Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers? | Hacker News Reader

Are self-driving cars safer than human drivers?

thegradient.pub

24 pointsatg_abhishek68 comments

James Bond, sitting in the night train, is having dinner with Vesper Lynd. "Wait a minute, you're saying self-driving cars are not safer than human drivers?". Bemused, James takes a sip of Bordeaux, and quips "You've noticed?".

I am a signalling engineer, with experience in design and delivery of autonomous trains (really autonomous, no driver, no nothing). Seriously, the conclusion makes me want to scream:

> Shouldn’t ADS developers be required to prove an ADS is at least as safe as a human driver for a specific ODD before allowing it out onto public roads?

To deliver an ADS thou shall:

1/ Identify the standards you are going to comply to (and I am talking about real standards, like EN 50126, SMS compliant with AS9100, not a Waymo brochure)

2/ Define your safety objectives (hint: for an ADS, it's going to be way way waaaaaay higher than human error rate). You don't self-define these. You need to talk to the safety authorities of the area were you intend to circulate.

3/ Build a safety case explaining how you achieve credibly these objectives (spoiler: testing will not be enough)

4/ Have your case examined by an independant safety assessor, accredited by a relevant national or trans-national authority

5/ Put your ego on a shelf.

Otherwise, thou shall kill people.

Simple. But it seems the automotive industry is ready to go to any length to avoid going through the concept of an independant safety assessor.

EDIT: Bullet points syntax

It's also not good enough for them to be better than average human drivers. There are many bad drivers and if you are a good driver, you wouldn't want to switch to anything less safe than your driving

Although a driver is not at fault in every accident they are involved in. Therefore it is possible that the good driver would be safer with an increased self-driving environment even if that individual's odds of causing an accident increase as long as the odds of other people causing an accident decrease.

I have nothing but a hunch to back it up, but I have a feeling getting the worst drivers off the road would provide a greater benefit to public safety that would outweigh the damage caused by downgrading the skills of the best drivers.

As I’ve understood it, this notion is a fallacy.

Some drivers are “better than others” but there are no “good drivers”.

Everyone gets tired, everyone’s gets older, everyone gets distracted, everyone drives in a new location (potentially with a different driving style).

I don’t know when it tips to be better off with the computer, but I’ll feel comfortable as soon as the crash/fatalities rates are equal or better than Uber/Lyft.

This is just semantics, there are people who are better at driving than most others will be in less crashes per mile driven over time.

So if there are no 'good drivers', everyone must be a 'bad driver', so if self driving cars are to be 'good', they need to be better than at least 100% of humans. High bar!

also, we have ways of testing tiredness and effects of age, so augmentation can improve many of the issues with human driving.

> It's also not good enough for them to be better than average human drivers

Of course it is, because it means there will be less deaths per million miles driven, which surely is the goal.

yes, eventually we want them to be better than the average driver, then better then the best, then (hypothetically) perfect. But the reality is the day they're better than the average, we'll be saving lives if we all switch over.

If you are talking about making it mandatory for everyone to switch, so human drivers are banned from the roads, I doubt you will be able to sell mere equality of performance by autonomous systems to the voting public. You can make as many greater good statistical arguments as you like, but you are still saying you are going to make many individual drivers and their passengers less safe.

This kind of equivalence is also ignoring the possibility of a catastrophic system failure that simply can't happen with human drivers.

I don't think any jurisdiction will ban human-driven cars in our lifetime, though I think it's likely they'll outlaw the sales of human-driven vehicles at some point, which means then it's just a matter time until there are no more human driven vehicles on the road. I have no idea if that point is 30 or 80 years away, but I think it will happen.

Exactly like what is happening with ICE vs. EV right now. Come 2030 there are plenty of places in the world you won't be able to buy a new ICE vehicle.. so a few decades after that there will be close to zero ICE on the road. Five or ten decades later there will be for all intents and purposes zero.

The irony of that comparison is that keeping some ICE vehicles on the road as EVs incrementally take over is actually helpful for the EVs since it limits the demand for related charging infrastructure that will take time to build. However, keeping some human-driven vehicles on the road as autonomous vehicles incrementally take over is very unhelpful for the AVs since humans introduce unpredictability and unexpected, unpredictable situations are the arch enemy of autonomous control systems.

no, it would only mean less deaths per million miles driven if those worse than self driving cars switch to it. If the best drivers switch to self driving cars, there will be more deaths per million miles. Duh

if you are a good driver

How do you objectively judge if you are such a good driver that you won't benefit?

