• evilviper@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is just such a bad take, and it’s so disappointing to see it parroted all over the web. So many things are just completely inaccurate about these “statistics”, and it’s probably why it “seems” so many are against autonomous vehicles.

    1. These are self-reported statistics coming from the very company(s) that have extremely vested interests in making themselves look good.
    2. These statistics are for vehicles that are currently being used in an extremely small (and geo-fenced) location(s) picked for their ability to be the easiest to navigate while being able to say “hey we totally work in a big city with lots of people”.
    • These cars don’t even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.
    • These cars drive so defensively they literally shut down so as to avoid causing any accidents (hey, who cares if we block traffic and cause jams because we get to juice our numbers).
    1. They always use total human driven miles which are a complete oranges to apples comparison: Their miles aren’t being driven
    • In bad weather
    • On dangerous, windy, old, unpaved, or otherwise poor road conditions
    • In rural areas where there are deer/etc that wander into the road and cause accidents
    1. They also don’t adjust or take any median numbers as I’m not interested in them driving better than the “average” driver when that includes DUIs, crashes caused by neglect or improper maintenance, reckless drivers, elderly drivers, or the fast and furious types crashing their vehicle on some hill climb driving course.
    2. And that’s all just off the top of my head.

    So no, I would absolutely not say they are “less prone to accidents than human drivers”. And that’s just the statistics, to say nothing about the legality that will come up. Especially given just how adverse companies seem to be to admit fault for anything.

    • Kleinbonum@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      These cars don’t even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.

      Accidents are less likely on highways. Most accidents occur in urban settings. Most deadly accidents occur outside of cities, off-highway.

      • evilviper@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure mile for mile they are less likely. But when they happen they are generally more serious as higher speeds are involved, and if Tesla has shown anything it’s a much more complicated process for autonomous vehicles to navigate and deal with edge cases (like vehicles on the side of the road, emergency or otherwise). Much harder (and dangerous) to just slam on the brakes and put on your hazards on a highway than a side street if the car gets confused.

      • uzay@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I could see accidents being more likely for autonomous cars on highways though

          • uzay@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            For humans, but not necessarily for camera-based autonomous cars? They also can’t just stop on a highway to prevent accidents.

            • Kornblumenratte@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, I do use a car that is able to drive (almost) autonomous on a highway, so I know that the tech to drive on highways exist since several years.

              All the difficult stuff – slow traffic, parking cars, crossings, pedestrians… – does not exist on highways.

              The only problem that still remains is the problem you mention: what to do in case of trouble?

              Of course you have to stop on a highway to prevent an accident or in case of an emergency. That’s exactly what humans do. But then humans get out of the car, set up warning signs, get help &c. Cars cannot do this. The result is reported in this article.

    • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Avoiding dangerous scenarios is the definition of driving safely.

      This technology is still an area under active development and nobody (not even Elon!) is claiming this stuff is ready to replace a human in every possible scenario. Are you actually suggesting they should be testing the cars in scenarios that they know wouldn’t be safe with the current technology? Why the fuck would they do that?

      So no, I would absolutely not say they are “less prone to accidents than human drivers”.

      OK… if you won’t accept the company’s reported data - who’s data will you accept? Do you have a more reliable source that contradicts what the companies themselves have published?

      to say nothing about the legality that will come up

      No that’s a non issue. When a human driver runs over a pedestrian/etc and causes a serious injury, if it’s a civilised country and a sensible driver, then an insurance company will pay the bill. This happens about a million times a week worldwide and insurance is a well established system that people are, for the most part, happy with.

      Autonomous vehicles are also covered by insurance. In fact it’s another area where they’re better than humans - because humans frequently fail to pay their insurance bill or even deliberately drive after they have been ordered by a judge not to drive (which obviously voids their insurance policy).

      There have been debates over who will pay the insurance premium, but that seems pretty silly to me. Obviously the human who ordered the car to drive them somewhere will have to pay for all costs involved in the drive. And part of that will be insurance.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well hey - atleast I provided some statistics to back me up. That’s not the case with the people refuting those stats.

      • evilviper@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I honestly can’t tell if that’s a passive-aggressive swipe at me or not; but just in case it was: stats mean very little w/o context. I believe the quote was “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. I simply pointed out a few errors with the foundation of these “statistics”. I didn’t need to quote my own statistics because, as I was pointing out, this is a completely apples to oranges comparison. The AV companies want at the same time to preach about how many miles they go w/o accident while comparing themselves to an average they know doesn’t match their own circumstances. Basically they are taking their best case scenario and comparing it against average/worst case scenario stats.

        I’d give more weight to the stats if they where completely transparent, worked with a neutral 3rd party, and gave them access to all their video/data/etc to generate (at the very least) proper stats relative to their environment. Sure, I’ll way easier believe waymo/cruises’ numbers over those by tesla; but I still take it with a grain of salt. Because again, they have a HUGE incentive to tweak their numbers to put themselves in the very best light.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I see your point, and I agree. These companies are almost guaranteed to cherry-pick those stats, so only a fool would take that as hard evidence. However, I don’t think these stats flat-out lie either. If they show a self-driving car is three times less prone to accidents, I doubt the truth is that humans, in fact, are twice as good. I believe it’s safe to assume that these stats at least point us in the right direction, and that seems to correlate with the little personal experience I have as well. If these systems really sucked as much as the most hardcore AV-skeptics make it seem, I doubt we’d be seeing any of these in use on public roads because the issues would be apparent.

          However, the point I’m trying to highlight here is that I make a claim about AV-safety, and I then provide some stats to back me up. People then come telling me that’s nonsense and list a bunch of personal reasons why they feel so but provide nothing concrete evidence except maybe links to articles about individual accidents. That’s just not the kind of data that’s going to change my mind.