefits"
So lower accident by 33% wouldn't be a massive benefit? Really? I can't think of any other change that ever delivered anything like those benefits. I guess they are trying to make sure they can keep overcharging people for insurance since not every crash will be eliminated. In other words, this is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
As according to the CDC, over 32,000 people die in car accidents a year, so this would "only" save over 8,000 lives a year and prevent "only" 500,000 car related injuries a year (in theory, yes yes statistics and all). A drop in the bucket..... /s
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns... [cdc.gov]
Re:not massive? (Score:4, Insightful)
In that link, an American describes his test in the USA
I had to take a very short multiple choice theory test. Having not studied and never driven, I passed easily. Then I took a practical test that consisted of a 15-minute amble through a flat rural area. I performed poorly, and at the end of my test the examiner turned to me and said, "You really don't know what you're doin', do ya?" And he passed me.
It would make less difference in the UK for example, as the driving standards are higher and also because UK roads will be a greater challenge for SD tech. The human driver accident rate in the UK is far lower than in the USA despite the roads being less wide, less straight, and having more pedestrians and cyclists.
I can't think of any other change that ever delivered anything like those [33%] benefits.
The introduction of the driving test in the UK had a massive benefit. Other things that come to mind are seat belts and safety glass, and crash helmets for motorcyclists..
Re: (Score:3)
They are talking about the USA where the driving standards are terrible : https://www.theguardian.com/co [theguardian.com]... :-
In that link, an American describes his test in the USA
In that link, an American compares taking a driving test in 90s in some tiny hick-town to taking a test in 2013 in a major metropolis.
He also says stupid shit like "I'm a doctoral student at Cambridge, and I'm quite sure I prepared much more for my driving tests than I will for my PhD viva next year", so it's hard to tell where in that article he's being serious and where he's being hyperbolic.
I'm from the UK, moved to the US and took a driving tests in a major metropolis. The US test was literally a drive around the block. "Yep, you're good" said the examiner, signing the bit of paper. Having taken both UK and US driving tests, I can assure you that the US test is objectively less rigorous.
The motorbike test (I've taken both of those too) in the US took place in a car park. No road testing.
Re: (Score:3)
I took the test in 2008 in a major US metropolis, and it was the same. A short multiple-choice test (on a touchscreen machine), then a drive around the block and back to the parking lot. This wasn't in the downtown core so there was no meaningful traffic to deal with because it wasn't rush hour.
When I got my driving license in Finland in the 90s, it involved months of theory and driving lessons that gave me a temporary license, then a second set of lessons and a final exam a year later to get a permanent on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah (Score:2)
Most crashes were due to more complex errors, such as making wrong assumptions about other road users' actions, driving too fast or too slow for road conditions, or making incorrect evasive maneuvers.
You can fix the road conditions problem by having telemetry between vehicles and ground stations broadcasting information. This also solves the 'other drivers intentions' problem and the evasive maneuvers. Vehicles agree on which way to swerve, much like TCAS [wikipedia.org]. But none of these systems can handle pedestrians or bicycles unless we figure out a way to hang transponders on every bum bike and hobo wandering in the street.
VANETs (Score:2)
You can fix the road conditions problem by having telemetry between vehicles and ground stations broadcasting information.
The generic term for this technology is Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs) [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because some hacker thought it would be funny
Thousands of virtual protesters suddenly block the freeway. It's not like people haven't though of doing something like this [wired.com] already.
Re: (Score:2)
"none of these systems can handle pedestrians or bicycles unless we figure out a way to hang transponders on every bum bike and hobo wandering in the street."
Of course they can. The vehicles which detect such obstacles can communicate their existence to others. Then those other vehicles can alter their behavior such that they behave more cautiously around them. Further, if they are detecting illegal and unsafe behavior, they can report it to the infrastructure, which can report it to law enforcement. A hobo
Re: (Score:2)
The vehicles which detect such obstacles can communicate their existence to others.
