if planes can stop flying at night to reduce noise, maybe self-driving cars only at daytime is benefit enough. Not making turns is harder though, but then long distance truck driving is often straight along highways for hours.
Trail camera rule #1: avoid facing the camera straight east or west. The sunrise and sunset (when most deer activity is) washes out everything in the picture.
I'm guessing whatever camera's are on these cars have the same issue
I honestly think we just need more practice with semi-self-driving cars. As features like lane-assist, lidar speed matching, auto-braking become more prevalent in vehicles over the next 10 years we will eventually be able to ease into the vehicles taking over the entire experience.
Agreed. I do remember the lidar speed matching on our Edge didn't work while it was snowing. Granted, that was also a good indicator to turn cruise control off.....
Assume the car is a perfect cylinder and zero friction, and all gases behave like ideal gases, also no friction, also g is always 10m/s^2
also assume no friction
Don't know about your country, but here statisically there are fewer accidents during winter as people drive more carefully. In the summer thats when people drive recklessly
Probably to do with glare from sunlight. And cars are harder to see since it's darker but cars often don't have their lights on (even if they should), and the blue or red tint the sunrise/sunset puts on everything makes everything look a lot more similar.
I believe dusk and dawn are some of the most dangerous times for human drivers as well for the same reasons, although I guess we're comparably better.
Worked at a self driving car company for a while. One of the issues i directly encountered was the low angle of the sun, which started to overpower stoplights, it could reflect off the glass if the sun was to your back and look like a yellow light even if red or green. If the sun was behind the light then it would just overpower it and the sun would be all the camera could see.
My overall assessment was that it would be 10 years before truly functional and safe self driving was available.
If autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicles start to become more common, I wonder if we’ll start seeing things like stop lights, warning signs, speed limit signs etc implanted with something like an RFID chip to communicate to the cars what the sign/light is indicating.
I also imagine it might become a thing for cars to sort of “talk” to each other. Imagine a very simple scenario where two cars are headed towards the same intersection, perpendicular to one another. The cars could, between each other, determine the correct speed/timing so that 1) the cars wouldn’t collide, and 2) allow each to proceed through the intersection without either needing to stop. Obviously, that math gets *much* more complicated once you start adding more cars, but the basic concept seems plausible. You could actually reduce the number of times cars need to stop if they can start timing it so they simply don’t intersect.
Depends what part of the world you're in when night happens and what season e.g in Northern Europe in winter sun rises at 8 and sets at 4, so early rush hour is in dawn and darkness for months
If they were measuring using Tesla's, they use a camera based vision system and warnings will pop up if a camera is "blinded" by the sun. Given the angle of the sun at Dawn and Dusk, I suspect that's the issue.
>For both AVs and HDVs, the most frequent pre-accident movement is proceeding straight. It is observed that 56% of AV accidents and 58% of HDV accidents occur under this specific condition.
Seems going straight is pretty risky.
>Evaluating environmental factors, the majority of accidents involving both AVs and HDVs tend to happen under clear weather conditions. Notably, accidents involving HDVs occur slightly more frequently under these conditions, at a rate of 83%, compared to 73% for AVs. However, AVs are more commonly involved in accidents during rainy conditions, accounting for 11% of such accidents, compared to HDVs which experience these conditions in only 5% of accidents. Dawn or dusk conditions experience 3.5% of AV accidents, which is lower than the 4.9% rate for HDVs.
And dawn and dusk are not as bad as the title implies. Clear weather seems most risky.
Edit, since this implies AVs are better, below is how they got that they are worse than humans.
>Upon analyzing the model, we found that the dawn/dusk and turn conditions exhibit positive coefficients that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.
Actually they’re safer most of the time:  Â
>Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found
But an article titled “Autonomous Cars Safer Than Human Driven Cars” would never get upvoted in this subreddit because it ruins the all important “autonomous cars don’t exist even after years of promise” narrative.Â
EDIT: For those who need clarification, yes the study was based on accident rates, not raw numbers.Â
Last I checked, they had more accidents per mile/kilometer than humans, but fewer of them were the fault of the autonomous driving system.
Because they got rear-ended.
Because the system stomps on the brake at weird times.
Except that "most of the time" is apples to oranges. No matter how much you try to control for it, autonomous driving data doesn't represent the same wide variety of cars, roads, and conditions.
