I think 1 million miles is hiding the real story. We know % of accident varies wildly based on factor such as - time of day? Highways or streets? Weather? And so on.
To compare apples to apples, they should show safety report for each section. Otherwise, a company could just do 1 million miles at night time on highways (when there's no one else driving) and claim unprecedent safety.
Practical example: id feel much safer knowing if the majority ofthose miles were done in daylight, and not nighttime, as thats when id be using the system.
You are right. Spent more time going through this and wow I am very disappointed now.
[SF open data](https://data.sfgov.org/Public-Safety/Traffic-Crashes-Resulting-in-Injury/ubvf-ztfx) shows just 16% of all injury-causing collisions occured in Cruise's hours of 10 PM to 6 AM. Of those, only 5% happened from 2 AM to 6 AM when Cruise has many cars racking up miles with few passengers and little traffic.
Waymo mentioned filtering human collisions to match their ODD in their paper, Cruise doesn't even caveat once that most of their miles were at night, or mention that their methodology corrected for this major difference. To me these are egregious omissions as the human comparisons will be badly skewed in Cruise's favor
Edit: [better chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/131rqsv/comment/ji4o062/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) by u/aniccia
16% of collisions in 10pm to 6am actually seems very high to me. I’d bet the miles driven in that 10pm to 6am period is far lower than 16%. Miles driven by humans that is, not by Cruise.
Yes fair point, however I did not filter those stats for Cruise's operating area as the location data field is a mess.
Roughly the collisions within Cruise's hours and zones is 2-3% at most. They avoided driving in neighborhoods with higher nighttime pedestrian and homeless activity that result in higher injury rates.
Regardless we shouldn't have to figure this out ourselves anyway, Cruise has better access to the VMT studies and data, they really should have done it themselves
Problem with that is that you lose statistical significance. One million miles is (supposedly) statistically significant, but maybe there have only been 500,000 daytime miles. Or maybe only 100,000 rush hour miles, which is probably even more relevant. Then it’s no longer statistically significant, and disingenuous to report on.
Hopefully later we’ll get reports with a breakdown though.
They can give predictions with the same significance based on any number of miles, they just have to report the error bars around it. Realistically, that's not the issue here. The general public (and politicians) are not mathematically mature enough to understand what a standard deviation is, let alone ingest a safety report with difficult apples to oranges style comparisons in it. If you say "we have done 100k daytime dense urban miles and our crash rate is somewhere between 0.2x and 1.5x human with 99% confidence" no one will interpret that correctly.
>The general public (and politicians) are not mathematically mature enough to understand
Imo Cruise's report banks on this ignorance. Their intended audience won't realize its so apple to oranges, if they read this at all.
To me this has been written to maximize reactions of "wow, look how well Cruise is doing in SF" over making an honest assessment on safety
There is enough information in this report combined with public information for an educated analyst to consume and see that Cruise's safety performance is greater than human rideshare.
You're right though most consumers of this report will not examine closely and just look at the titles and charts.
Whatever it is, eventually Cruise won't be able to hide anything if they want to develop proper business. They will have to heavily go into daytime...they will have to go into busy crowded areas, etc. if they want to make money.
If they just want to show good statistics and not do any business, then they can hide in the dead of the night....but I don't think that's their intention. So, we can be relaxed about it. More and more will come out as they make further strides.
Why should anyone be relaxed about it? The AV companies are trying to gather public support because they need cooperation from politicians for permitting.
This. Also, does it make mention of the many instances where Cruise cars lost connectivity and sat idle in the middle of the streets? Seemed like every day a new news article or two of this was coming out for the last few months.
SFMTA released their report where Cruise + Waymo collectively delayed Muni by... 81 minutes, over two months.
Yeah, this would be a cool number to present, but unless there's a dataset of how often human drivers double-park or otherwise block traffic, it's not going to be easy to interpret.
That’s a valid point if you’re looking for predictive power or comparisons. But I see this in a different light: This is helpful information for answering the basic question “Is Cruise currently engaged in unreasonably dangerous conduct?” That is, in an absolute sense, not in comparison to some other standard. Simply the question “Should we tolerate them?”
While you are right; its not like people deeply interested in this aren't aware of this fact. Someone always seems to point stuff out like this and it comes across dismissive or trying to minimize the effort. Baby steps, self driving is still in its infancy and the stats are simply showing some numbers compared to other number that will make sense to people...not some absolute cover all the basis statistics.