Not if traffic is light and the obstacle appears after the previous vehicle passes. Obstacles can materialize in a matter of seconds. Think of a bicycle shooting through a stop sign and across an intersection.
A hobo wandering on the street is jaywalking,
No longer enforced in Seattle. We've had some pretty serious protests over video surveillance and privacy. I suspect that if you automatically uploaded a clip (or any other data) of such a traffic infraction to law enforcement, you would be cited.
Re: Yeah (Score:3)
My Tesla already handles incorrect behavior by human drivers. I was once in an HOV lane going about 40 miles/hr faster than the regular traffic lane, driving an autopilot. A car pulled into the HOV lane right in front of me. The Tesla slammed on the brakes and drover right onto the shoulder to avoid the accident - I would have not been able to do this in time. ( No idea what would have happened if there was no shoulder. )
Bad editorializing in headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Remove ‘only’ from the headline, and the result would sound rather great! There were over 36000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2018. If we ‘only’ saved one third of those, it would be an awesome improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can now eliminate 100% of all traffic-related fatalities!
All we require of everyone is that you give up any and all control of the vehicle you're being transported in!
You're all okay with that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you assume no humans (Score:5, Informative)
Re: What if you assume no humans (Score:3, Informative)
Scheduling trains on a railway with fixed routes, no u turns, no sudden pulling out , no bicycles, no pedestrians or 101 things you get on the roads is hard enough. The idea that we're anywhere close to having software that could successfully control cars in crowded city like Delhi or Rome is just farcical.
And something self drive advocates always forget - what about motorbikes? They'd have to be banned from the roads to make the self driving "dream" (nightmare more like) become a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What if you assume no humans (Score:2)
Scheduling trains on a railway with fixed routes, no u turns, no sudden pulling out , no bicycles, no pedestrians or 101 things you get on the roads is hard enough.
It is? Since when? Are you stuck back in the 1600s or something?
And something self drive advocates always forget - what about motorbikes? They'd have to be banned from the roads to make the self driving "dream" (nightmare more like) become a reality.
It's entirely possible to create a self-driving motorcycle also, but, really, who gives a crap about motorcycles. Anywhere outside of Asia they make up a teeny tiny percentage of vehicles on the road, and are just a blip in the accident statistics. No clue how you came to the conclusion that they would have to be banned, but then again I don't understand why you made up 90% of the stuff in your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I really like the idea of cars being able to get the timing perfectly going through intersections to not need traffic lights. That is great science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
From an engineering point of view, you are correct. However, once you inject the stupidity of non-technical people into the mix, things go sideways pretty quick. Let's say that tomorrow everyone had a self-driving car and every other vehicle type on the road (truck, bus, etc.) was also self-driving. It wouldn't take very long for loss of revenue to various entities to add up and the complaining about loss of revenue to take hold. What would likely happen is that you'll have to pay a fee to travel at cer
Only? (Score:2)
A third is still a ton of accidents saved, injuries and deaths avoided.
synchronization (Score:2)
Even if every individual autonomous vehicle operates very well we will run into synchronization problems where masses of them do not operate well together. Cars today are more reliable than ever but they still fail. Autonomous vehicles, especially massed produced ones, will fail, parts will fail. Problems will happen, incompatibilities will happen, especially when there is a high density of autonomous vehicles.
I also don't think that autonomous vehicles are a panacea for traffic. You can only fit so man
Re: (Score:2)
You can all but eliminate the equipment failure problem the way they do in Germany, with intensive vehicle inspections. They check for things like rusting suspension arms, loose wheel bearings, contaminated brake fluid... Granted, this comes with additional cost, but you can expect it to be part of the future for more nations, if not all.
