Pedestrians and motorcyclists are supposed to play chicken, one supposes. The self-driving problem requires general intelligence and a theory of mind, both unsolved problems.
I'm a pedestrian in SF, and I definitely trust the automated cars less. I pretty rapidly slot a given driver into one mental model or another. But I have no idea what the automated cars are up to, and so have to give them a very wide berth.
They said cyclists for a reason though. As a pedestrian, if you're confident the human sees you, it's very easy to make sure that you get through the interaction safely. That's not true at all for cyclists, where humans will see you and still drive dangerously around you.
Sorry, I'm not following. I don't bike as much lately, but I was an ardent cyclist here for more than a decade. If I won't trust a vehicle as a pedestrian, where speeds are lower and I'm more maneuverable, I'm going to trust it even less as a cyclist in traffic. So if bryanlarsen thought the cyclist comparison to be unfavorable to Waymo, then I'm agreeing. But I think he thought it would be favorable, and I'd disagree on both counts.
What's your evidence for that? As I said, I've seen them do things that make me give them a wide berth. And as I explained, that berth would only get wider on a bike, when I'm more vulnerable.
Pedestrians and motorcyclists are supposed to play chicken, one supposes. The self-driving problem requires general intelligence and a theory of mind, both unsolved problems.
Self driving only has to be better than people drivers, statistically, to be a benefit to society. This probably isn't a very high bar.
No, comparing against a general population average is way too low, because automated cars won't randomly replace drivers. They need to be at least as good as the sort of good driver that self-driving cars would replace. Taxi drivers, for example, are much better drivers than average people.
Further, I think a variety of factors, including politics and liability structures, mean self-driving cars will have to be radically better than the average human driver. For example, each car-caused death is seen as the responsibility of some human. But every Waymo death will be seen as the responsibility of Waymo. Responsibility for the current 100 deaths per day is diffuse, and so accepted. But if it's 40 deaths per day for Waymo and 60 for Musk, nobody's going to shrug at that.
Are you saying if auto driving kills 5% fewer people we shouldn't use it because it's not good enough? If so, that sounds like a case of great is the enemy of good.
That's the other issue: the already low baseline. Pedestrian fatalities in the US are unacceptably high already, and let's not talk about the standards of driving instruction and road safety enforcement.
Comments
Pedestrians and motorcyclists are supposed to play chicken, one supposes. The self-driving problem requires general intelligence and a theory of mind, both unsolved problems.
Ask a cyclist in SF whether they trust Waymo or the average driver more.
I'm a pedestrian in SF, and I definitely trust the automated cars less. I pretty rapidly slot a given driver into one mental model or another. But I have no idea what the automated cars are up to, and so have to give them a very wide berth.
They said cyclists for a reason though. As a pedestrian, if you're confident the human sees you, it's very easy to make sure that you get through the interaction safely. That's not true at all for cyclists, where humans will see you and still drive dangerously around you.
Sorry, I'm not following. I don't bike as much lately, but I was an ardent cyclist here for more than a decade. If I won't trust a vehicle as a pedestrian, where speeds are lower and I'm more maneuverable, I'm going to trust it even less as a cyclist in traffic. So if bryanlarsen thought the cyclist comparison to be unfavorable to Waymo, then I'm agreeing. But I think he thought it would be favorable, and I'd disagree on both counts.
Drivers in SF routinely do things that make cyclists feel unsafe. Waymo's don't.
What's your evidence for that? As I said, I've seen them do things that make me give them a wide berth. And as I explained, that berth would only get wider on a bike, when I'm more vulnerable.
Self driving only has to be better than people drivers, statistically, to be a benefit to society. This probably isn't a very high bar.
No, comparing against a general population average is way too low, because automated cars won't randomly replace drivers. They need to be at least as good as the sort of good driver that self-driving cars would replace. Taxi drivers, for example, are much better drivers than average people.
Further, I think a variety of factors, including politics and liability structures, mean self-driving cars will have to be radically better than the average human driver. For example, each car-caused death is seen as the responsibility of some human. But every Waymo death will be seen as the responsibility of Waymo. Responsibility for the current 100 deaths per day is diffuse, and so accepted. But if it's 40 deaths per day for Waymo and 60 for Musk, nobody's going to shrug at that.
Are you saying if auto driving kills 5% fewer people we shouldn't use it because it's not good enough? If so, that sounds like a case of great is the enemy of good.
No, I am not saying that.
That's the other issue: the already low baseline. Pedestrian fatalities in the US are unacceptably high already, and let's not talk about the standards of driving instruction and road safety enforcement.