Have you ever accelerated into the back of a fire truck, which was stationary on the freeway, with bright flashing lights on it, in dry conditions, with ideal visibility and lighting, while travelling at a mere 31 miles per hour? [1]

I mean, I acknowledge that some accidents will always be unavoidable. Urban driving where someone steps out from between vehicles. Challenging conditions like fog and dust clouds. Sensor malfunctions. A driver coming in the opposite direction swerving into your lane. I'm not saying a self-driving car should avoid 100% of accidents.

But avoiding large clearly visible stationary objects? I'd like to think most drivers on the road can manage that.

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HA...

At the same time self-driving cars have no doubt avoided many an accident that a human driver would have failed to avoid.

I think we have to accept that the failure modes between self driving and human driving will look very different. Humans will get into all kinds of accidents that a self-driving cars trivially will avoid. At the same time self-driving cars will probably continue to crash into things most humans would have avoided. We're going to have to look at safety records in aggregate to come to any meaningful conclusions.

And all that being said many a human has accidentally plowed their car into random stationary and highly visible objects for all kinds of stupid reasons, so it's not like machines are the only ones.

I think you're confusing a Tesla with a self-driving car.

There are things you can easily check: Number of prior crashes. Do you drive alone? Do you listen to radio/music/podcast while driving? Are you texting, making phone calls or talking to passengers while driving? Do you drive late/when you are tired? Do you always drive the same routes? Any health issues, age related or otherwise? How good is your eye sight and your hearing? I am sure there are still more things you can check objectively.

1. You can only really go on metrics of crashes with your fault, currently.

2. You can't really be certain

3. It would be good to be able to collect data of driver faults without crashes. But how do we do it without giving insurance companies more reasons to hike prices?

I agree.

However I just wanted to say that a good driver can still avoid crashes even if not 'at fault' by driving defensively.

A friend of mine is a bad driver (in my opinion) but has never had an at fault accident. They have however had plenty of not-at-fault accidents but we're probably somewhat to blame or could have avoided if being more careful.

I think this also translates to self-driving cars. I actually think automated cars have an edge there, because of 2 reasons:

1. Improved visibility: A human driver sits in the driver seat, and looks at the outside world from inside the car - partly through mirrors, partly with the view obscured. A self-driving car (at last current potential vehicles) has a view without being obstructed by the car's frame.

2. No limitation on focus: As a human driver, I can look to the front, or the back, or the sides, but I can't look everywhere all the time. I can do my best to maintain an overview of my surroundings, but need to update this constantly by changing where I'm looking - if I want to see if there's someone behind me, I (for a moment) have to stop looking where I'm going. Automated vehicles don't need to stop looking to the front to see to their back or the side. They can see a car 200 feet away coming from the right without having to miss the pedestrian coming from the left.

I'm not saying that self-proclaimed self-driving cars do this already, but looking at perception capabilities, self-driving cars have the potential to avoid more accidents than humans.

Exactly! There are still many ways you can driver safer, so you wouldn't actively pick a riskier option

and it seems to me from a bit of lookings for statistics just now that if you've been driving for a few years and haven't crashed, you're better than average

Because about 80% of all drivers consider themselves above-average I expect that bar to be placed unrealistically high.

It's plausible that 20% of drivers crash enough for 80% to be above average

'According to the AA Charitable Trust, 40% of UK drivers have crashed by the time they are 23 years old, and 26% of drivers have crashed within two years of obtaining their licence. (Source: https://m.toptests.co.uk/driving-statistics/)'

Although maybe not

I was a pretty crap driver before I was 23 (regardless of what I would have said then), but I'm not too bad now. Although, it depends on what you measure, I suppose; I've driven behind a Waymo vehicle, and they stay in the lines a lot more than me (which could be a positive for following rules, or a negative for increased drive times), but I also didn't ever change lanes into a bus expecting it would move, and I can avoid some of the annoying driving behaviors I used to see with Waymo (signal a lane change, decide not to do it, loop); not sure where they're at with that since I no longer live in their test areas.

thanaverage.xyz actually suggests that only 54% of people think they drive better than average, with 19014 participants

https://thanaverage.xyz/

Could you share your source?

Here is one of the classic research papers on the subject:

Iain A. McCormick, Frank H. Walkey, Dianne E. Green, Comparative perceptions of driver ability— A confirmation and expansion, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1986, Pages 205-208, ISSN 0001-4575, https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(86)90004-7. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001457586...)