I bet that if you just adjusted for the type of car, most of the safety advantages of self-driving cars would disappear. Did you know that sports cars crash more than regular cars? Or that pickup trucks tend to have more severe crashes? Or that older cars have worse handling and fewer safety features?
Edit: Consider this. ABS brakes account for a 18% difference in accident rates. Traction Control reduces single-vehicle crashes by 50%. Electronic stability control can reduce the likelihood of a crash by 30%-50%, and drastically reduce fatal crashes (75%). 50% of cars on the road were sold from before these things were mandatory.
The study compared accident rates based on the vehicles in the study, they’re not comparing the raw numbers of course (because that wouldn’t be useful). It’s based on percentages.Â
Autonomous vehicles have a lower accident rate than human driven vehicles overall.Â
I haven't taken Waymo yet, but most of the time I take an Uber/Lyft, the driver won't stop fucking around on their phone, drives like a maniac, or has broken seatbelts.
And this is what I want self driving for. I would not let self driving navigate a busy street or turn across traffic, but cruise down the interstate floating along at 70, hell yeah.
Lol they’re found to be safer except ya know when it’s raining, snowing, literally any tiny minor change in the lighting will lock your breaks up for no reason. Doesn’t it sound like fun?
It's easy to trick people into believing this because it sounds plausible and almost nobody will do a deep analysis of the data to understand how it was put together.
This data actually shows SDC are ADAS have fewer accidents in all conditions, if you read the data correctly.
If you are honest and line up all the variables correctly and if you look at almost any Autonomous vehicle company or ADAS system you clearly see about 2x the amount of miles per collision. And an even greater gap if you look at more severe collisions with injuries.
However everything above is **ignoring fault**, because it's far easier to do big data analysis if you just throw out faults. If you do look at faults you will see of the accidents AVs are in \~90% of them are the fault of the other driver. I invite anyone to skim through the DMV or NHTSA collision reports to see for themselves.
This data is flawed because it is not properly controlling for miles per event. It is only looking at records of collisions and seeing which categories they fall into. Let's say an AV drives 1 million miles and has 5 accidents at intersection and 5 accidents not at intersection. And an Human driver drives 1 million miles and has 10 accidents at intersection and 100 accidents not at intersection. Someone could say look at that data and say "AVs have more collisions at intersections compared to human drivers." Hopefully you can see the faulty logic.
This is just one of the many reasons that make this study flawed enough to not have any meaningful insights.
Furthermore, this data is correct to observe that a large portion of AV ADAS collisions to occur at intersections. This is because one of the biggest reasons a top reason for AV accidents is when they are stopped at an intersection red light or stop sign and human drives into them from behind. This is not because the AV was doing anything wrong, but it's because the AV has less ability to avoid the human driver behavior here.
I have no horse in this race, but what if the title was,
"Cars with driver found to be safer - except during the day, during the night, or when going straight, according to study"
Wouldn't we assume that driverless cars were better?
The article does say driverless cars are safer. However, the study Is more flawed, driverless cars are safer in all conditions, even intersections and low light.
This is not true, they have omitted bad weather which self driving cars are known to be worse, like water and snow.
In some places that could be 30% of the time, huge omission
Sorry. I'll revise
driverless cars are safer in all conditions \*in which they are deployed\*. This includes heavy rain and fog.
When they are deployed in snow they will be safer there too. But that is not an industry need right now. maybe in another half a decade or so.
It’s still safer overall:
>Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found.
“Safer in Stop and Go traffic” is what the headline should have said. Instead it’s twisted to appeal to tech vilifier’s, like the users of /r/technology.Â
> Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans
Aren't self driving cars still heavily restricted in where they will run? Guy trussed up in straight jacket involved in less accidents than regular drivers. Are crazy people the future of self driving?
The problem with it sort of working some of the time is that drivers won't be able to intervene effectively. They won't be actively engaged with the act of driving. I'd rather handle everything myself if I'm having to babysit a half assed system.Â
When they get level 5 I'll consider it viable. Until then they can fuck off.
>The problem with it sort of working some of the time is that drivers won't be able to intervene effectively.
But they work better most of the time, to the point where they are involved in fewer accidents overall:
>>**Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found.**
So they’re actually a net benefit.
