Furthermore, we should expect a constant stream of news headlines about self-driving cars being involved in accidents, even when self-driving cars are safer than humans because they are newsworthy and interesting. No one writes "dog bites man" articles, they just cover "man bites dog" stories.
This is a bad faith comparison not using apples to apples. Humans drive in all sorts of conditions that self driving cars flat out don't, and this data doesn't control for that at all.
> Humans drive in all sorts of conditions that self driving cars flat out don't
that's exactly why they are not allowed in all sorts of conditions! Where did this all-or-nothing demand come from? If a self-driving car shows less accidents than humans in Phoenix, why would you apply numbers from e.g. Montana, how is that apples-to-apples? and if it's shown safe in Phoenix conditions, why not let it run in Phoenix, just like the current approach?
It's fine to point out the flaws in this data, but do you have any better data to point to?
The humans five times worse in that data. That is a very large gap. Even after adjusting for driving conditions, with a gap that large, self-driving cars are likely safer.
Also, don't assume a comparison is made in bad faith, just because it has flaws.
A comparison like this from any trained statistician would be treated as borderline fraud, and is akin to the "we proved cigarettes are safe to smoke" studies done in the 50-60's.
So to be clear, this is not a "flaw". This is a catastrophic, wrong from the get go, not mentioned and no effort made to control for, failure.
Deliberately misrepresenting data, or in the most charitable case, by sheer mass incompetence, when it involves the safety of people is never ok.
The fact that automated vehicles operate with much broader safety margins with regard to driving conditions definitely contributes to them being safer overall - humans choosing to drive in worse conditions objectively makes them more dangerous drivers. I also suspect that what others are getting at - that under the same driving conditions safety margins as robocars, humans have a lower accident rate - isn't true, considering the bulk of motor vehicle accidents occur during normal commutes during daylight hours in nominal weather at low speeds. I suspect that even if you control for the elderly, the drunk, and inclement weather, humans will still have worse statistics. I think that humans have a tolerance for risk and ambiguity that makes for statistically worse, albeit more predictable, driving behaviour. But much like you, I don't have any better data to back this up.
Given the right away privileges ice road trucks are given (vs. normal cars...since they can't stop easily!), it seems like this would be a better first application of self driving than more chaotic environments.
Waymo had 20 accidents by February of this year but categorized 18 of them as "minor collision events".
Unless the authors similarly recategorized the driver data that is suspect.
For instance 1.24 is the number of injuries per million miles for drivers so that doesn't sound like 2.98 excludes minor ones.
The reality is the jury is still out on self driving car safety. Driving a few million miles and extrapolating isn't terribly useful especially when you only drive at low speeds.
There is a hypothetical potential to reduce fatalities but it is still very hypothetical.
- States "Statistics researched: 18", but never tells us what those were.
- Finally it has the most inane clearly ChatGPT written commentary:
> This statistic is a testament to the safety of Waymo self-driving cars
> This statistic is a powerful testament to the safety benefits of Tesla Autopilot technology
> This statistic is a powerful reminder of the potential life-saving impact that self-driving cars could have on our roads.
> This statistic is a stark reminder of the public’s apprehension
> This statistic is a powerful indicator of the potential safety
> This statistic is a powerful indicator of the public’s confidence
> This statistic is a testament to the progress being made
> This statistic is a testament to the safety of Waymo’s autonomous vehicles
And so on.
Why wouldn't you even read the website you linked?
Oh well, at least you can take a free "Personality Leadership Test" to see if you're a stable diffusion version of Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk.
> Accidents per million miles driven for Waymo self-driving cars are 0.59, compared to the general U.S. rate of 2.98.
https://blog.gitnux.com/self-driving-cars-safety-statistics/
Furthermore, we should expect a constant stream of news headlines about self-driving cars being involved in accidents, even when self-driving cars are safer than humans because they are newsworthy and interesting. No one writes "dog bites man" articles, they just cover "man bites dog" stories.