"Hi, this is a recorded interview for a study we are running, have you ever committed an illegal act?"

"Nah."

"Thanks."

Can you see the bias?

I would indeed see the bias if that was the question that they were asking. Was it?

Almost.

They were asked to answer whether they considered themselves "foolish, unpredictable, unreliable, inconsiderate, dangerous, tense, worthless and/or irresponsible". Very few people would have answered truthfully.

> Levels 3-5 are considered Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) in which the driver does not need to pay attention to the road.

I'm going to say that's patently wrong.

as the article points out at level 3, the control system is likely to drop out and punt hard decisions over to the driver at any time. This is exceptionally dangerous because there is almost never enough time to react properly (unless the driver was actively paying attention)

at level 3 you really still need to pay attention.

I think Lvl3 is one of the most dangerous levels a car can be at, based on the experience Waymo (back then Chauffeur) made: Humans are even worse at monitoring than they are at driving. It's incredibly boring. Their test-drivers (who got extensive training for what to do and what not to do) started to do anything but pay attention, including taking a nap, before they pulled the plug on the incremental approach.

And we see this partially with Tesla now. Some drivers start to trust the system so much that they start to do anything but pay attention - partially even bypassing the pesky systems that remind them that they are required to take over at any moment.

I think you're being a little selective with your quoting there, as the article goes on to say

> One big issue for Level 3 vehicles is that a crash might occur in the 10 seconds the driver spends taking over, so Level 3 vehicles will probably need to include an ODD [operational design domain] where 10 seconds is reasonably safe (e.g. low-speed highway traffic jams).

Without a nationwide Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Infrastructure to Vehicle (I2V) communication system the answer is probably "No" and that's the elephant in the room no one is really talking about yet.

That's because the I2V would be hugely expensive to implement and maintain. Car companies are not going to pay for it, and it'd be a tough sell to taxpayers.

More expensive cars and roads are not a great move right now. When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs.

>When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs.

I bet human drivers are already mostly safe - I think most accidents are broadly in 3 categories, (1) impairment (drinking, age, sleep) or (2) distraction (cell phone, makeup) or (3) weather. The first two wont be solved by better training programs and the last would be really hard to make a requirement (how do you train people to drive in the snow in Los Angeles)?. If you want safer roads, it would be more wise to spend that money on public transportation. On a per capita basis it would be cheaper and safer.

That said I don't think the rush to autonomous driving is as altruistic as the developers claim. For $250B you could massively overhaul the transportation systems for major cities. However there is little upside to capture by doing do; while autonomous driving has the potential to create a last-mile autonomous transportation system that would massively reduce the costs of transporting goods and people (by removing labor costs). Capturing that upside is far more lucrative.

I think the question is less "we will only see AV commonplace when it's unilaterally safer than humans", and more "we will see AV commonplace when the value generated exceeds the potential costs of fatal accidents". It's after AV is commonplace will the value captured from human drivers be used to reduce costs in the failures of AV. For example, if UPS were to convert their 50% fleet to AV, then they would use the money saved to then invest in V2V or I2V infrastructure in order to accelerate the transition of the rest of their fleet.

I see you're looking at this mostly from a business value perspective and I guess in the end that's what it all comes down to, but I feel there is so much more value added than just "less drivers needed."

The cost of I2V for example can be offset by less waste in both space used to park cars, drive cars and maintain cars. You can utilize roads much better by having a lot of tiny single passenger vehicles that park themselves outside of the city when traffic is low. Also, travel time with public transportation is always longer than point-to-point, so people save time over that. There's too much for a HN comment that I can think of as benefits of AV.

how do you train people to drive in the snow in Los Angeles

The same way you train people to drive in the snow in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc. the 8-11 month of the year there is no snow on the ground.

I think most of the replies are tunnel-visioning on the snow-in-la-aspect. Even if you do start training people to start drive well in the snow, I don't think that will meaningfully reduce accidents, at least in LA. Especially when you consider DUIs and texting-and-driving contributes way more to accidents in LA.

Learning to drive in 'snow' has mostly been useful to me when driving in mud or very wet roads. But mostly seeing first hand how small the margins between total control and complete loss of control are has led to me driving far more defensively on wet roads. Just experiencing that feeling of sitting in a car that is spinning off doing its own thing and completely ignoring your feeble attempts at breaking and steering is illuminating.