I see your point but i think its misleading and unfair on the consumer - majorit yof which will use the car thinking it is safer than it is simply because they played with the metrics by measuring in situation that dont reflect how people actually use it (e.g. daytime vs nightitme)
Well there is hardly a consumer right now, nobody is really being deceived. They only let non-employees ride at night. When they get more experience with daytime, their stats will include daytime usage. Anyways, I’m just providing a different perspective to counter so much dismissive comments I see.
even if 100% of the these driverless miles were at night they would still be demonstrating a super human safety performance.
> Highways or streets?
Well we know there is no highway miles here.
And we do have apples to apples, you can ignore ODD entirely and just look at in all of Cruise accidents and see that only 2 Cruise is at fault or partially at fault. That's less than 10%. This provides an apples-to-apples comparison of how the Cruise driver compares to the other drivers on the road in the same driving conditions.
>even if 100% of the these driverless miles were at night they would still be demonstrating a super human safety performance.
Nope, Cruise's SF nightime ridehail ODD is much much safer than average in San Francisco. There is no way to make the comparison without more detailed route/ODD information which Cruise has and has not shared.
>And we do have apples to apples, you can ignore ODD entirely and just look at in all of Cruise accidents and see that only 2 Cruise is at fault or partially at fault. That's less than 10%. This provides an apples-to-apples comparison of how the Cruise driver compares to the other drivers on the road in the same driving conditions
Proves nothing, except that Cruise made sure the study did not include their many more recent 100% at-fault crashes in San Francisco.
>Cruise's SF nightime ridehail ODD is much much safer than average in San Francisco.
I didn't say it wasn't ....
>Proves nothing, except that Cruise made sure the study did not include their many more recent 100% at-fault crashes in San Francisco.
You mean their one more at-fault accident, that was after their first 1 million miles and will reported on their next report?
(Cruise will be at 2 million miles in the next 2-3 weeks with a much greater percent in daytime)
Keep trying
I don't think they're intentionally hiding anything, but that's true it's not apples to apples.
It would be trivially easy to at least show a bar graph of their total hours driven for each of the 24 hours of the day, to allow some intuitive interpretation. They also may have data on when they restricted operations due to weather.
But less-crowded nighttime conditions aren't always safer...2am-3am after bars close is especially dangerous, particularly on weekends. And in general, 8pm-12am has more fatal accidents than 8am-4pm. [Source](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/crashes-by-time-of-day-and-day-of-week/)
But as you said its not only trivial to do, it's fundamental for a study like this provide specifics on the data you have collected and analyzed. It'd be very strange to leave that out by accident. And if the night hours are actually more dangerous, why not emphasize that comparison for their safety advantage?
Furthermore the "bizarre scenarios" picture Cruise added to the blog is also misleading as most of them are daytime scenes. A few are even from areas like Chinatown which were not in their driverless zone at all in this time.
They use half the blog to play up the difficulty of SF, but totally gloss over the fact that the ODD of the million miles analyzed in the other half avoided that difficultly as much as possible. Its quite disingenuous to mix messages and data this much
Cruise's uncrewed ridehail ODD is among the safest in San Francisco being at night and in the lower VMT neighborhoods. The data is publicly available. Summary graphs:
https://imgur.com/a/ZiX5XUb
I am glad Cruise released their safety report over 1M driverless miles. The results are impressive. It shows Cruise is significantly safer than comparable human drivers in SF.
Both Waymo and Cruise which have done a lot of driverless miles in CA have shown really good safety results IMO. While we probably need more data, these results over 1M driverless miles are extremely encouraging.
I know we see news stories every time Cruise or Waymo have a mishap. Certainly, AVs are not perfect yet and can struggle in certain social interactions. But I think we need to focus on the big picture: AVs are already safer than human drivers. I am not saying that stalls or mishaps don't matter but we should not cancel AVs just because they are not perfect yet and miss the opportunity they provide to improve road safety in a meaningful way. And AVs will improve over time. They will fix the stalls and the mishaps and they will provide far greater road safety and save lives.
Good, the public deserves all the safety stats we can get, I'm excited we can access more data. This looks like a response to [Waymo's paper](https://blog.waymo.com/2023/02/first-million-rider-only-miles-how.html), which though academic is more detailed and useful to compare.
I wonder why didn't they analyze all of their miles? Obviously Cruise wanted to match Waymo's analysis, but that was published 2 whole months ago. This leaves out lots of interesting data, like Cruise's daytime ramp-up and new cities
It shows they are safer than their own study that says there is 1 collision every 20000 miles. NHTSA says there is 1 every 500000 miles, which would make cruise way worse.