As for traffic, you're entirely correct. Self driving vehicles may actually increase traffic, both by giving more people access to automobile transportation, and by vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really account for the things you see at scale with mass production. Things like infant mortality, manufacturing issues that only show up with extended vibration, etc. Does an inspection account for the MTBF of internal components? How does your older model with the slow processor handle the amount of data the new models with faster processors are sending? There are lots of scenarios that we will only learn about by practice. There is no panacea here.
Re: (Score:2)
"That doesn't really account for the things you see at scale with mass production. Things like infant mortality, manufacturing issues that only show up with extended vibration, etc."
It doesn't account for every instance, but it does account for most of them. The limitation is the manufacturer's level of responsibility when it comes to carrying out recalls. Design detects are supposed to be addressed that way. And I'm sure they do check for whether your vehicle's recalls were addressed during inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can never solve this problem 100%, but solving it 99% is pretty damn good. Mix inspections with better instrumentation and part tracking, and the car will tell you most of the time when something is close to failure. And if a particular batch of parts fails more often than it should, then we can avoid even more failures.
Humans can do this; commercial airplanes almost never fail (despite being far more complex than cars) because we have very detailed (human) inspecting and tracking. We could ext
Re: synchronization (Score:2)
Unfortunately in my experience 90% of the time when your instrumentation is telling you that a monitored component is failing, it's actually the instrumentation that's failing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a big problem when it comes to avoiding deaths, though. If you pull over because the car says it's about to fail and it isn't, the only loss is some time. If a component fails at speed because there is no monitoring, the penalty is much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial planes are not a great comparison - they are relatively far apart in the sky and don't often hit each other. There are lots of mechanical failures every year, just that most of them don't bring the plane down and in those cases its usually pilot skill that saves the plane.
Poorly worded... on purpose. (Score:2)
What the report is actually saying is that self-driving cars would only be able to avoid 1/3 of accidents caused by unpredictable behaviors of other human-driven cars. Why make it misleading? Well, clickbait or maybe something deeper.
financed by U.S. insurers
Now, if they found that self-driving cars would prevent nearly all accidents, do you think insurance companies would be happy? I don't think, "you could eviscerate our industry" makes for a good public report. What if they just spin it?... Aaaannd here we are.
UL, the fire code, NFPA, IIHS (Score:2)
Some of the major safety organizations in the United States:
UL does electrical safety, and especially avoiding fires caused by electrical problems (Stores won't sell anything that isn't UL listed, UL rated, etc).
The National Fire Protection Association created the fire code, which greatly reduced death, injury, and damage from fire, and continues to do so.
IIHS is the preeminient organization for automobile safety, with ratings and standards that more accurately reflect real-world conditions than the NHTSA t
prevent one third of crashes, but 100% of blame (Score:4, Insightful)
However self-drive has many other advantages. One is indemnity. The person in the vehicle is not at fault if an accident happens. That lifts many restrictions on people in the car. Apart from the obvious ones regarding states of intoxication, it also means that individuals who would otherwise be unable to drive can become mobile.
That would include people with disabilities as well as minors, or even the elderly who simply don't feel confident to drive any longer.
In addition I can even see situations where you would send a car out to the store to pick up an order. Or for the store to send their vehicle to a customer's address when their stuff is ready.
Self drive, even at the levels touted will be a game-changer ... when it works!
Only??????!! (Score:2)
That headline should read:
Self driving Cars Would CURRENTLY Solve a THIRD of All Crashes!!!
A third less lives lost, a third less damage done, a whole third!
No mention of key accident causes (Score:2)
No mention of DUI: alcohol, drugs or a cell phone
No mention that not everyone has the requisite skills to operate a motor vehicle, night or day, in crowded traffic, in all weather conditions. Yet we hand a DL to anyone that can pass a basic driving test and never test them again.
The grim truth (Score:2)
About 1.35 million people die every year in car crashes. Only a few make headlines... When a human makes a mistake are we far more tolerant, so much we accept death as a consequence. Sure, we take comfort in punishing humans, but we also forgive them for being human, for having faults and for making mistakes.