Since you're allowed to drive in the snow when you have a driver's license it should be part of the training. You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate which should be possible in LA ;)

Also, aren't steep fines a good "training program" for distractions like holding your phone and messaging when driving?

>You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate

This is mandatory in Denmark. Most fun part of getting the license!

It was also the most illuminating and educational part. Doing the same maneuver at 50, 60 and 70 km/h clearly demonstrated how small the margins between easily avoiding an accident and ending up upside down in a ditch can be.

What we “need” is hard to say, but what we will get is what will sell more cars. Maybe those two align, but there might not beer a strong connection between them.

For example ambient lighting inside the car is largely a gimmick, but a fun one. Clearly not something benefiting society, but it seems to sell cars.

Human death rate is 1 in 100 mil. miles driven (all conditions)

iirc, AD rate is 1 in 1mil (ideal conditions).

I have my doubts about V2V and I2V communications. They'd simplify the task for automated systems, but come with a rat tail of problems.

I2V is incredibly hard to scale, and is a duplicated implementation of a pre-existing system (road markings & signs). Any system with duplicated implementations will grow inconsistencies. In those situations, the automated driver will be driving based on a differently perceived environment than the human driver - and it'll be hard to know. The automated system would also need to read lane markings & signs to recognize these inconsistencies and act accordingly, at which point the I2V communication is just a crutch to help the automated vehicle, reducing it's utility and hence the cost-value ratio (which is already insanely high).

V2V communication is unreliable by the fact that older vehicles won't support it, so automated vehicles won't be able to communicate with some (initially: most) cars. They'll need to be able to drive safely without communicating with nearby vehicles, so V2V is again just a "bonus" system a vehicle must not rely on.

Automated drivers will be safer than human drivers with time. It's an incredibly hard problem to solve, but it will be solved. Technology is improving continuously, and different companies are trying different approaches to solve the problem - which makes me optimistic in terms of automated drivers. Becoming safer than human drivers is mostly a matter of being able to drive with an automated system based on infrastructure optimized for humans. Sources of accidents will shift: From driver impairment, distraction and ignorance of rules, to misinterpretation of the environment. Additionally, and I think this is the key: If an accident happens, at best the involved human drivers improve their reaction to the specific situation. Automated drivers can share this new knowledge across the entire fleet.

Do you think it's (near-)impossible for computers to at least equal an awake human driver without that? If SDCs can "simply" achieve near-human capabilities, then they've already exceeded human safety simply by virtue of not being subject to the same distractions and impairments as humans.

Mind you, this is a hypothetical argument. If any of the major players thought they could make a strong statistical safety case, they'd already be publishing press releases and scaling.

> More expensive cars and roads are not a great move right now. When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs.

You’re making a good faith argument.

Would increasing minimums for car insurance make us more or less safe? I believe it would make us more safe, intuitively, and the effect would be reinforced by taking people off the road who can’t really afford to drive.

I agree about V2V and I2V.

But I don't agree about costs being the biggest issue atm. A lack of V2V/I2V standards is currently the largest issue.

The elephant in the room is public transportation motivating bad drivers to stay away from the car. "Oh but they won't," and maybe, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who would like to have someone else drive, not to mention bypassing the tickets and accidents (and repairs) that bad drivers experience.

Well, the biggest elephant in the room is ...there are no self driving cars out there in the wild.

Any near future self driving car will not be safer than a sobar, alert human driver any time soon, unless they have a directive to halt the vehicle at any difficult scenario.

We will not know before such a car exists and is tested under the exact same circumstances vs a human driver.

The edge cases are problem not only because they actually are a technical problem (which is undeniable) but because edge cases are an optics problem.

When self-driving goes wrong due to mishandled edge cases, people will be willing to ignore massive amounts of statistical evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans on average, and obsessively focus on the the failed edge cases.

"I don't care if self-driving cars have N times fewer accidents per kilometer, what about how that one one time when the Wile E. Coyote painted a picture of a tunnel on a cliff, and then a self-driving car tried to go into it and blew up in a giant ball of fire? It was all over the news man; self-driving is a joke."

Safer != better at driving.

Higher safety can be achieved by them being simply “as good” or even worse to some extent but the removal of the driver from multi passenger rides reduces casualties sufficiently to make them safer on average.

It's almost as if the author hasn't watched Knight rRider.

