After 50 million miles, Waymos crash a lot less than human drivers
-
What's more efficient?
In terms of getting to an exact location.
Public transportation only can get you near your target mostly. Not on point like a car, bike etc.
If someone can't walk a few blocks, that's on them. Airplanes don't get you exactly to the destination either. There's a tradeoff.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Waymo reports that Waymo cars are the best"
-
I am once again begging journalists to be more critical of tech companies.
But as this happens, it’s crucial to keep the denominator in mind. Since 2020, Waymo has reported roughly 60 crashes serious enough to trigger an airbag or cause an injury. But those crashes occurred over more than 50 million miles of driverless operations. If you randomly selected 50 million miles of human driving—that’s roughly 70 lifetimes behind the wheel—you would likely see far more serious crashes than Waymo has experienced to date.
[...] Waymo knows exactly how many times its vehicles have crashed. What’s tricky is figuring out the appropriate human baseline, since human drivers don’t necessarily report every crash. Waymo has tried to address this by estimating human crash rates in its two biggest markets—Phoenix and San Francisco. Waymo’s analysis focused on the 44 million miles Waymo had driven in these cities through December, ignoring its smaller operations in Los Angeles and Austin.
This is the wrong comparison. These are taxis, which means they're driving taxi miles. They should be compared to taxis, not normal people who drive almost exclusively during their commutes (which is probably the most dangerous time to drive since it's precisely when they're all driving).
I was going to say they should only be comparing them under the same driving areas, since I know they aren't allowed in many areas.
But you're right, it's even tighter than that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Focusing on airbag-deployments and injuries ignores the obvious problem: these things are unbelievably unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. I curse SF for allowing AVs and always give them a wide berth because there's no way to know if they see you and they'll often behave erratically and unpredictably in crosswalks. I don't give a shit how often the passengers are injured, I care a lot more how much they disrupt life for all the people who aren't paying Waymo for the privilege.
-
If someone can't walk a few blocks, that's on them. Airplanes don't get you exactly to the destination either. There's a tradeoff.
Yeah fuck disabled and elderly people.
-
If someone can't walk a few blocks, that's on them. Airplanes don't get you exactly to the destination either. There's a tradeoff.
Rip disabled people.
-
If someone can't walk a few blocks, that's on them. Airplanes don't get you exactly to the destination either. There's a tradeoff.
@meco03211 @Jayk0b cars can't either - it's a false premise. Not everything is drive-thru. How far is, say, the bakery section from your car when you go to the supermarket?
-
What's more efficient?
In terms of getting to an exact location.
Public transportation only can get you near your target mostly. Not on point like a car, bike etc.
Bicycles? ride/ walk to were you need to be? Why do you need to be driven to an exact point? All the space needed for parking is just wasted.
You need to create a specific scenario in order to make cars seem more efficient than alternatives. They cause more accidents, take up more space while carrying fewer people at any given time while also causing more pollution than other modes of transport.
-
That's what happens when you have a reasonable sensor suite with LIDAR, instead of trying to rely entirely on cameras like Tesla does.
-
I was going to say they should only be comparing them under the same driving areas, since I know they aren't allowed in many areas.
But you're right, it's even tighter than that.
-
I am once again begging journalists to be more critical of tech companies.
But as this happens, it’s crucial to keep the denominator in mind. Since 2020, Waymo has reported roughly 60 crashes serious enough to trigger an airbag or cause an injury. But those crashes occurred over more than 50 million miles of driverless operations. If you randomly selected 50 million miles of human driving—that’s roughly 70 lifetimes behind the wheel—you would likely see far more serious crashes than Waymo has experienced to date.
[...] Waymo knows exactly how many times its vehicles have crashed. What’s tricky is figuring out the appropriate human baseline, since human drivers don’t necessarily report every crash. Waymo has tried to address this by estimating human crash rates in its two biggest markets—Phoenix and San Francisco. Waymo’s analysis focused on the 44 million miles Waymo had driven in these cities through December, ignoring its smaller operations in Los Angeles and Austin.
This is the wrong comparison. These are taxis, which means they're driving taxi miles. They should be compared to taxis, not normal people who drive almost exclusively during their commutes (which is probably the most dangerous time to drive since it's precisely when they're all driving).
Journalist aren't even critical of police press releases anymore, most simply print whatever they're told verbatim. It may as well just be advertisement.
-
What's more efficient?
In terms of getting to an exact location.
Public transportation only can get you near your target mostly. Not on point like a car, bike etc.
In terms of getting to an exact location, the most efficient is no vehicle, walking.
Cars are less efficient, followed by busses, then probably trains, then boats, then airplanes (unless you parachute).
Cars are the least efficient in terms of moving large numbers of people from places they can then walk from.
-
Journalist aren't even critical of police press releases anymore, most simply print whatever they're told verbatim. It may as well just be advertisement.
-
Bicycles? ride/ walk to were you need to be? Why do you need to be driven to an exact point? All the space needed for parking is just wasted.
You need to create a specific scenario in order to make cars seem more efficient than alternatives. They cause more accidents, take up more space while carrying fewer people at any given time while also causing more pollution than other modes of transport.
Automated vehicles are GPS guided. The US is too big to be walking and biking. That is for an urban environment with proper zoning laws, and serves what amounts to be an ethnic group who shouldn't need cars. What makes automated vehicles more efficient is the removal of labor and lower operational costs. The specialization of transporting people to the exact GPS coordinates is much more convenient. The future is automated travel because vehicles can be used more productively on the margin than everybody having to own their own car. Fewer cars, higher use of the car, means lower transportation costs throughout, which includes infrastructure itself; the less need for insurance, less pollution, etc. This technology can be used in bus transit systems as well for a less marginal benefit.
-
Yeah fuck disabled and elderly people.
Public transportation and walkable cities are much better for the elderly and disabled who often can't drive due to their age and disability?
Taking a wheel chair or mobility scooter or be guided by your service dog are all subsets of "walk there".
-
Musk: but-but-but people don't have lidars and can drive! Lidars are expensive! Tesla go brrrrr.
Tesla go durrrrr
-
This post did not contain any content.
No shit. The bar is low. Humans suck at driving. People love to throw FUD at automated driving, and it's far from perfect, but the more we delay adoption the more lives are lost. Anti-automation on the roads is up there with anti-vaccine mentality in my mind. Fear and the incorrect assumption that "I'm not the problem, I'm a really good driver," mentality will inevitably delay automation unnecessarily for years.
-
Why are we still doing this? Just fucking invest in mass transit like metro, buses and metrobuses. Jesus
Also, Note that this is based on waymo's own assumptions, that's like believing a 5070 gives you 4090 performance...
So we can have autonomous metros, buses and taxis that allow people anywhere when they need it so they don't rely on having a car?
-
What's more efficient?
In terms of getting to an exact location.
Public transportation only can get you near your target mostly. Not on point like a car, bike etc.
-
So we can have autonomous metros, buses and taxis that allow people anywhere when they need it so they don't rely on having a car?
There's already an autonomous metro.
