Comment by Veserv

Comment by Veserv 3 days ago

Err, that is not the desirable statistic you seem to think it is. American drivers average ~3 trillion miles per year [1]. That means ~7000 child pedestrian injurys per year [2] would be ~1 per 430 million miles. Waymo has done on the order of 100-200 million miles autonomously. So this would be ~2-4x more injurys than the human average.

However, the child pedestrian injury rate is only a official estimate (it is possible it may be undercounting relative to highly scrutinized Waymo vehicle-miles) and is a whole US average (it might not be a comparable operational domain), but absent more precise and better information, we should default to the calculation of 2-4x the rate.

[1] https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315

[2] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8137...

10000truths 3 days ago

I suspect that highway miles heavily skew this statistic. There's naturally far fewer pedestrians on highways (lower numerator), people travel longer distances on highways (higher denominator), and Waymo vehicles didn't drive on highways until recently. If you look only at non-highway miles, you'll get a much more accurate comparison.

Reply View 4 replies

Veserv 3 days ago

Then you or Waymo can meet the burden of proof and present that more precise and better information. There is little reason to assume against safety at this point in time except as a intellectual exercise for how more accurate information could be found.
Until then, it is only prudent to defer snap judgements, but increase caution, insist on rigor and transparency, and demand more accurate information.

Reply View | 3 replies
- jatora 3 days ago
  
  Does common sense not factor in here at all? Advocating for such rigor is fine, but a refusal to state an opinion just reeks of bias
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- [removed] 3 days ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- [removed] 3 days ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

smarnach 3 days ago

> we should default to the calculation of 2-4x the rate.

No we should not. We should accept that we don't have any statistically meaningful number at all, since we only have a single incident.

Let's assume we roll a standard die once and it shows a six. Statistically, we only expect a six in one sixth of the cases. But we already got one on a single roll! Concluding Waymo vehicles hit 2 to 4 times as many children as human drivers is like concluding the die in the example is six times as likely to show a six as a fair die.

Reply View 5 replies

akoboldfrying 3 days ago

More data would certainly be better, but it's not as bad as you suggest -- the large number of miles driven till first incident does tell us something statistically meaningful about the incident rate per mile driven. If we view the data as a large sample of miles driven, each with some observed number of incidents, then what we have is "merely" an extremely skewed distribution. I can confidently say that, if you pick any sane family of distributions to model this, then after fitting just this "single" data point, the model will report that P(MTTF < one hundredth of the observed number of miles driven so far) is negligible. This would hold even if there were zero incidents so far.

Reply View | 1 reply
- smarnach 3 days ago
  
  We get a statistically meaningful result about an upper bound of the incident rate. We get no statistically meaningful lower bound.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
NewJazz 3 days ago

Uh, the miles driven is like rolling the die, not hitting kids.

Reply View | 2 replies
- smarnach 3 days ago
  
  Sure, but we shouldn't stretch the analogy too far. Die rolls are discrete events, while miles driven are continuous. We expect the number of sixes we get to follow a binomial distribution, while we expect the number of accidents to follow a Poisson distribution. Either way, trying to guess the mean value of the distribution after a single incident of the event will never give you a statistically meaningful lower bound, only an upper bound.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  akoboldfrying 3 days ago
  
  The Poisson distribution is well approximated by the binomial distribution when n is high and p is low, which is exactly the case here. Despite the high variance in the sample mean, we can still make high-confidence statements about what range of incident rates are likely -- basically, dramatically higher rates are extremely unlikely. (Not sure, but I think it will turn out that confidence in statements about the true incident rate being lower than observed will be much lower.)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

Jblx2 3 days ago

Would this Waymo incident be counted as an injury? Sounds like the victim was relatively unharmed? Presumably there are human-driver incidents like this where a car hits a child at low speeds, with effectively no injuries, but is never recorded as such?

Reply View 0 replies

maerF0x0 3 days ago

If that's the case, then that's great info. Thank you for adding :)

Reply View 0 replies