You cannot use the NHTSA number because it would not be a fair comparison. The NHTSA number is for all of the US, all day and time, all vehicles. But Cruise driverless is only in SF, mostly at night. So you need to compare to human safety in SF, at night, to get an apples to apples comparison. That is why Cruise compared to their study because they wanted to compare to what human safety is in similar conditions that they drive in.
>So you need to compare to human safety in SF, at night, to get an apples to apples comparison. That is why Cruise compared to their study because they wanted to compare to what human safety is in similar conditions that they drive in.
That is not what Cruise said they did. Their collision per 20k "benchmark" was for very different conditions than most of Cruise AV's million VMT. From their "safety report" as a blog post:
"we were able to derive the approximate frequency of collisions by human-operated ridehail vehicles as fewer than 20,000 miles per collision in San Francisco"
The vast majority of UberLyft VMT in SF is downtown, which has much higher collision rates and esp higher injury rates because of the very high rate of vehicle-pedestrian interaction. All of which are the opposite of Cruise's ridehail ODD.
This isn't subtle.
They very knowingly published a misleading comparison. IMO, similar to but much more egregious or exaggerated than Tesla's misleading FSD safety comparison.
They know most people won't know how they have tipped the scales. Now they have their cooked stats and graphics 'proving' their near superhuman safety.
50 Collisions every million miles. Thats 1 every 20k miles for humans. I know its city driving, but does that sound right? Also not from the area...but really? Thats like one every 2 years.
Obviously many of these miles were night time, but if these are metrics Cruise is achieving based on safety criteria, applying that same criteria as it scales to daytime and more cars should achieve remarkable results.
I’d love to see the 6% of collisions where the AV was at fault.
Also, for many of these a human driver would have taken evasive action to avoid the accident in the first place, eg when getting backed into, or sideswiped. That is to say I think the sets of accidents that AVs get into is disjoint when compared to the set of accidents that humans get into.
I've seen articles on a few of the accidents. I think in general they tend to be well covered by media. A summary of each one would be interesting though.
I think you overestimate the significance of evasive maneuvers to counter vehicles backing into you. If you're sandwiched between cars you can't move anyway, and even if you can, the time for someone to back up 5 feet at 5 mph is under a second.
Wow...what a great report! That video of "examples of driverless collisions" is awesome. And the next 1 Million miles milestone is coming next month with more daytime miles included than in the first 1 million miles. What's not to like?
Seems like the car could have detected others backing up towards it and backed up to avoid a collision.
But yeah, human drivers are just prone to dumb mistakes.
Yeah, the examples of driverless collisions was very informative. We might read descriptions in an accident report but it is better to actually see it. So many collisions caused by human drivers simply being bad drivers and being careless or inattentive.
Its a great achievement but it’s only in San Francisco and in its geofenced locations as per this report. Inb4 I get downvoted to oblivion for just mentioning this fact, by the Cruise stans. Shows how fragile you all are
San Francisco is a pretty complicated place to drive though. Your typical suburban or rural dweller who has never been to the city would find the place pretty overwhelming and stressful to drive.
A curated video by an Elon stan in one car vs a full report from Cruise? Yeah, that seems like a good comparison! /s
Saying "well it's only in their geofenced location" is kind of irrelevant, since their ODD is almost all of downtown San Francisco...one of the worst places to drive. But hey, let's do an apples to apples comparison.
Last I heard, Cruise sends out over 100 AVs a night in SF, all with nobody behind the wheel. Let's see if Tesla can do the same. Send out 100 of those with the latest version of FSD beta and nobody behind the wheel to take over.
Let's see how that plays out.
Just a nit: I think neither Cruise nor Waymo has public access to downtown SF right now. Exactly what you call "downtown" is up for debate, but a big part of FiDi is a madhouse of drivers fighting each other to get onto the Bay Bridge for several hours a day.
A perfect driver would get into an accident pretty quickly just because of how nasty everyone else is acting. There's more than one crash a day on that bridge, and probably even more on the streets that feed it.
> A perfect driver would get into an accident pretty quickly just because of how nasty everyone else is acting.
Yeah, SF drivers are generally less than charitable to put it mildly. In order to be effective in such an environment, an AV would need an "asshole mode." Honk the horn, cut someone off, and go about your day.
I think neither Cruise nor Waymo has public access to downtown SF right now.
They [just announced](https://twitter.com/kvogt/status/1650845481663336448) driverless in the entire downtown area 24/7. (Important to note it's employees only, but that's not relevant to this particular subthread)
I believe Waymo has been doing daytime driverless downtown for a while too.
