[LINK] itN: 'Third fatal Tesla Autopilot crash ...'

[Karl Auer]

On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 13:36 +1000, David wrote:
> Therefore I suggest automated-vehicle technology currently offers no
> nett benefit _if_ everything is done according to the book.

If you mean net benefit in terms of human stress, then I'm afraid I
don't really care. I'm only interested in the benefit of not killing
people.

> The claimed benefits probably arise because the human drivers are
> usually not paying much attention in driverless mode.

Now you seem to be saying that it's better if the driver doesn't pay
attention?

> The often-quoted statistics on the known frequency of Tesla crashes
> almost certainly don't reflect the inherent capability of the current
> technology because of the requirement for a human driver, even if an
> imperfect one.  We also don't know (?) what proportion of the time
> they're operating in driverless mode, and how often crashes are
> avoided by skilful human drivers in nearby vehicles.

None of those things is relevant. We need only care about the efficacy
of the system as a whole. Is the system that includes driver-assisting
controls safer than one without, or not?

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Old fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4 9B0B 1D75