Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
We don't ened L5, good L3 may and L4 that would show anindependently verified statistical decrease would be enough. You mention a drunk driver who might have killed someone if A/P hadn't been driving. that's quite possible. But we know that a non-passenger has been killed by a car using A/P and others injured, when a normally alert human driver wouldn't have done so. If you want to risk your life on private roads by relying on immature ADAS, be my guest. But you shouldn't be able to make that choice for me on public roads. I'm all for automatic safety systems like AEB systems as back-up to humans; they have been shown to reduce crashes in certain situations (but not for common situations like cross-traffic or stopped vehicles in lanes), but they are a backup system, not primary. None of the current ADAS systems has shown the ability to be safer than a normally alert human driver, nor are they likely to.
"But we know that a non-passenger has been killed by a car using A/P and others injured, when a normally alert human driver wouldn't have done so. "
And how many non-passengers have been killed by human drivers that were NOT normally alert? 10,000 deaths per year by drunk drivers is the current total.
Quite so, so we don't need to add a system that's no better than an un-alert human driver, and worse than an alert one.
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
We have the number of A/P miles driven (well into the billions), and the number of deaths from them (1?). That single non-passenger was killed by a driver that was too tired to drive. That same driver profile (being too tired to drive) has already killed other people without A/P. And A/P has made huge improvements in the years since that accident.
At least 4 deaths that we know of, three occupants and one non-occupant, plus various injuries. Then there's the Uber death of Elaine Herzberg, which was a similar case of human lack of attention to monitoring an automated system.
What we have are statistics interpreted by Tesla, and they like every other company cherry-pick and interpret the numbers to make their systems look as good a possible. We've had statisticians point out methodological errors behind Tesla's accident rate claims. Here's an example of some of the criticisms:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tes...opilot-safety-data-flaws-experts-nhtsa-2021-4
Which is why the NTSB has been nagging NHTSA to require
all companies using ADAS and higher techs to provide certain types of data in a standard format to NHTSA, so that it can be independently verified and compared. Absent that,
Abuelsamid says the issues with Tesla's quarterly data all boil down to one old adage: "Tell me what side of the argument you're on, and I'll give you the statistics to prove that you're right."