A link to the study:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.01206
A red flag for me is that this is based on third party insurance liability claims. Waymo likely has paid out smaller claims themselves, reducing their own numbers.
Agreed, “less claims” doesn’t necessarily mean more secure.
Not that I have any doubts that self-driving cars will be much, much safer than human drivers, I’m just curious if we’re there yet.
The real questionis will this remain when they opperate everywhere. Snow and ice up north. Ronds not yet mapped. Many other things I’m not aware of. I suspect the writting is on the wall for human drivers - they don’t need to be prefect to be much better than humans and from there redulators will not allow human drivers.
Yeah, they’ll definitely be better.
Snow and ice are hard for humans as well, but it’s impossible to “upgrade” human vision or response time, while it’s always possible to add more sensors to a car, or refine their programming…
Hopefully one day this will be a toggle - drank one too many or commuting in traffic? Toggle it on and catch a nap or a TV show.
Sunday afternoon and the weather is awesome? Roll the windows down, blast some music and drive it yourself
The drive yourself mode should be like abs - the computer is still in control but if you drive like you should you will never notice you are not in control.
Any city that wants to totally eliminate injury and property damage can do so right now just by implementing Vision Zero policies. But that also means reducing car usage – which is not the insurance company dream.
IDC. I’m not getting into a car that doesn’t have a human driver.
I highly doubt that
Edit: I was tired and I misworded what I meant.
MAYBE less wrecks are reported but we’ve seen reports out of major metropolitan areas about how these things are absolute menaces, honking at all hours of the night to try to park themselves, causing wrecks, just stopping in the middle of the road etc.
Less property damage isn’t the whole story here, these things suck.
Oh I can. They operate on well mapped areas, have a cautious driving style, and are consistent. The exact opposite of the average driver.
Swiss Re is one of the world’s largest insurance companies - do you think they usually lie about such things?
It’s important to understand logic, biases and how to evaluate information sources to avoid conspiracy theory thinking.
It’s important to understand logic, biases and how to evaluate information sources to avoid conspiracy theory thinking.
This. It’s important to remember that this community is hosted on Futurology. The goal of this instance is to explore future technologies and ideas and we can’t do that objectively if we’re led by our biases. As humans, we have always hated being surpassed. When someone invented the pulley, there were masses of people that claimed to be better, but reality is cruel. If an insurance company is vouching for technology that without a doubt is causing them to pay out regularly, then they’re being objective. Driverless tech is inevitable, but it won’t be as common place as to make you feel comfortable about job losses, etc, for a while.
For those of you new to Autonomous Vehicles or Futurology, welcome. There’s genuinely some fantastic people here and incredibly high quality posts. I’m biased, but I feel this instance is incredibly underrated.
And what do you base that on?
AI bad
https://lemmy.world/comment/14080710 this comment expresses well why I am skeptical. Additionally as I said in my edit, property damage isn’t the full story with these. They stop in the middle of roads causing traffic jams, and they have kept up people parking in a parking lot honking at all hours of the night. They’re disruptive.
they have kept up people parking in a parking lot honking at all hours of the night. They’re disruptive
Most disruptive technologies have some early teething problems. This seems like a minor issue compared to the increased safety.
Blah blah blah, this doesn’t fit my narrative.
It’s amazing to watch y’all do the same exact shit as trumpers.
