Let’s say there are 100 injuries for ever 100M miles driven. That’s 1 injury every 1M miles driven. Let’s say the average driver drives 10K miles per year. That means 1 in 100 drivers are injured every year. Not super likely, but not super unlikely either.
"That’s 1 injury every 1M miles driven." - so if the driver covers 10.000 miles per year, that driver needs to drive 100 years for him/her to be injured in a crash.
That's not how probabilities work... The probability of being in a crash after N years would be 1 - 0.99^N. So after 100 years you only have a 63% chance of being in an accident. After 50 years, you have a 39% chance.
These guys (pay attention to who they are), when referring to the same calculation but regarding deaths per 100 million miles, disagree with your opinion:
Chris Urmson in his Recode Decode interview – “Well, it’s not even that they grab for it, it’s that they experience it for a while and it works, right? And maybe it works perfectly every day for a month. The next day it may not work, but their experience now is, “Oh this works,” and so they’re not prepared to take over and so their ability to kind of save it and monitor it decays with time. So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That’s like 10,000 years of an average person’s driving. So, let’s say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles. We’re going to have twice as many accidents and fatalities on the roads on average, but for any one individual they could go a lifetime, many lifetimes before they ever see that.” – https://www.recode.net/2017/9/8/16278566/transcript-self-dri...
or
Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair – “Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair says you get to 90 percent automation pretty quickly once you understand the technology you need. “It takes a lot, lot longer to get to 96 or 97,” he says. “You have a curve, and those last few percentage points are really difficult.”
Almost every time auto executives talk about the promise of self-driving cars, they cite the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistic that shows human error is the “critical reason” for all but 6 percent of car crashes.
But that’s kind of misleading, says Nair. “If you look at it in terms of fatal accidents and miles driven, humans are actually very reliable machines. We need to create an even more reliable machine.” – https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/self-driv...
or
prof. Raj Rajkumar head of Carnegie Mellon University’s leading self-driving laboratory. – “if you do the mileage statistics, one fatality happens every 80 million miles. That is unfortunately of course, but that is a tremendously high bar for automatically vehicle to meet.” min.19.30 of this podcast interview – http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/if_then/2018/05/self_...
I was using the stats from the article for injuries, not deaths. I believe the quotes you provided used deaths intentionally because the probability of dying in a crash is so low. Injuries still matter (in my opinion).
It is not 94% and citing 94% is misleading, and it is (why?) a deadly myth, OK.
BUT what is the actual percentage[1]?
"Not 94%" is meaningless.
And while EU regulations have done lots of good in some aspect of vehicle safety, road enhancement project like the "Vision Zero" ( which is a purely Swedish thing) and similar projcts are not "EU-wide" and cannot possibly be the reason why (thankfully) there were less deaths on the roads in the EU in last ten years.
[1] according to the Author, and how was it calculated/estimated?
It will shock everyone I’m sure to know that the author’s Twitter feed is a firehouse of anti-car rhetoric and nothing else. This isn’t someone who wants to improve urban planning in general, it’s just someone who wants to get rid of personal vehicles.
pretty decent thing to want to get rid off. How does one fix urban planning 'in general' without improving individual things in particular?
This argument sounds like: "the authors vile anti-race-condition rhetoric reveals that he wants to get rid of unsafe memory operations, rather than improving software in general"
15 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 47.8 ms ] thread[0]: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/aaafts_...
Do you really understand how much is that 100 million miles in order to comprehend how rare such events occur in real life?
Chris Urmson in his Recode Decode interview – “Well, it’s not even that they grab for it, it’s that they experience it for a while and it works, right? And maybe it works perfectly every day for a month. The next day it may not work, but their experience now is, “Oh this works,” and so they’re not prepared to take over and so their ability to kind of save it and monitor it decays with time. So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That’s like 10,000 years of an average person’s driving. So, let’s say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles. We’re going to have twice as many accidents and fatalities on the roads on average, but for any one individual they could go a lifetime, many lifetimes before they ever see that.” – https://www.recode.net/2017/9/8/16278566/transcript-self-dri... or Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair – “Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair says you get to 90 percent automation pretty quickly once you understand the technology you need. “It takes a lot, lot longer to get to 96 or 97,” he says. “You have a curve, and those last few percentage points are really difficult.” Almost every time auto executives talk about the promise of self-driving cars, they cite the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistic that shows human error is the “critical reason” for all but 6 percent of car crashes. But that’s kind of misleading, says Nair. “If you look at it in terms of fatal accidents and miles driven, humans are actually very reliable machines. We need to create an even more reliable machine.” – https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/self-driv... or prof. Raj Rajkumar head of Carnegie Mellon University’s leading self-driving laboratory. – “if you do the mileage statistics, one fatality happens every 80 million miles. That is unfortunately of course, but that is a tremendously high bar for automatically vehicle to meet.” min.19.30 of this podcast interview – http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/if_then/2018/05/self_...
BUT what is the actual percentage[1]?
"Not 94%" is meaningless.
And while EU regulations have done lots of good in some aspect of vehicle safety, road enhancement project like the "Vision Zero" ( which is a purely Swedish thing) and similar projcts are not "EU-wide" and cannot possibly be the reason why (thankfully) there were less deaths on the roads in the EU in last ten years.
[1] according to the Author, and how was it calculated/estimated?
https://beyondtheautomobile.com/2021/02/08/what-is-design-sp...
Reducing deaths of people walking around the street seems like a no brainer way to make urban environments more friendly.
This argument sounds like: "the authors vile anti-race-condition rhetoric reveals that he wants to get rid of unsafe memory operations, rather than improving software in general"