this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
409 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
0
Injured person reportedly dies after Cruise cars block first responders (www.sfgate.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Gaywallet@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Statistically they're still less prone to accidents than human drivers.

I never quite undestood why so many people seem to be against autonomous vehicles. Especially on Lemmy. It's unreasonable to demand perfection before any of these is used on the public roads. In my view the bar to reach is human level driving and after that it seems quite obvious that from safety's point of view it's the better choice.

[–] evilviper@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is just such a bad take, and it's so disappointing to see it parroted all over the web. So many things are just completely inaccurate about these "statistics", and it's probably why it "seems" so many are against autonomous vehicles.

  1. These are self-reported statistics coming from the very company(s) that have extremely vested interests in making themselves look good.
  2. These statistics are for vehicles that are currently being used in an extremely small (and geo-fenced) location(s) picked for their ability to be the easiest to navigate while being able to say "hey we totally work in a big city with lots of people".
  • These cars don't even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.
  • These cars drive so defensively they literally shut down so as to avoid causing any accidents (hey, who cares if we block traffic and cause jams because we get to juice our numbers).
  1. They always use total human driven miles which are a complete oranges to apples comparison: Their miles aren't being driven
  • In bad weather
  • On dangerous, windy, old, unpaved, or otherwise poor road conditions
  • In rural areas where there are deer/etc that wander into the road and cause accidents
  1. They also don't adjust or take any median numbers as I'm not interested in them driving better than the "average" driver when that includes DUIs, crashes caused by neglect or improper maintenance, reckless drivers, elderly drivers, or the fast and furious types crashing their vehicle on some hill climb driving course.
  2. And that's all just off the top of my head.

So no, I would absolutely not say they are "less prone to accidents than human drivers". And that's just the statistics, to say nothing about the legality that will come up. Especially given just how adverse companies seem to be to admit fault for anything.

[–] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

These cars don't even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.

Accidents are less likely on highways. Most accidents occur in urban settings. Most deadly accidents occur outside of cities, off-highway.