AI driving at a human level is equivalent to AGI, so I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

I don't think I would say that. Such an AI wouldn't need to pass a Turing test or be able to reason in any other situation than traffic. And for traffic, it will have a highly specialized sensory system which is going to be (or already is) vastly better than our eyes and ears.

>which is going to be (or already is) vastly better than our eyes and ears

Not even close, you underestimate what our sensory system is capable of.

Scenario 1: You're driving on a highway and you notice people on the opposite lane are coming in slowly, with hazard lights on and waving at you. Because of this you slow down and drive more carefully, to discover that there's been an accident/landslide/whatever right around the corner. Your whole lane is then, closed, but cars are going both ways using the other lane by taking turns, the whole thing is orchestrated by a few guys making signs at cars with their hands/flags, which you naturally follow. (This has happened to me at least 10 times in the past)

Scenario 2: Light rain is pouring down, you also know the temperature is quite close or below 0ºC, you slow down and drive with extreme caution as you're about to enter a stretch of road that is known to be prone for black ice formation.

Scenario 3: You're driving under crosswind when suddenly, the truck in front of you does this, [1]. None of the cars recording crashed with the truck, what do you think is the reason for that?

I could go on and on ...

Forget the dumb Turing tests, driving >= AGI.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwbbsgaRaQ

At least Scenario 2 should be much easier for self driving cars to manage than humans since they can (at least in theory) monitor the dampness, temperature and traction of the road they are on in real time. There are camera systems today that can detect black ice with combination of IR and image recognition, and in the future there might be systems like that along most roads that can send real time updates about upcoming hazards directly to the car.

Scenario 3 is functionally no different than a truck driving slowly and weaving back and forth erratically, something that should be part of the standard scenarios any self driving car should handle.

Scenario 1 is almost certainly the hardest one and the one that will take longest to solve.

>Scenario 2

Nope, it's not about detecting the ice or not. It's about being rational enough to be able to reason on those things in advance and act beforehand.

>Scenario 3

should is not a real thing. Humans already do it.

>Scenario 1

Yes, because solving it implies solving AGI.

This is the wrong question, and a loaded one besides. Self-driving cars do not (and will not, if you ask me) exist, and can't work within current asphalt traffic practices. Create a non-human driver who can drive equally as safely as a human (and not your grandma), then we'll talk about comparing strengths.

To be fair: Self-driving cars that can drive safer than some drivers already exist. Simply due to the nature how unsafe some humans drive. (Some of these drivers are elderly, some of these drivers are racers who think everyone slower than them drives like a grandma).

I'd be interested though why you think self-driving cars will not exist. Care to elaborate?

I'm more or less of the same opinion and honestly. The fact that human drivers are unsafe adding new "automated" drivers in the road would automatically make the human one safer? I don't think so. Before you can reach a point where all the cars are fully autonomous you'd need decades if not century and we're here discussing that having them on the road would be better. Well, we'd see what data once this cars are around brings to us, but human machine mixture in a road sounds like a mess that we'd want to be saved from.

Reason why self driving cars are rather hard to be mainstream:

- they're freaking expensive, currently, even the "normal cars" are not always accessible to everyone in this planet, yet we assume that the entire world population has enough money to buy Teslas and sleep while going to work like is an extension of California.

- despite having common traffic rules, people drive how they want to. If you've drove long enough and in different places of the world you'd notice that: traffic rules are an opinion, driving style changes from city to city within the same country, if not district to district. "Exception" are the norm: people park where they're not supposed to, people go where they're not supposed to, people stop where they're not supposed to like all the time.

- self driving cars make economical sense only under certain conditions, and even then the time spent automating that is yet to be proven effective. Of course you can argue that we've something working, but at this stage is rather a prototype that handle base cases.

If we want to have self driving car, just have them only. Not mix them with human to create a perfect condition to have new accidents were the insurance would have challenging time on defining who's fault.

I'd rather invest money on mass transportation systems (eg. Metro, train, buses)

Auotmated drivers don't make the human driver safer - they (should) make traffic safer by reducing the number of human drivers that would cause accidents. I don't think we're there yet, but I also don't think this is centuries away, based on the progress made in recent years. I also don't think this will be instantly world-wide: Distribution of automated vehicles will be just like the distribution of any other commodity. In some parts of this world it's infeasible to have a car for a significant portion of the population - it'd be ridiculous to assume those parts of the world will have self-driving cars by the time they're available in the Bay Area.

