mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,481
This is not a view supported by the evidence.The autonomous vehicles in use today are already much safer than human drivers, so technically we are past 100%.
This is not a view supported by the evidence.The autonomous vehicles in use today are already much safer than human drivers, so technically we are past 100%.
I had to look it up, but apparently, yeah.That long?
Are they better? How has that been determined?And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The autonomous vehicles in use today are already much safer than human drivers, so technically we are past 100%. The biggest hurdle now is public acceptance.
Recently a health insurance CEO was murdered, and many argued this was a good thing because by denying coverage the company was killing far more. I look forward to those people advocating the same for anyone spreading FUD about this lifesaving vehicle technology.
That's debatable. Evidence on this is extremely difficult to put together. There is evidence suggesting autonomous vehicles are safer and evidence that suggest they are not yet. Varying conditions and other variables make a definitive conclusion tough. But if it isn't yet, it is damn close.This is not a view supported by the evidence.
Which is why the evidence doesn't support this view. It does support cherry-picking, however.That's debatable. Evidence on this is extremely difficult to put together. There is evidence suggesting autonomous vehicles are safer and evidence that suggest they are not yet. Varying conditions and other variables make a definitive conclusion tough. But if it isn't yet, it is damn close.
I would not characterize the conclusions of either of those studies as supporting the view that autonomous vehicles are much safer than human drivers. They both reflect the conventional wisdom that the performance of autonomous vehicles depends on driving conditions. Autonomous vehicles are good at easy mode driving, bad at dealing with edge cases (which includes things like "rain").The studies suggest they are. But with caveats.
I agree it's impressive, but I'm specifically responding to the claim that they're already much safer than human drivers. That's the view that I don't think is supported by the evidence.I'm not saying they are there yet. But close. I have been in autonomous vehicles on the freeway and in city streets. This obviously wasn't in every possible condition. It's pretty damn impressive.
Which means that to gain widespread acceptance, they need to not only be better than human drivers in basically all conditions, but to not introduce errors that humans wouldn't make.The problem is not so much a problem of safety but the perception of safety.
Every time a self-driving car is in an accident, some people will say, "See. Told you so. They are unsafe".
If/when, things reach the point that there are demonstrably, statistically fewer accidents per whatever metric you measure, it will make no difference to such people.
I think they are pretty damn close. If Musk wasn't a turd, I would have bought a Tesla five years ago. And a huge selling point is the autonomous driving. That ability to let the vehicle to take the wheel on long drives is awesome.I agree it's impressive, but I'm specifically responding to the claim that they're already much safer than human drivers. That's the view that I don't think is supported by the evidence.
We aren't close to autonomous vehicles being much better.I think they are pretty damn close. If Musk wasn't a turd, I would have bought a Tesla five years ago. And a huge selling point is the autonomous driving. That ability to let the vehicle to take the wheel on long drives is awesome.
It's a rational answer. It's not an answer that will persuade people who don't have entirely rational reasons for opposing autonomous vehicles.Sometime about 1960 the Chairman of BOAC was asked whether he would fly on a completely automated passenger plane flight (from takeoff to landing) and he replied he would if such had been demonstrated safer than a piloted flight.
A good answer then and a good answer now.
(I remember reading this at the time in either Flight or Aeroplane but cannot provide a reference other than my memory)
It's not a question of if.The problem is not so much a problem of safety but the perception of safety.
Every time a self-driving car is in an accident, some people will say, "See. Told you so. They are unsafe".
If/when, things reach the point that there are demonstrably, statistically fewer accidents per whatever metric you measure, it will make no difference to such people.
And forever after you are known as the Goat ◊◊◊◊◊◊It's a rational answer. It's not an answer that will persuade people who don't have entirely rational reasons for opposing autonomous vehicles.
I mean, most of us here know the reasons why nuclear power is preferable to coal, but that has not led ineluctably to the success of nuclear power.
You ◊◊◊◊ one goat....
i agree, and i also think they need to be held to a higher degree of liability in an accident that causes some kind of injury or death. you can't ever get every single person to make good driving decisions, it's impossible. an ai program you can, so to a much greater degree accidents with self driving are much, much more preventable. barely better than the dumbest, most reckless people on earth isn't good enough imoWhich means that to gain widespread acceptance, they need to not only be better than human drivers in basically all conditions, but to not introduce errors that humans wouldn't make.
Which is why I think this task is more difficult than most people realize.
Yes it is a rational answer. But you had to throw nuclear power into the equation. Nuclear IS SAFER than coal. It was safer in 1970 before the government piled on a lot of needless regulations which made it so expensive that it effectively killed it.It's a rational answer. It's not an answer that will persuade people who don't have entirely rational reasons for opposing autonomous vehicles.
I mean, most of us here know the reasons why nuclear power is preferable to coal, but that has not led ineluctably to the success of nuclear power.