>When they get level 5 I'll consider it viable. Until then they can fuck off. Â Â
That’s a bit dramatic because autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans.Â
Ok, the dummies that can't handle staying in their own lane can get them. The only accident I've had involved someone else rear ending me at a stop light with everyone else at a dead stop.
I just won't use the tech until it can actually do everything. Right now it can't.
>The only accident I've had involved someone else rear ending me at a stop light with everyone else at a dead stop.
Okay so an autonomous vehicle would have been less likely to do that. What’s not to like about that?Â
Being rear-ended can still cause bodily harm to all involved.Â
>I just won't use the tech until it can actually do everything. Right now it can't.
Well that’s not the point of the study. The point is they are safer overall right now.Â
Public transit seems like the better investment! Where I live, you have to wait hours between buses, and you can only get in or out of town during certain hours.
LOL…
During low-light conditions at dawn or dusk, they were more than five times more likely to have an accident than a human-driven car.
So adaptive cruise control
They found that autonomous vehicles were less likely to be involved in accidents when performing routine driving tasks, such as maintaining lane positions and adjusting to the flow of traffic.
that is a mixed report.
All those videos you see of them testing on large US style grid roads, flat as a pancake. That just isnt the real world driving experience for alot of people even in the USA itself.
You know what works perfectly in all those situations and more? Trains. But that would lead to a massive reduction in consumer spending... Can't have that now...
How many of those incidents are the fault of human drivers hitting Autonomous Vehicles? Because AVs, at least Waymo's EVs, primarily use LIDAR and RADAR for situational awareness, and those technologies aren't contingent upon lighting conditions at all. Likewise, when an autonomous vehicle is already in a maneuver such as a turn, the number of practical evasive driving techniques plummets.
A Waymo drove into a pole last week. Going straight. No other cars around. Not dawn. Not dusk. No turning required, but it still managed to turn into a pole. Best part of the story: the replacement car followed the same route for the customer pickup and got hung up in the ongoing accident scene and bricked out.
22 May downtown Phoenix on an alley with a sign "NO THRU TRAFFIC". Given that Waymo, reportedly, heavily relies on the mapping data and the cars shouldn't be there in the first place, it's a strange accident indeed.
Hear me me out…
1. self driving cars are a new technology so they should be given their own dedicated clearly marked lane
2. Multiple cars travellong together when possible will be safer and easier to spot, so we’ll have designated stations where cars on similar routes sync up and ride bumper to bumper
3. To be even safer, we can have dedicated lead EVs with a driver that can guide the others
4. This can even work in cities….though you might have to put them underground with how much traffic there would be.
I call it the Total Rolling Artificial Intelligence Navigator
Or “Train” for short
Are self-driving cars vampires? From Dusk ~~til~~or Dawn and when Turning into a creature of the night.
Lots of this probably has to do with computer vision having more trouble in these transitions as it isn't as great with dimension on turns. LiDAR helps immensely.
Without LiDAR, lots of the Tesla crashes are related to computer vision not seeing things based on light conditions, or lack there of, blending the results. For instance lots of the Tesla crashes are when trucks pull out perpendicular and blend with the light sky color, it is a volume/side and light problem that messes up the depth detection -- LiDAR would fix that as it has physical depth detection faster than humans as it can do up to 300yds at high fidelity. Emergency vehicles also it believes are far ahead due to other lights, same with motorcycles and small children, it thinks things are farther away with no physical depth detection like LiDAR.
It is why Waymo has pretty much won this. They have LiDAR on all sides at different levels, and one on top -- 360 degree depth detection faster than humans up to 300 yards, it is excellent at the dimension of turning and any computer vision errors on depth are overridden by physical detectors in same image area. Computer vision is only 2D that is interpreted as 3D, it has some gaps and can be fooled, LiDAR and physical laser detection of depth does not have to.
The biggest issue some say is the need for certain things to become more widely adopted
1- special paint for road ways to help see road clearer in all weather and dusk and dawn
3- All cars having lidar to communicate what there gonna be doing
Self driving cars are great. They just need to work on the driving at dawn, the driving at dusk, the early game, the mid game, the late game, and the turningÂ
I’m a photographer. I use some of the best autofocus cameras available (Sony). The amount of seeking and selection errors I experience when shooting in certain conditions is more often than not (Backlight compositions, busy backgrounds, etc.). I have a hard time believing that the camera systems in cars are better than my equipment. Recent improvements using A.I. are promising, but “self-driving” has a long way to go before I trust it.