It's also inevitable that human and automated drivers will share infrastructure. That's where the development is going, it's what will happen. There won't be a switch like "from tomorrow on, only automated vehicles can drive in San Francisco".

I agree with the mass transportation system investment, particularly in the US. But if you argue against financial feasibility of self-driving cars in regions, you have to apply the same scrutiny to public transport investments.

My argument if that a mix of human plus self driving cars as yet to be tried at massive scale (eg. 50% self driving / 50% human or whatever that percentage is). With this mixture I don't think we will be able to actually "reduce" accident just because there are less human.

You've to see the distribution of whom create accident, example if 80% is caused by distraction then maybe you could reduce the number of accident by having self driving cars. But most of the current modern cars have many automatic detector that get triggered when a danger is detected.

We can say that these cars are expensive and as such people who buy old cars without this systems are more likely to cause accident.

The same people won't buy self driving cars due to the cost. So I'd argue that maybe we won't see much improvement unless a large percentage of people actually buy self driving cars

The technology is century away for mass distribution, same as cars nowadays are still not available in evey household around the world and there are plenty of countries driving super polluting cars taken from "first world" country

Ok, I think we're having 2 separate conversations:

a) What's the impact of self-driving cars at what point of distribution

and b) What's the distribution of self-driving cars going to be.

Regarding the impact: modern vehicles are getting better at minimizing the impact of accidents, and are starting to avoid accidents, mostly in the form of avoiding rear-ending another vehicle. But Self-driving cars are on another level there: They can recognize someone possibly running a red light, and act accordingly (not entering the intersection, evacuating the intersection quickly, etc.). They have sensors to continuously monitor their surroundings with a focus a human can't have, and modern vehicles don't bring the sensors for it because of the actions a human-driven vehicle can take are highly limited (Maybe a warning-beep, tightening seatbelts and prepping to fire airbags - but nothing in terms of avoidance. And you need a fairly fancy new vehicle for that). Additionally, also drivers of expensive / new vehicles crash. They have phones like anyone else, drink like anyone else, get tired or distracted like anyone else.

Regarding the distribution of self-driving cars: As I said, it's not feasible to assume that by the time you can buy or rent a self-driving car in the bay area, you'll also be able to buy or rent a self-driving car in Mogadishu. Additionally, ownership is one aspect of automated vehicles. Companies also aim for a service-type of business, where you basically take a cab - just without a driver (who again can get distracted, tired, etc.)

Now, if you say "we're a century away from having 50% self-driving cars in Somalia" - I wouldn't disagree. But the comment that started this discussion (and to which you said you have more or less the same opinion) questioned their present and future existence:

> Self-driving cars do not (and will not, if you ask me) exist

Maybe we're disagreeing on a misunderstanding?

> Companies also aim for a service-type of business, where you basically take a cab - just without a driver (who again can get distracted, tired, etc.)

I'm not seeing this with the current situation, given that everybody is aiming to sell the same amount of cars, but just self driving. That's how Tesla get the evaluation that it gets (total addressable market) and I can't see a fleet of robo taxi in the horizon yet.

So said, I'd agree if this is what we're leaning towards but again, is not what it seems to be going to be. If that would be the case, it falls under the "mass transportation" that I was referring to before.

> and to which you said you have more or less the same opinion

Well, they do not exists yet (Tesla even suggest not to run their car autonomously). Will not exists to the extend that we think they'd exists.

I think there would be space in which self driving will be probably adopted (eg. For example last mile delivery, robo taxi etc) but I can't see this being something that everybody must have. We can optimize the amount of cars around the roads by just sharing them. Yet all the current automakers + new one are addressing the problem (once again) but giving each and everyone of us a new self driving car. We need way less car, less pollution (electric cars still pollute, way less, but differently) more mass transportation systems. I can't see how this world can work with 7 billion people owning a car. Luckily there are countries where you can live without a car and where mass transportation is a thing.

So said, I was not the one writing that comment and I would've have said something like that either.

> I'm not seeing this with the current situation

It's what Waymo's is currently doing. So far, you only can get automated Taxis (in some regions) - you cannot buy an automated vehicle yet.

As I see we do agree that they will exist - and we also agree that they will never have 100% worldwide adoption. That would be a ludicrous assumption. Someone not buying a car now will not buy a self-driving car either. Someone never taking a cab will not take a driverless cab. I don't know how that was assumed or where that was ever claimed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com