OT: Driverless cars, yeah, nothing can go wrong.
- Thread starter DJ Spanky
- Start date
Why is it a feature?
During our family trip to Phoenix (for our bowl game + a few extra days) we used Waymo's exclusively to get around without any issues. Cars were new, clean, less expensive and probably safer than your average Uber driver (of course, I would need to see the current data to make a definitive statement on safety).
I've posted about this a bunch in the EV's thread.
Lest people think I'm some kind of anti-technology Luddite, I am perfectly content to board planes that will fly and land automatically (where conditions permit). And I am well-versed in the various technologies involved with automated driving.
But you couldn't pay me enough money to allow a car to drive itself on public roads while I'm in it. Not until we have full vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications implemented and debugged.
The argument that people have a worse record than the driverless tech? Wrong. Driverless tech is limited to operating only under highly constrained conditions whereas people who drive everywhere in all conditions. Rendering any miles per accident comparisons between the two completely meaningless. And I'm not exactly thrilled to allow most other people to drive me around, anyway.
Once V2X is done, then I'll consider it.
Lest people think I'm some kind of anti-technology Luddite, I am perfectly content to board planes that will fly and land automatically (where conditions permit). And I am well-versed in the various technologies involved with automated driving.
But you couldn't pay me enough money to allow a car to drive itself on public roads while I'm in it. Not until we have full vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications implemented and debugged.
The argument that people have a worse record than the driverless tech? Wrong. Driverless tech is limited to operating only under highly constrained conditions whereas people who drive everywhere in all conditions. Rendering any miles per accident comparisons between the two completely meaningless. And I'm not exactly thrilled to allow most other people to drive me around, anyway.
Once V2X is done, then I'll consider it.
There is no valid data to compare people vs software. Only way to get that would be to allow driverless tech everywhere and in all conditions.
Have you been in an accident with an Uber driver or taxi or bus? Most people have not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Same with driverless tech. Mostly it'll work just fine when used within it's limitations. Until it doesn't.
Here's a stat for you and your argument Mild.
If you added up all the miles driven by 'autonomous' vehicles (taking the broadest definition of that so including "guy in basement operating car remotely" too)...
Over the last decade....
That amount would be less than 1% of....
The amount of miles driven by humans....
in the US....
Daily(!)
Any safety comparison between the two is apples and oranges.
Last edited:
All I said was "why is it a feature" and "I'd have to see the data". People appear to be poo poo the tech regardless of actual experience. With regard to safety data, there are reports - put out my insurance carriers - that appear to indicate that the rate and severity of accidents are lower with Waymo than with Uber. I would hope that all of those actuaries remembered to make the appropriate adjustments in their data sets when making the comparison.
Anyway, the tech is here to say and just like all new tech it won't be perfect and neither are humans.
Anyway, the tech is here to say and just like all new tech it won't be perfect and neither are humans.
Sure. It starts with glitches. And then the cars decide to anniliate mankind. Seen plenty of movies about this.
Cars actually try to help save mankind against the planes. We are talking about transformers?