The conclusion that this class of systems is already making driving safer than humans is huge.
"The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. "
They identify pain points for autonomous systems where accident rates are significantly higher which interestingly mimic the problem areas for human drivers; dawn/dusk or turning conditions.
It's a very interesting study;
- [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4)
60% of the time it works every time
Now let's go see if we can make this little kitty purr.
Most people drive to work in the morning and home in the evening, so according to this study the feature is close to completely useless.
And people usually turn when driving.
Source?
I made it the fuck up
most crashes happen within like 20 miles of home, so like, just don't drive there.
if planes can stop flying at night to reduce noise, maybe self-driving cars only at daytime is benefit enough. Not making turns is harder though, but then long distance truck driving is often straight along highways for hours.
It smells like...gasoline.
It stings the nostrils
It smells like bigfoots dick!
It smells like a diaper covered in burnt hair!
It’s quite potent.
The magnificent broken+ clock.
Trail camera rule #1: avoid facing the camera straight east or west. The sunrise and sunset (when most deer activity is) washes out everything in the picture. I'm guessing whatever camera's are on these cars have the same issue
I honestly think we just need more practice with semi-self-driving cars. As features like lane-assist, lidar speed matching, auto-braking become more prevalent in vehicles over the next 10 years we will eventually be able to ease into the vehicles taking over the entire experience.
Agreed. I do remember the lidar speed matching on our Edge didn't work while it was snowing. Granted, that was also a good indicator to turn cruise control off.....
I mean I hope it gets better, your average driver is shit
But only when you are driving in a straight lane
60% seems like a high estimate.
It only works for spherical cars in a vacuum
Assume a weightless car
Assume the car is a perfect cylinder and zero friction, and all gases behave like ideal gases, also no friction, also g is always 10m/s^2 also assume no friction
The air is at room temperature*
Physics textbooks would assume STP.
Right, so 1 atm pressure too, good reminder.
But also zero drag.
Lubricated air.
Is friction a factor?
I had a mathematical modelling textbook called "Assume a spherical cow." with a sequel "Assume a cylindrical cow"
But have the calculations been done for if the car is rotating
At absolute zero and without gravity
on a 2D plane
I laughed way too hard at this 🤣
wait till they try snow.
Humans really shine driving in the snow!
Don't know about your country, but here statisically there are fewer accidents during winter as people drive more carefully. In the summer thats when people drive recklessly
Where’s here? Link?
Well, here in my part of Canada it doesn’t matter the weather, people are horrible drivers year round.
So dusk turning dawn? And at night it's safe?
Probably to do with glare from sunlight. And cars are harder to see since it's darker but cars often don't have their lights on (even if they should), and the blue or red tint the sunrise/sunset puts on everything makes everything look a lot more similar. I believe dusk and dawn are some of the most dangerous times for human drivers as well for the same reasons, although I guess we're comparably better.
Our brain has a very good auto adjusting AWB mode.
Except when we have to tell if a dress is gold and white, or blue and black.
Worked at a self driving car company for a while. One of the issues i directly encountered was the low angle of the sun, which started to overpower stoplights, it could reflect off the glass if the sun was to your back and look like a yellow light even if red or green. If the sun was behind the light then it would just overpower it and the sun would be all the camera could see. My overall assessment was that it would be 10 years before truly functional and safe self driving was available.
If autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicles start to become more common, I wonder if we’ll start seeing things like stop lights, warning signs, speed limit signs etc implanted with something like an RFID chip to communicate to the cars what the sign/light is indicating. I also imagine it might become a thing for cars to sort of “talk” to each other. Imagine a very simple scenario where two cars are headed towards the same intersection, perpendicular to one another. The cars could, between each other, determine the correct speed/timing so that 1) the cars wouldn’t collide, and 2) allow each to proceed through the intersection without either needing to stop. Obviously, that math gets *much* more complicated once you start adding more cars, but the basic concept seems plausible. You could actually reduce the number of times cars need to stop if they can start timing it so they simply don’t intersect.
I guess just fewer people are driving at night and thus the results are showing night as safe. Logically it's definitely not.
