News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars. Parent comment

Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Retric on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @11:41AM (#13366164)
That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers.

PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by maxerickson on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @01:04PM (#13367148)
I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox.

(According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher.

From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...

So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC.

(again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Retric on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @02:22PM (#13368023)
First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You.

Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing.

However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Nadya on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @11:44AM (#13366193)
"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident".

For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether.

Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf.

For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by aetherson on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @12:00PM (#13366363)
This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well.

So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by maxerickson on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @11:44AM (#13366186)
So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy.

Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Retric on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @11:48AM (#13366230)
I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired.

121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year

Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by maxerickson on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @12:20PM (#13366623)
So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate?

I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Retric on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @12:39PM (#13366855)
Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration.

Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions.

Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by grzm on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @11:50AM (#13366248)
That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault.

Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly?

Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars by Retric on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @12:01PM (#13366377)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...

Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."

[ Parent | on HN ]