They always say self-driving cars are safer, but the way they prove it feels kind of dishonest. They compare crash data from all human drivers, including people who are distracted, drunk, tired, or just reckless, to self-driving cars that have top-tier sensors and operate only in very controlled areas, like parts of Phoenix or San Francisco. These cars do not drive in snow, heavy rain, or complex rural roads. They are pampered.
If you actually compared them to experienced, focused human drivers, the kind who follow traffic rules and pay attention, the safety gap would not look nearly as big. In fact, it might even be the other way around.
And nobody talks about the dumb mistakes these systems make. Like stopping dead in traffic because of a plastic bag, or swerving for no reason, or not understanding basic hand signals from a cop. An alert human would never do those things. These are not rare edge cases. They happen often enough to be concerning.
Calling this tech safer right now feels premature. It is like saying a robot that walks perfectly on flat ground is better at hiking than a trained mountaineer, just because it has not fallen yet.
You must log in or register to comment.
that is why I’m waiting on independent analysis. The data exists. I’ve never seen someone who isn’t biased look at the data.
I’d still prefer self driving to human drivers. I trust a lidar array and instant reaction speed to a humans prection and variable levels of concentration.
The real test wouldn’t be by making it only compete against responsible drivers, it would be by making the self driving cars compete in all the same conditions humans drive in. Humans are dangerous and unreasonable, that is the problem that self driving cars are trying to solve. However that solution is useless if it cant perform in rain, snow, and undeveloped roads. Which the reality is they cant ans end up being more unsafe than human drivers
I don’t think that’s the real test of self-driving cars. The real test is legal liability. I will trust a self-driving car when the company is willing to accept all legal liability for the operation of the vehicle. Or, perhaps another way, if the software is good enough that the car doesn’t even come with a steering wheel, then that is the moment to trust it. If their software really is many times safer than human drivers, then they could advertise to buyers, “we accept all legal liability for any accidents.” If the cars really are that safe, they should be able to increase the purchase prices by a few hundred dollars and give you a car that you never need to purchase insurance for. You’re not the driver; the liability falls on the manufacturer, not you. You’re just a passenger.
No company would accept such a liability until the software really is far safer than a human. Until they’re willing to take on full liability, I refuse to believe that these vehicles are safer than human drivers. If their software really is that good, they can put their money where their mouth is and prove it.
I agree with this as well
If only we could somehow put cars on rails with predetermined routes, speed, and stops. Then they’d be even safer!
To bad that’s impossible and has never been done.
Yeah, lets take cars…
and make them worse!
Ask me how I know you’re from the US.
Ask me how I know that you’re prejudiced.
I’m talking about a train you fucking burger.
Did you think I didn’t know that or something? Trains are worse than cars. How do you not see so clearly the argument I’m making here?
Holy crap the world is in trouble with people like you around.
“hurr durrr I hate teh US” is not a valid argument against cars; it’s a trite attempt at derailing the subject and attacking the person making the argument instead.
*bla bla bla burger noises*
what argument? you just said a thing and didn’t elaborate on why you think that way
You could even link multiple cars together if a lot of people are going to the same place…
Nah. That’ll never work.
This whole comparing AI to only the best and brightest humans at their absolute pinnacle is so tiring.
Humans are stupid, they’re aggressive, they’re ignorant, they’re inattentive - so comparing only to the educated, civilized bits is just selective bias. Humans are wrong. Humans are bad drivers constantly. They think Vaccines cause 5G and that being gay is transmissible.
Fuck Humans.
Why not see both as the stupid thing that they are?
Because there are different “types” of AI, and some of them are genuinely impressive. I don’t see AI as inherently stupid; I see that the way it’s being implemented and abused as stupid.
Kinda the same way I see humans. MOST of them are pieces of trash, but there are some diamonds in the rough among them that are absolute treasures to be around.
I would agree with that, except I don’t want my electricity bill to go 50%+ for the same service and no choice of my own. That is the definition of stupid.
The problem is
- you’re trying to compare ai to a wide range of driving abilities
- everyone thinks they’re an above average driver
- ai has different strengths and weaknesses eases from humans. It’s differently safe
Humans are not only bad drivers But they will have a difficult time accepting that ai is better, until it’s overwhelmingly better. Even then people will blame ai for inevitable accidents and claim “I could have done better”
Fuck humans? Fuck human nature
Fine. I propose a new law. Self-driving cars will only be allowed on the road if their manufacturers accept total legal liability for any damage caused by them. Humans aren’t supposed to be operating these vehicles, thus all liability should fall on the companies that make them. This would be a very effective way of cutting through AI bullshit. It’s easy to game numbers and make your product look safer than it is. And companies lie to their customers all the time. But if we make manufacturers fully liable for any accidents caused by their self-driving vehicles, then they will only release those vehicles when they actually are far safer than human drivers.
The auto insurance industry should be made a thing of the past. If self-driving cars really are that safe, then the manufacturers can afford to cut a check whenever one of those fluke rare accidents really does happen.
Until a manufacturer is willing to do this, don’t believe a damn word they say about the safety of their cars.
They have to accept the liability- it’s unreasonable for liability to continue being on the driver if they’re not driving.
Self-driving cars aren’t good just average driver sucks at not speeding up to 80 mph when I signal I wish to change lanes.