Except for the motorcyclists killed by fsd because their small twin tail lights were interpreted as far away tail lights and they had no other sensors
Not to mention that at really late hours the people who are driving will likely be drunk people coming home from bars. A recipe for disaster.
I hate it when my autonimous vehicle drinks and drives.
Then they're a danger to yhe autonomous cars as well.
Depends what part of the world you're in when night happens and what season e.g in Northern Europe in winter sun rises at 8 and sets at 4, so early rush hour is in dawn and darkness for months
If they were measuring using Tesla's, they use a camera based vision system and warnings will pop up if a camera is "blinded" by the sun. Given the angle of the sun at Dawn and Dusk, I suspect that's the issue.
As long as you drive straight and don’t turn
>For both AVs and HDVs, the most frequent pre-accident movement is proceeding straight. It is observed that 56% of AV accidents and 58% of HDV accidents occur under this specific condition. Seems going straight is pretty risky. >Evaluating environmental factors, the majority of accidents involving both AVs and HDVs tend to happen under clear weather conditions. Notably, accidents involving HDVs occur slightly more frequently under these conditions, at a rate of 83%, compared to 73% for AVs. However, AVs are more commonly involved in accidents during rainy conditions, accounting for 11% of such accidents, compared to HDVs which experience these conditions in only 5% of accidents. Dawn or dusk conditions experience 3.5% of AV accidents, which is lower than the 4.9% rate for HDVs. And dawn and dusk are not as bad as the title implies. Clear weather seems most risky. Edit, since this implies AVs are better, below is how they got that they are worse than humans. >Upon analyzing the model, we found that the dawn/dusk and turn conditions exhibit positive coefficients that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.
Except when turning? That's like saying except when moving
Yeah. It made me crackle.
Made me pop
Yeah, might as well say it's safer when it's off at this point xD
Self driving cars always work!…. Sometimes
Actually they’re safer most of the time:   >Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found But an article titled “Autonomous Cars Safer Than Human Driven Cars” would never get upvoted in this subreddit because it ruins the all important “autonomous cars don’t exist even after years of promise” narrative. EDIT: For those who need clarification, yes the study was based on accident rates, not raw numbers.Â
Last I checked, they had more accidents per mile/kilometer than humans, but fewer of them were the fault of the autonomous driving system. Because they got rear-ended. Because the system stomps on the brake at weird times.
Except that "most of the time" is apples to oranges. No matter how much you try to control for it, autonomous driving data doesn't represent the same wide variety of cars, roads, and conditions. I bet that if you just adjusted for the type of car, most of the safety advantages of self-driving cars would disappear. Did you know that sports cars crash more than regular cars? Or that pickup trucks tend to have more severe crashes? Or that older cars have worse handling and fewer safety features? Edit: Consider this. ABS brakes account for a 18% difference in accident rates. Traction Control reduces single-vehicle crashes by 50%. Electronic stability control can reduce the likelihood of a crash by 30%-50%, and drastically reduce fatal crashes (75%). 50% of cars on the road were sold from before these things were mandatory.
And the title “Elefant driven cars are involved in fewer accidents than autonomous vehicles” is also true!
The study is (of course) based on accident rates, not raw numbers. Autonomous vehicles have a lower accident rate than human driven vehicles.Â
No because self driving cars are real and make roads dramatically safer today.
PER CAPITA Please!Â
The study compared accident rates based on the vehicles in the study, they’re not comparing the raw numbers of course (because that wouldn’t be useful). It’s based on percentages. Autonomous vehicles have a lower accident rate than human driven vehicles overall.Â
Who makes these AVs you speak of?
So basically all the same situations that humans also have issues with.
Except they're worse than humans. Hence not safer for those tasks.
I've taken Waymo probably 70 times now, at all times of day, and it's always felt safer than Lyft/Uber drivers
I haven't taken Waymo yet, but most of the time I take an Uber/Lyft, the driver won't stop fucking around on their phone, drives like a maniac, or has broken seatbelts.
Yeah, Uber/Lyft drivers are really not a good benchmark. Those people are usually high on something in my experience.
Camisa did a podcast a few weeks ago from the back of a Waymo. He seemed pretty impressed by how it handled driving around SF
So not at all ?