You ◊◊◊◊ one goat....
Well, that was the point. It's safer, but it seldom gained widespread adoption, and that wasn't just about price. A couple of high-profile disasters have proved to be unshakeable PR problems.Yes it is a rational answer. But you had to throw nuclear power into the equation. Nuclear IS SAFER than coal. It was safer in 1970 before the government piled on a lot of needless regulations which made it so expensive that it effectively killed it.
Not just hideous, but in my view it sucks as a work vehicle. I don't think many of the people buying those things are doing real work with them. Never seen a contractor who drives one, but then they have relatively little presence in New York in general.And now they are buying the cyber truck. (Which I think is hideous.)
If you are using caveats to get the evidence to support your view, you don't have evidence.![]()
Study Finds Self-Driving Cars Are Actually Safer Than Humans in Many (But Not All) Situations
Autonomous cars are understandably held to high safety standards—but it's sometimes forgotten the true baseline is the often dangerous driving of humans.singularityhub.com
![]()
A matched case-control analysis of autonomous vs human-driven vehicle accidents - Nature Communications
Through a matched case-control analysis this study reveals accident risk disparities between autonomous and human-driven vehicles. It suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have lower occurrence chance than human-driven ones in most scenarios.www.nature.com
The studies suggest they are. But with caveats.
Not true. What was true is the Sierra Club ran an effective negative campaign. Lots of Nuclear Power plants were built in the 1960s. They effectively frightened politicians to add all the regulations. Then the movie China Syndrome and Three Mile Island happened. And that was the ballgame.Well, that was the point. It's safer, but it seldom gained widespread adoption, and that wasn't just about price. A couple of high-profile disasters have proved to be unshakeable PR problems.
I agree.Not just hideous, but in my view it sucks as a work vehicle. I don't think many of the people buying those things are doing real work with them. Never seen a contractor who drives one, but then they have relatively little presence in New York in general.
Nonsense. Nuclear energy is safer than any form of energy. It pollutes less and mining and storage isn't a problem.Until Nuclear Power is set up from mining to decommissioning and long-term storage, it is incorrect to call it a mature technology.
Sounds right. That's when they stopped updating Waze for Windows Phone because Google had decided to kill their competitor by starving it of apps.I had to look it up, but apparently, yeah.
We store nuclear waste safely today and have for more than a half century. What we don't have is a national storage facility. And we don't have that because the public and politicians are morons. There is actually nothing wrong with Yucca Mountain.That is a stupid thing to say: if storage was no problem, why hasn't it happened Yet?
So obviously it's a Huge problem.
Additionally, uranium mines in the US are an ecological disaster the industry refuses to clean up - and because mostly tribal land is affected no one cares that it harms people.
You are the case in point.
I made a mistake earlier. Zag is right. Nuclear energy is not mature. Lots of improvements can be made. But perfection need not be the enemy of good. And nuclear power is good and preferable to fossil fuels if it can be done economically. And it was being done safely and economically in the 1960s. Before they killed it with burdensome regulations.May I point out why that nuclear power or whatnot is NOT a valid analogy? Quoth Carl Sagan, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." If all you've got is that people also laughed at X, you literally have no case.
Not just hideous, but in my view it sucks as a work vehicle. I don't think many of the people buying those things are doing real work with them. Never seen a contractor who drives one, but then they have relatively little presence in New York in general.
I think the sharp edges on them are inherently dangerous. But what really makes them terrible is they are neither a good car, or a good truck. They are the 2024 electric version of the 1970 Chevrolet El Camino or Ford Ranchero. Both lacked good passenger or good cargo space.they've had a number of pretty serious problems since their release. particularly, the gigacast frame cracking after shock loads. and now, it's their first winter. have to see how they hold up in the cold and snow
as I said: you are saying this out of ignorance because it doesn't impact YOU.We store nuclear waste safely today and have for more than a half century. What we don't have is a national storage facility. And we don't have that because the public and politicians are morons. There is actually nothing wrong with Yucca Mountain.
And Uranium mines are not an ecological disaster. They do create problems. However, it is almost a microscopic problem compared to coal mining.
Really?as I said: you are saying this out of ignorance because it doesn't impact YOU.
And none of the current storage is going to be safe for tens of thousands of years - local storage on site is limited, and moving it is getting more difficult each year as the original containers errored. Who is going to pay for full decommissioning?
It is utterly irresponsible to invest in a process that will create waste you don't have a place to put.
you would not accept this from a chemical plant - but because it's nuclear, you just look away instead of investigating the issue for fear that it will tarnish the image you have of the industry.
Of course, it doesn't really matter, as The Market has spoken: renewables will always be cheaper, more flexible, fast to produce and install and easy to update - it will take a lot of government money to make investors bind themselves to a project that will take at least a decade to build, probably 2 decades if you include planning, and another decade to start making a profit.