There was a nice video of a Tesla driving at low speed constantly pulling the car towards green islands between lanes as if it had a death wish.
Uber famously killed someone while testing and then blamed the humans.
It remains to be seen how Waymo will fare, although having the advertising company that's spying on everyone build self-driving cars seems like parody.
Using Tesla's very clearly level-2 system, or Uber's rubber-bands-and-coathangers science project, to criticize Waymo isn't particularly fair either.
If we set up the goalposts fairly, Waymo wouldn't be anywhere near receiving permissions for full autonomy until we had statistically significant evidence the latest build could reduce fatalities to human levels which are in the region of 1 per 100 million miles (a rate which includes all the people who aren't allowed on the road...). When they've only driven a few million miles, the fatal error rate - including potentially fatal collisions avoided by safety drivers - really should be zero.
We haven't got any evidence that fatal errors in AV technology approaches that level of rarity, will never have it for individual builds, and the best [limited] evidence we've got refuses to reject the null that despite being shielded from hard AI problems like left turns and supported by safety drivers and driven at low speeds, AVs are an order of magnitude more deathly than human-driven cars...
An AV company should only be able to update the car software after that software has correctly driven for X million miles.
Perhaps a separate agency should perform the actual updating (installing of the new software), so we can be certain that no "quick fixes" are happening behind the scenes.
When we use automatic vehicle, we assume it to be a reliable driver, not a random person who could be a bad driver.
So please stop comparing to average human drivers.
Also, software gives the possobility that the same shitty driver can drive millions of cars at the same time. One bad commit might cause a disaster. Millions of human drivers wont be possesed by the devil at the same time causing havoc. Imagine all Toyotas turning full left at the same time.
Meanwhile 1.25 million people die in human caused car accidents every year and somewhere around an additional 30 million are injured. But that’s “just the world we live in.” Or that’s “your choice to take a risk when you choose to drive a car.” Or whatever.
A lot of criticism of our industry is well-deserved if overly broadly applied. Most companies do not operate with the total lack of ethics that Uber and Facebook do. But they are so big and so well-known, they’ve come to symbolize a culture of amorality, deception, manipulation, and a willingness to do anything for growth and fresh injections of VC funding.
What would be really useful for everyone is to throw out that narrative for a while and focus on the task at hand. Self-driving cars will be regulated. There’s no getting around that. And tech companies could help themselves out a lot by accepting that and coming to the table with regulators with an actual plan instead of whining about having their innovation stifled.
There is a reasonable compromise. You can’t start by saying the error rate must be at zero. That will never get anywhere and people will keep dying a million a year. Where is the right number and what does it measure? I don’t know. It should probably be tiered by population density and average driving conditions and weighted by number of annual deaths in that city/region.
Highways are an easier problem to solve than, say, Manhattan. But highway deaths are more likely to be fatal. So the standards ought to apply differently.
The challenge here is really to get regulators to think a little bit like problem solvers rather than enforcers for a change. To get them to realize that “regulate self driving cars” is a problem so big and mushy that it’s pretty much meaningless. But “establish safety standard for interstate travel for autonomous trucks” is something you can work with. Maybe it’s 100x as a safe as a human driver in that scenario. I don’t really know.
Tech companies could probably turn on a lot of positive PR if they promoted milestones for certain communities. Maybe even offered incentives for cities to improve road markings. Like if Waymo said, “We want to target Brooklyn, and our goal is 10x as safe as human drivers in Brooklyn with an additional target of 1000x fewer cycling accidents. But we need you to mark the bike lanes better and put them between the parked cars and the curbs where it’s feasible, and here’s a pile of money you can use to do it.” That would generate a lot of good will, positive pr, and maybe even genuine enthusiasm that they can use to open up that market for their taxis ahead of schedule.
The car companies will get a lot better treatment from regulators if they chunk the problem into small pieces and go to the negotiating table without a victim chip on their shoulder.