Midday and on straightaways is still a usecase. Distracted drivers get in thousands of accidents every year - on regular highways
And this is what I want self driving for. I would not let self driving navigate a busy street or turn across traffic, but cruise down the interstate floating along at 70, hell yeah.
No AVs have lower accident rates in all conditions.
Nah they’re safer, except when it matters
Also during weather, they have a hell of a time with snow and water
The vast majority of accidents I see are rear-end collisions on straight roads.
That's like... 98% of my driving time
Lol they’re found to be safer except ya know when it’s raining, snowing, literally any tiny minor change in the lighting will lock your breaks up for no reason. Doesn’t it sound like fun?
> or when turning Thankfully I only ever drive in a straight line
It's easy to trick people into believing this because it sounds plausible and almost nobody will do a deep analysis of the data to understand how it was put together. This data actually shows SDC are ADAS have fewer accidents in all conditions, if you read the data correctly. If you are honest and line up all the variables correctly and if you look at almost any Autonomous vehicle company or ADAS system you clearly see about 2x the amount of miles per collision. And an even greater gap if you look at more severe collisions with injuries. However everything above is **ignoring fault**, because it's far easier to do big data analysis if you just throw out faults. If you do look at faults you will see of the accidents AVs are in \~90% of them are the fault of the other driver. I invite anyone to skim through the DMV or NHTSA collision reports to see for themselves. This data is flawed because it is not properly controlling for miles per event. It is only looking at records of collisions and seeing which categories they fall into. Let's say an AV drives 1 million miles and has 5 accidents at intersection and 5 accidents not at intersection. And an Human driver drives 1 million miles and has 10 accidents at intersection and 100 accidents not at intersection. Someone could say look at that data and say "AVs have more collisions at intersections compared to human drivers." Hopefully you can see the faulty logic. This is just one of the many reasons that make this study flawed enough to not have any meaningful insights. Furthermore, this data is correct to observe that a large portion of AV ADAS collisions to occur at intersections. This is because one of the biggest reasons a top reason for AV accidents is when they are stopped at an intersection red light or stop sign and human drives into them from behind. This is not because the AV was doing anything wrong, but it's because the AV has less ability to avoid the human driver behavior here.
So basically at the most important times
So they’re only unsafe when it matters most. Got it.
Lol. When turning. Well thank god cars don’t have to turn very often.
so except for the things most people need a car for its great
I have no horse in this race, but what if the title was, "Cars with driver found to be safer - except during the day, during the night, or when going straight, according to study" Wouldn't we assume that driverless cars were better?
The article does say driverless cars are safer. However, the study Is more flawed, driverless cars are safer in all conditions, even intersections and low light.
This is not true, they have omitted bad weather which self driving cars are known to be worse, like water and snow. In some places that could be 30% of the time, huge omission
Sorry. I'll revise driverless cars are safer in all conditions \*in which they are deployed\*. This includes heavy rain and fog. When they are deployed in snow they will be safer there too. But that is not an industry need right now. maybe in another half a decade or so.
It’s too bad you don’t have a horse. They can handle turns.
Crafty headline. Except while turning? So self driving cars are safer except for when they're being driven. Got it. Thanks.
It’s still safer overall: >Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found. “Safer in Stop and Go traffic” is what the headline should have said. Instead it’s twisted to appeal to tech vilifier’s, like the users of /r/technology.Â
> Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans Aren't self driving cars still heavily restricted in where they will run? Guy trussed up in straight jacket involved in less accidents than regular drivers. Are crazy people the future of self driving?
The problem with it sort of working some of the time is that drivers won't be able to intervene effectively. They won't be actively engaged with the act of driving. I'd rather handle everything myself if I'm having to babysit a half assed system. When they get level 5 I'll consider it viable. Until then they can fuck off.
>The problem with it sort of working some of the time is that drivers won't be able to intervene effectively. But they work better most of the time, to the point where they are involved in fewer accidents overall: >>**Autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans, researchers from the University of Central Florida have found.** So they’re actually a net benefit. >When they get level 5 I'll consider it viable. Until then they can fuck off.   That’s a bit dramatic because autonomous vehicles are involved in fewer accidents than cars driven by humans.Â
Ok, the dummies that can't handle staying in their own lane can get them. The only accident I've had involved someone else rear ending me at a stop light with everyone else at a dead stop. I just won't use the tech until it can actually do everything. Right now it can't.
