It's wild to me that people argue automated driving is great based on individual personal experience.
If I were to argue about manual driving from my personal driving, I'd be way off. I haven't had an accident in decades. Not even any close calls. If I extrapolating my accident rate out to the world, I would assume that human-driven cars are a perfectly safe technology.
In the real world, all accidents are a long-tail phenomenon. They happen pretty rarely, often under conditions that are unusual or unexpected. So somebody saying "in these last few months I hardly ever have to intervene anymore to not die", a standard that would cause a driving instructor to fail a teen driver, not only doesn't give me confidence that this technology is a-ok for road use, but suggests to me they haven't really thought about what is required for safety at global scale.
It's perfectly reasonable for me to make a determination and offer my first hand experience about Autopilot's capabilities relative to that of my own and that of other drivers I see on the road.
Accidents might be long-tail phenomenon but driving habits are observable. Autopilot has a consistent, safe, alert demeanor on the road. It reacts to vehicles I as a driver can't as quickly see, changing situations that it would take me an extra half second or more to react to.
Compare that to the average human driver on the road - a third or more of whom you can expect to see holding a phone - and I think it's a reasonable conclusion to say it's already at least marginally better. And if we are talking about accidents, you can't deny that people are generally terrible at choosing the best possible reaction to an emergency situation that happens in the space of a few seconds.
It's reasonable for you to offer your firsthand experience. It's unreasonable for you to think that you can offer a determination broader than that experience.
Comments
It's wild to me that people argue automated driving is great based on individual personal experience.
If I were to argue about manual driving from my personal driving, I'd be way off. I haven't had an accident in decades. Not even any close calls. If I extrapolating my accident rate out to the world, I would assume that human-driven cars are a perfectly safe technology.
In the real world, all accidents are a long-tail phenomenon. They happen pretty rarely, often under conditions that are unusual or unexpected. So somebody saying "in these last few months I hardly ever have to intervene anymore to not die", a standard that would cause a driving instructor to fail a teen driver, not only doesn't give me confidence that this technology is a-ok for road use, but suggests to me they haven't really thought about what is required for safety at global scale.
It's perfectly reasonable for me to make a determination and offer my first hand experience about Autopilot's capabilities relative to that of my own and that of other drivers I see on the road.
Accidents might be long-tail phenomenon but driving habits are observable. Autopilot has a consistent, safe, alert demeanor on the road. It reacts to vehicles I as a driver can't as quickly see, changing situations that it would take me an extra half second or more to react to.
Compare that to the average human driver on the road - a third or more of whom you can expect to see holding a phone - and I think it's a reasonable conclusion to say it's already at least marginally better. And if we are talking about accidents, you can't deny that people are generally terrible at choosing the best possible reaction to an emergency situation that happens in the space of a few seconds.
It's reasonable for you to offer your firsthand experience. It's unreasonable for you to think that you can offer a determination broader than that experience.
For example, I might note that a couple weeks ago a Tesla almost crashed into a train: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/ap-fsd-related-crash...
The dashcam vids are sobering: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vxlz4vk3rck114145nbp8/AAukGDt...