Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown.
If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.
The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
>But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back.
While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
Saying "our AI avoided four potentially-fatal accidents" is also a vacuous statement, since a) you don't know whether an accident would be fatal or not, since accidents are ridiculously chaotic systems and b) there is no way to say that a human driver would not also have avoided all those accidents.
In fact, most accidents are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or falling asleep, or being on their phones. Using AI to detect and deny these people from driving would be orders of magnitude easier than autonomous cars, and provide 95% of the potential safety increase with none of the drawbacks. Why don't we do that? Consumer backlash is the answer. Even alcohol-preventing locks, mature tech today, is not being made mandatory because consumers would be mad.
I agree that brand reputation matters a lot. But people think we are going to see huge paradigm shifts in autonomous driving over the next ten years, and then your track record is for something completely different. Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Adding to this is the fact that one freak accident will completely shatter a company's records. Imagine if a Tesla with next-gen Autopilot filled with seven passengers is driving through the Alps in October at 2°C: while the car is inside a tunnel, subcooled rain starts falling, covering the road in an invisible layer of super slippery ice. (This actually happens). The car goes off a cliff and kills all seven. Yes it's far-fetched, sure. But it will still be seven fatalities caused while the AI was driving, and that suddenly puts the AI car on par with a 2002 Honda Civic.
Which can't ever happen with AI driving. That's a huge sales pitch to consumers in itself without even having to wait for the data.
>Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Wrong!
>A: What is carried over from the previous Tacoma in this new truck?
>S: Not much. Maybe a seatbelt bracket! The base frame has been modified. The base frame rail design is similar but it’s not carryover. The body shell and body structure are new. For the structure, we use hot-stamped steel.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/q-a-with-2016-toyota-tacom...
If that's a slight update new models of autonomous cars can also be slight updates.
Average consumers aren't sitting around arguing statistics either. They will be marketed as safer. It's plain to see how autonomous cars will be safer in many respects already (Drunk driving or distracted driving for example). The convenience factor is by far the biggest selling point though. Sleep/work/read on your commute! Rent your car out as an autonomous taxi to earn more cash!
Because that's what you're talking about, steering wheel-less autonomous cars. It surely isn't plain to see that they will be safer. We've already seen the first fatality on Autopilot. And I, for one, don't think these will be in the hands of consumers for at least another decade or two. Simply because of costs and liability.
>Tesla says Autopilot has been used for more than 130 million miles, noting that, on average, a fatality occurs every 94 million miles in the US and every 60 million miles worldwide. The NHTSA investigation, Tesla says, is a "preliminary evaluation" to determine if the Autopilot system was working properly, which can be a precursor to a safety action like a recall.
so according to this, autopilot is already safer than the "average" driver.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-c...
Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea.
The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage.
Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
Or you could do near-infrared spectroscopy built into the gear lever (this is already being pushed by the NHTSA, and will probably be in cars in a few years).
Or it could even have a selective alcohol-lock using current-gen tech that only triggers a check if alcohol is detected in the air circulating in the car.
Mandatory adherence to the OEM's maintenance schedule (and every appointment dealer-only!) is every car maker's dream.
Low tire pressure? Breaks not operating outside of acceptable parameters? Tires behaving strangely? It's manual or nothing at that point.
The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics).
Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.