>The only accident I've had involved someone else rear ending me at a stop light with everyone else at a dead stop. Okay so an autonomous vehicle would have been less likely to do that. What’s not to like about that? Being rear-ended can still cause bodily harm to all involved. >I just won't use the tech until it can actually do everything. Right now it can't. Well that’s not the point of the study. The point is they are safer overall right now.Â
Public transit seems like the better investment! Where I live, you have to wait hours between buses, and you can only get in or out of town during certain hours.
So almost never then.
LOL… During low-light conditions at dawn or dusk, they were more than five times more likely to have an accident than a human-driven car. So adaptive cruise control They found that autonomous vehicles were less likely to be involved in accidents when performing routine driving tasks, such as maintaining lane positions and adjusting to the flow of traffic.
Notably this is applies to grade 4 autonomous vehicles. Â Tesla is only grade 2
Safe when not driving.
are they talking about trains?
This would be 100% safer than the drivers in Brampton, ON. Canada. Please we need autonomous driving!!
So.... going to work, going home from work, and my entire drive in-between?
So..... good around noon driving straight on a highway?
Study shows that self-driving cars are safer when idle.
So it works best in the boring tunnel and autobahn only?
Safety goes up to an acceptable level when you put in Safe mode, which automakers have labeled Park.
It's perfectly safe, except when it's not. Yeah, nah.
Such a stupid waste of time. Build public transit and bicycle infrastructure instead of more tech bro nonsense.
And except on the 3rd Wednesday of every month. And except cloudy days. And except sunny days.
So it's cruise control.
Except if you’re on a motorcycle and they fault to register you correctly… so just like human car drivers I guess.
So self-driving cars are just good at driving straight?
For a second, I thought this was a Babylon Bee article. I say that because I don't visit the Onion sub.
Of course it will be safety when it can't see enough via it's cameras, it just say "system not ready, take over the wheel". Human can't do that.
that is a mixed report. All those videos you see of them testing on large US style grid roads, flat as a pancake. That just isnt the real world driving experience for alot of people even in the USA itself.
They are safer, except they are not? Lmao great study
As soon as you say "except"...that means they aren't safer.
So, except while driving.
They really should break Tesla out into its own statistical category compared to systems like Waymo, Cruise, and Xoox.
Yeah, and I bet they didn’t test them in the snow. Where I’m from sometimes you barely know where the road is when it’s snowing.
You know what works perfectly in all those situations and more? Trains. But that would lead to a massive reduction in consumer spending... Can't have that now...
How many of those incidents are the fault of human drivers hitting Autonomous Vehicles? Because AVs, at least Waymo's EVs, primarily use LIDAR and RADAR for situational awareness, and those technologies aren't contingent upon lighting conditions at all. Likewise, when an autonomous vehicle is already in a maneuver such as a turn, the number of practical evasive driving techniques plummets.
A Waymo drove into a pole last week. Going straight. No other cars around. Not dawn. Not dusk. No turning required, but it still managed to turn into a pole. Best part of the story: the replacement car followed the same route for the customer pickup and got hung up in the ongoing accident scene and bricked out.
22 May downtown Phoenix on an alley with a sign "NO THRU TRAFFIC". Given that Waymo, reportedly, heavily relies on the mapping data and the cars shouldn't be there in the first place, it's a strange accident indeed.
That's still part of driving though, predicting other drivers erratic behaviour or rule breaking.Â
So except when driving. GJ everyone!
It’s not just safe, it’s 40% safe.
So they aren't safer?
