Slashdot Mirror
Humans To Blame For Most Self-Driving Car Crashes In California, Study Finds (axios.com)
cartechboy writes: Turns out computers are better drivers than humans after all. Axios compiled a study that found the vast majority of crashes in California involving self-driving cars were not caused by the autonomous vehicles themselves. Of the 54 incidents involving 55 companies holding self-driving permits in California, only one crash could be blamed on a self-driving car in autonomous mode. Six crashes were when the self-driving cars were in conventional driving modes, while the majority of the accidents were to be blamed on other drivers or pedestrians. Maybe self-driving cars aren't such a bad thing after all, it's humans that are the problem.
A good driver is not just supposed to prevent at fault accident but should also do its best to prevent accident when the other party is at fault. If you replace all good drivers with self driving system, you are going to have lot more accidents than you have today if the self driving system is simply claims to have no at fault accident. Remember there is no reward for preventing accidents and so there is no tracking of it and we don't know how many of them are prevented daily.
Once I was on a divided road (divided by 2 feet concrete wall) driving on right lane. A car took left turn and entered in wrong way to the left of me thinking that it was a 1 lane undivided road and 2 feet divider was a barrier to some private property. It was not at all a danger to me and I would have just ignored it and let it have accident but I honked hard, stopped car, opened the window and alerted driver. He backed up and moved to the other side of divider. A self driving car would have just ignore this car. I can easily narrate dozen such incident and few more incidents where I was at fault.
We need self driving car which is not just not getting involved in at fault accident but also its at no fault accident rate is lower than average.
Statistics prove otherwise.
In 20 years it will be illegal for humans to drive cars in public spaces. You heard it here first.
Unless I misunderstand something, what those numbers tell me is that the sample size os too small to provide meaningful data.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
IMO, the only way self-driving cars will be safe is if all cars are self-driving. they need to be able to talk with each other in order to be safe. Humans are so illogical, no way to to have an algorithm to predict what they are going to do at any given moment.
Now that's an interesting theory.
So if I cross into the oncoming traffic lane and a Tesla in autopilot can't avoid hitting me. It's the software's fault? If I try to change two lanes to the right, cut off the car in the middle lane and the autonomous vehicle in the right lane hits me as I come out of nowhere, it's the software's fault?
Now I can understand skepticism at the claim that over 98% of autonomous vehicle accidents are the human's fault, but the claim that humans in principle automatically bear no responsibility for mishaps involving software seems even more extreme.
The thing about huimans is that they *are* amazingly good at things, except when they're not. Somebody can be a model drive nine days in a row and on the tenth day do something stupid, because that's how people are.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But the onerous conclusion that we have to modify our behavior for the needs of some god-forsaken coder's neural network is something to be actively rebelled against.
The alternative is to even more onerously modify our behavior for the needs of other human drivers. I'd rather share the road with the computers.
I like how Australia handles this. Learners' cars are marked, as are teenagers', so you can anticipate the type of likely stupidity. It's hilarious the wide berth learners get; almost as unpredictable as roos. Add Elderly marking to the mix, everyone wins.
I like how Australia handles this. Learners' cars are marked, as are teenagers', so you can anticipate the type of likely stupidity. It's hilarious the wide berth learners get; almost as unpredictable as roos. Add Elderly marking to the mix, everyone wins.
We have elderly marking here in the US. They are all required to drive a Buick with a handicap marker somewhere, usually on the plate itself.
... even if you technically are not to blame. Stopping suddenly for example and causing people to pile into you... technically is typically the fault of the person that rear ended you. But "you" did cause it. If you had not driven in a way that was surprising and unpredictable to other drivers then it wouldn't have happened.
Now the law will say that you should maintain enough distance that even if people do that there shouldn't be an accident.
But if the streets are crowded... high traffic... high congestion... that is often not viable.
Now what they'll then say is "go slower"... the problem is that if everyone does that the traffic becomes even worse.
What people learn in busy cities is that there is a "way" to operate on the road that has more to do with Chinese bicycles than it does with California road laws. The idea is that everyone follows a code of conduct on the road... "vibe"... a pattern... and if everyone does it... then we have TRUST... and that trust means that we can drive faster and with less space between cars than the law would like. But it is generally very safe so long as people are aware of and hold the pattern.
When a given individual on the road doesn't follow the pattern... this system becomes unsafe. I notice this all the time on the streets of the busy city in which I live.
You just get a sense that things are "off" on the road... people are not moving predictably. Maybe it is me... maybe it is them... doesn't matter. I get off the road immediately. I literally park and go for a walk or something. And often I find that there are shattered car parts all over the street when I get back. Why? Because the accident I could sense coming... because people weren't following the pattern caused an accident.
So... was the AI responsible for the accident? Yes. Legally? Perhaps not. But legality has very little to do with how actually driving on an actual street works. Driving computers have been dealing with this for awhile.
It is a very annoying situation when the police give people tickets for this... according to DMV rules... the way people drive on the streets is generally illegal. It is however how we've basically always driven and continue to drive. If you wanted to... you could probably haul half the drivers in for violating the law.
You'd have a riot on your hands and the politicians would probably be forced to actually have the law reflect how we actually drive. But they could do it... for a minute.
Long and short... Cali driving laws are more of a rough guideline and less of the letter of conduct.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.