30,000 deaths per year suggest that humans fail at these edge cases all the time. Maybe ate their best a human outperforms a machine but as any person who drives if other drivers are at their best.
I mean yeah, compared to medieval statistics, it's great, but in comparison to the other non-medical ways to die you face as a 21st century American? automotive fatalities are quite high, and the problem deserves a lot of focus.
You could also make it harder to be qualified to drive.
I view autonomous cars as the 'lazy technocratic' solution to a problem caused by total government mismanagement.
(I mean, I agree that reducing miles driven is also a good goal. I'm just saying, making safer cars is a lot easier than talking people into allowing higher density construction and cities built around transit and walking rather than around cars)
A minimum 14 years of "human learning".
Anyone who's seen a Waymo car drive around the valley knows they're much safer than human drivers. They're annoyingly good, because for instance they just never miss a bike and are careful around them, and if you can't tell why it's a bit annoying.
But I've always come away from such incidents with a feeling of "I should have seen that". I've yet to see them screw up even once.
And yet you can't drive from SF to San Jose without seeing a human driver screw up.
I don't think anyone is debating that in perfect conditions the computer cars can sometimes out perform the worst drivers.
If your concern is terrible drivers killing themselves and others, what you should be arguing for is much stricter standards for obtaining a driver's license. Probably removing 'full coverage' insurance and only allowing liability would go a long way as well. Can't keep wrecking your vehicle if nobody's buying you a new one.
Or for keeping a drivers license.
>Probably removing 'full coverage' insurance and only allowing liability would go a long way as well. Can't keep wrecking your vehicle if nobody's buying you a new one.
I disagree... a used car is pretty cheap. Cheaper than full coverage, if you have a bad record.
I think this should be attacked by increasing the minimum liability coverage. right now, in California, you can drive with homeopathic levels of liability insurance... $35K isn't going to cover very much hospital time/time off work if you hit someone who has a good job. The minimum liability coverage should be 2-3 orders of magnitude higher.
Of course, for either of these things to be politically possible, we first need a society where it's reasonable to get from A to B without a car. An idea that is fought against daily even in relatively dense places like where I am now.
Self-driving cars might be able to beat that, but most of the self-driving car models aren't even close to 100 million miles driven.
(from page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U... )
Furthermore self-driving cars are at this point ONLY driving through areas with a lot of pedestrians. You'd expect them, therefore, to have much higher accident fatalities than normal vehicles. Why ? They're always around pedestrians. Instead, in the first years of operation, they're safer than humans.
Even with Uber's less than stellar safety practices, and Tesla's ... well ... how do I put this politely ? [1] seems a good link. Let's just say Tesla owners could be more careful, especially since they signed a contract stating that they would be more careful (and youtube has much worse than that video). Given that that's how people use self-driving cars I would argue that's pretty damning for human driving skills.
I think it comes down to being able to model the world around us, having a model for human behavior, animal behavior, etc. If we see a baby deer, we look for the mother deer.
It feels like we're also really good at creating multiple open-ended stimulations in the back of our mind about how things might play out, where they can easily be paused or fleshed out depending on which became more probable or if we want to learn something. It's kind of a running background process.