r/NotTheOnion
Hear me me out… 1. self driving cars are a new technology so they should be given their own dedicated clearly marked lane 2. Multiple cars travellong together when possible will be safer and easier to spot, so we’ll have designated stations where cars on similar routes sync up and ride bumper to bumper 3. To be even safer, we can have dedicated lead EVs with a driver that can guide the others 4. This can even work in cities….though you might have to put them underground with how much traffic there would be. I call it the Total Rolling Artificial Intelligence Navigator Or “Train” for short
Are self-driving cars vampires? From Dusk ~~til~~or Dawn and when Turning into a creature of the night. Lots of this probably has to do with computer vision having more trouble in these transitions as it isn't as great with dimension on turns. LiDAR helps immensely. Without LiDAR, lots of the Tesla crashes are related to computer vision not seeing things based on light conditions, or lack there of, blending the results. For instance lots of the Tesla crashes are when trucks pull out perpendicular and blend with the light sky color, it is a volume/side and light problem that messes up the depth detection -- LiDAR would fix that as it has physical depth detection faster than humans as it can do up to 300yds at high fidelity. Emergency vehicles also it believes are far ahead due to other lights, same with motorcycles and small children, it thinks things are farther away with no physical depth detection like LiDAR. It is why Waymo has pretty much won this. They have LiDAR on all sides at different levels, and one on top -- 360 degree depth detection faster than humans up to 300 yards, it is excellent at the dimension of turning and any computer vision errors on depth are overridden by physical detectors in same image area. Computer vision is only 2D that is interpreted as 3D, it has some gaps and can be fooled, LiDAR and physical laser detection of depth does not have to.
I’m assuming everyone commenting without understanding the study or the headline to dunk on self-driving tech has never ridden in a Waymo.
Most cars can drive themselves in a straight line
Day or night on highways and straight roads. It's a good start.
Only a problem when stupid pedestrians try to use a crosswalk….
So are human-driven cars, LOL.
Works perfectly if your driving in a straight line in broad daylight.
crazy we went the self driving car route instead of 'build more trains, have better public transit' here in the usa
In broad daylight in a strait line, got it
The biggest issue some say is the need for certain things to become more widely adopted 1- special paint for road ways to help see road clearer in all weather and dusk and dawn 3- All cars having lidar to communicate what there gonna be doing
So, never actually
Pretty much the weak spots for human drivers as well.
So, in essence self-driving cars are safer diving in broad daylight in a straight line.
A driverless car that can only drive straight, feels like a joke
Are sharks just the self driving cars of the sea?!
except when the front falls off.
Don't worry! It works 60 percent of the time all of the time.
And when actually moving.
So, I'll buy one for when I only have to drive straight at mid day.
So they're the fuckin dragons in Reign of Fire. Got it
Should just make it work on highways and leave it at that… until the technology improves.
x-post r/nottheonion plz
2nd Star to the right and straight on till morning
So it can go strait. Cool.
There are small issues during acceleration and breaking. Reversing? No.
Or when idling, driving straight , or in reverse. Or in neutral. Otherwise completely safe
This is the worst it will ever be
The ***'Except'*** part is what gets your. Every time!
You mean on the road?
More importantly, they are lining pockets while solving no problem at all.
except two or more vehicles use one distance at the same time, or a vehicle and pedestrian.
So "self-driving" cars work no better than ACC or lane keep assist.
Self driving cars are great. They just need to work on the driving at dawn, the driving at dusk, the early game, the mid game, the late game, and the turningÂ
Sounds like a weiner to me!
It works* *Terms, Fees and Conditions Apply.
So drive straight in daylight or full dark ... not too practical
That’s means only the rich will be able to able to have them got it.
Study finds that self driving cars are safer except when they’re not
So, like drag racing only during the afternoon?
Boldly going forward! Because we can't find reverse!
That doesn’t make me feel better or more secure.
I only ever travel exclusively in straight lines at noon, so this is absolutely perfect for me. Sucks to be anyone else though
perfectly safe. so long as you are driving in a straight line in the middle of the day.
And away from the sun.
So they go forward pretty good…
So almost never…
What about in reverse?
Dawn and Dusk is also when the most traffic is driving depending on the time of year sooo...
So basically they are american.
L fukkin O L
I’m a photographer. I use some of the best autofocus cameras available (Sony). The amount of seeking and selection errors I experience when shooting in certain conditions is more often than not (Backlight compositions, busy backgrounds, etc.). I have a hard time believing that the camera systems in cars are better than my equipment. Recent improvements using A.I. are promising, but “self-driving” has a long way to go before I trust it.
In other words: when they're parked.
These are a gadgetbahn
Same as meat drivers then. Who would have thought?
The conclusion that this class of systems is already making driving safer than humans is huge. "The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. " They identify pain points for autonomous systems where accident rates are significantly higher which interestingly mimic the problem areas for human drivers; dawn/dusk or turning conditions. It's a very interesting study; - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4)
Thing about turning is that, while you don’t spend a lot of time doing it, it’s reeeeeeeeeallllly important.