Assume 0.00034% chance of an anomaly for every mile driven, we have 340 anomalies per 100 millions miles driven.
According to AAA, drivers between the ages of 25 and 29 have 526 crashes per 100 million miles driven.
Humans are incompetent drivers to an extent we would never accept for robots. If we tried releasing automonaous vehicles that were even 100x safer then humans, we would end up banning them for a generation.
That’s not how the math works. At a 0.00034% chance of an anomaly every mile, you have a 50% chance of an anomaly every 200,000 miles. (1-0.0000034)^200,000. Humans go 500,000 miles between crashes. Of course an anomaly doesn’t necessarily mean a crash, but if you don’t require the human operator to be paying attention all the time, it could well lead to a crash with a high probability. Indeed, because a anomaly would likely confuse a whole bunch of cars on the road at the same time, it could well lead to catastrophic and cascading failures. Unless you posit the existence of inter-car communications technology which doesn’t get exist.
Considering the average person drives 10,000 miles per year, that means the average person could live to 10,000 and not have a single crash.
> Humans are incompetent drivers
No, not really. Humans are actually such good drivers that computers have absolutely no chance of even coming close. Computer can't even stay running without crashing that long, never mind actually driving a car.
Considering the average person drives 10,000 miles per year, that means the average person could live to 10,000 and not have a single crash.
Your math is a little off. 100,000,000 / 526 is a crash every 190,000 miles. So every 19 years, not 10,000 years.
I guess I've been unlucky. In probably 500,000 miles of driving in my life, I've been rear-ended 3 times. Fortunately all at low speed, by distracted drivers, e.g. a mom with screaming small children.
That doesn't even count the time I tried to turn right from the left lane. It didn't end well for my car and was the only accident I was at fault for. And there were a few other accidents as well.
Perhaps "crash" is defined as including an injury? That makes the statistic more believable, because nobody ever got hurt in any of my misadventures. All my "crashes" just involved car body damage.
I didn't look into their methodology, but I would guess that crash was implicitly defined as reported crash. I've had a fair number of low speed collisions where we never bothered to report it.
According to AAA, drivers between the ages of 25 and 29 have 526 crashes per 100 million miles driven.
Humans are incompetent drivers to an extent we would never accept for robots. If we tried releasing automonaous vehicles that were even 100x safer then humans, we would end up banning them for a generation.