But are we never going to accept self-driving cars on a large scale into our lives for something other than being a curiosity and unless it pays money directly into our pockets. That's why it takes one
Re: (Score:2)
"You'll hate they day you thought this was a good idea, and then you hate yourself, because you cannot accept their deaths and all you can do, that is left to do, is to tolerate it."
You can make the same argument for motorcars in general. But if the self driving cars mean one third less deaths, you can go ahead and hate yourself one third less.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make the same argument for motorcars in general. But if the self driving cars mean one third less deaths, you can go ahead and hate yourself one third less.
No. When you kill someone then it doesn't matter if you do it with a car or a gun or bare hands. It's you who is doing it and you will be held responsible.
With self-driving cars however are we trying to remove any responsibility from ourselves for killing others. We want to allow machines to kill humans. When this is what you really want then you might as well call the software of your self-driving cars "SkyNet 1.0".
Re: (Score:2)
"When you kill someone then it doesn't matter if you do it with a car or a gun or bare hands. It's you who is doing it and you will be held responsible.
With self-driving cars however are we trying to remove any responsibility from ourselves for killing others. We want to allow machines to kill humans."
Liability is very much at the root of problems for the self-driving vehicle industry, alongside the technical ones. Who is going to be responsible for deaths, and to what degree. I can tell you that I for one
Re: (Score:2)
But having said all of that, if the result is actually a large reduction in deaths, you are clearly ahead.
If only we could jump this easily to such a conclusion then why are we still using weapons? Why haven't we given up on them? Clearly, weapons kill a lot. The answer is, we don't really care that much about the deaths, we even enjoy watching it in movies, but we do care about why someone died. So when we allow a machine to kill and there is nobody to blame then we've lost some of our humanity.
Or as the say goes, "When nobody is to blame, everyone is to blame."
Wait. Who paid for this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone think itâ(TM)s odd that a study funded by insurance companies ...
Yes, I'm afraid so. They make money when there are no crashes and they pay when there are. They've become very good at knowing the factors involved and analyse accidents for the sake of their profits. If anyone is going to profit from accident-free cars then it's car makers and insurances.
hmmm... (Score:2)
ound the remaining crashes were caused by mistakes that self-driving systems are not equipped to handle any better than human drivers.
Except where humans can't learn from their mistakes, these systems do, and as technology progresses they will also be able to handle a lot of those situations. Yes, you will never be able to prevent all deaths (directly related to human drivers), but I'll bet it will be reduced by at least 90-95%..
But let's not forget who did the study, insurance companies, and it's not in their interest to tell us that using selfdriving cars is much safer, because then they would not be able to sell such high insurances,
Re: (Score:2)
Except where humans can't learn from their mistakes, these systems do, and as technology progresses they will also be able to handle a lot of those situations.
The problem is that you hold machines to a very high standard. You believe they could possibly be near perfect, perhaps even perfect? ...
It's this very belief of yours that when an accident does happen will you then judge the machine in the most harshest way.
You'll have to allow a machine to occasionally kill someone and look away when it does. Are you prepared to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that you want to be relieved from your responsibility and let a machine take it. In short, you're saying "It wasn't me, it was the car!"
Or are you going to take the responsibility for when your self-driving car kills somebody?
under assumption that AI doesn't eveolve (Score:2)
Oh only a 33% reduction in millions of crashes (Score:2)
And how many would they CAUSE? (Score:2)
Because we've seen proof that self-driving isn't anything even CLOSE to perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Human drivers collide with trucks and dividers every day.
It just doesn't make the news.
SDC accidents don't make the news because they are common, but because they are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And as Tesla has proved a few times... (Score:2)
The drivers were letting "autopilot" drive. They were essentially passengers at those moments. A driver driving the car himself would almost certainly have noticed. Yes it was the drivers fault for not paying attention but the point stands that the software wasn't up to the job it was designed for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)