News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-dri... by jzwinck on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:57AM (#13165728)
A company like Google has the scale and experience to create a regulatory landscape in which a car even 10% less safe will be forbidden on public roads. They might even look good doing it.

As geohot discovered, cars are sold to consumers only after they are sold to regulators. Tesla understands this, but if someone else builds a safer car, incumbents' experience may be rendered academic.

Re:Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-dri... by semi-extrinsic on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @05:06AM (#13165759)
The problem with this scenario is that modern cars are already safe enough that it will literally take decades to gather enough data to prove a statistically significant 10% safety increase from autonomous cars, even if you sell millions of them.

Keep in mind the NHTSA safety statistics you frequently see quoted are for the entire car population on the road, with a significant portion of 10-15 year old cars which are less safe than new cars. Even 25 year old cars without crumple zones and airbags is something you see on the road every single day.

Re:Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-dri... by petra on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @07:21AM (#13166245)
>> crumple zones and airbags ..

Those have to do with fatality rates, not accident rates(1 accident per 250,000 miles).

>> statistically significant 10% safety increase For a sample size of a million cars , each year is 15 Billion miles, i.e. 60,000 accidents per year, vs 54000 accidents per year is statistcally significant.

Re:Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-dri... by semi-extrinsic on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @12:09PM (#13168386)
Fatality rates are what's recently been discussed, e.g. related to the Tesla AutoPilot crash.

If you switch to measuring "accidents", two big concerns pop up: 1) who defines what an accident is? and 2) if we get autonomous cars that end up in less minor accidents but same or more number of fatalities, is it really worth it?

We could extend it to "fatalities and accidents where someone is left permanently disabled", which is pretty unambiguous and does measure the most important factors. But I'm afraid (or rather, glad) that this won't give you an orders-of-magnitude increase in statistical samples as you get when counting all accidents.

Re:Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-dri... by bearcobra on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @07:39AM (#13166327)
I'd imagine it would be incredibly difficult to get that kind of regulation without all the other existing manufacturers having the same incentives to support it.