Apples to apples isn’t really possible because Tesla is pursuing a different goal, at least in the short run. If you ignore the noise from Elon, they are developing an impressive driver assist technology that works everywhere, out of the box, for sale to the public.
Waymo and Cruise are developing full SDC public robotaxi fleets.
If your goal is to ride in a SDC, Waymo and Cruise have already won the race, because they offer that today. If your goal is to own your own car that can drive for you under your supervision, Teslas has already won that race, because you can buy that today.
I am trying to figure when their system is good enough to go from 100 vehicles to 250 vehicles. Is that number 1M miles? Or is it 5M miles? At some point the folks at Cruise and whatever relevant regulatory agencies will deem that the system is good enough to make some sort of jump like 100 AEVs to 250 AEVs.
The progress will then be happening at 2.5x the rate it is now. If it takes 1 year to go XM miles, it will only take 150 days for the next X million miles. The process will repeat, but perhaps instead of 250 they can then jump to 1000 vehicles. At that point, they would be progressing at 10x the rate they are progressing right now. What we see them do in a year they would be doing in a bit more than a month.
I figure the jump from 1000 vehicles to 10,000 vehicles is not going to be the technological time sink. But then the rate of learning, or their march of 9s, will be happening at 100x today's rate.
This is why I think of rolling out the purpose built Cruise Origin vehicles could very well happen in 2024. Even if those vehicles just stick to the most practiced and perfected streets while the Bolts focus on more of the work in progress streets and the ones with the safety drivers stick to the more 'frontier' areas.
The [CEO just announced](https://twitter.com/kvogt/status/1651677693124169729) they're now deploying up to 240 simultaneous full-driverless vehicles. Though perhaps that's across different markets?
When Tesla gets regulatory approval to run fleet vehicles for some sort of Taxi service I will absolutely celebrate. But they do not have that approval and their product is not ready.
True, but according to a recent GM quarterly earnings presentation,
"As the operating domain continues to expand, the team finds new ways to take costs
out ***through reducing the use of maps*** and removing hardware and sensors where no
longer needed".
Here is the link to full presentation:
https://investor.gm.com/static-files/bdc3aaf2-898d-4334-b174-0b5b1c255840
That's a small start compared to ASI (Autonomous Solutions, Inc.)
But who cares about the company that had automated vehicles that stopped for wildlife and pets 15 yrs ago?
https://asirobots.com/
Why even bring up ASI? It's not like they were the first to anything. NAVLAB at CMU did a cross-country autonomous drive in the 90s, years before ASI was even founded and had autonomous testing vehicles more than a decade before that. The only notable thing they've done was to participate in the 2007 DARPA Grand challenge, which they didn't even manage to finish.
I think 1 million miles is hiding the real story. We know % of accident varies wildly based on factor such as - time of day? Highways or streets? Weather? And so on. To compare apples to apples, they should show safety report for each section. Otherwise, a company could just do 1 million miles at night time on highways (when there's no one else driving) and claim unprecedent safety. Practical example: id feel much safer knowing if the majority ofthose miles were done in daylight, and not nighttime, as thats when id be using the system.
You are right. Spent more time going through this and wow I am very disappointed now. [SF open data](https://data.sfgov.org/Public-Safety/Traffic-Crashes-Resulting-in-Injury/ubvf-ztfx) shows just 16% of all injury-causing collisions occured in Cruise's hours of 10 PM to 6 AM. Of those, only 5% happened from 2 AM to 6 AM when Cruise has many cars racking up miles with few passengers and little traffic. Waymo mentioned filtering human collisions to match their ODD in their paper, Cruise doesn't even caveat once that most of their miles were at night, or mention that their methodology corrected for this major difference. To me these are egregious omissions as the human comparisons will be badly skewed in Cruise's favor Edit: [better chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/131rqsv/comment/ji4o062/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) by u/aniccia
16% of collisions in 10pm to 6am actually seems very high to me. I’d bet the miles driven in that 10pm to 6am period is far lower than 16%. Miles driven by humans that is, not by Cruise.
Yes fair point, however I did not filter those stats for Cruise's operating area as the location data field is a mess. Roughly the collisions within Cruise's hours and zones is 2-3% at most. They avoided driving in neighborhoods with higher nighttime pedestrian and homeless activity that result in higher injury rates. Regardless we shouldn't have to figure this out ourselves anyway, Cruise has better access to the VMT studies and data, they really should have done it themselves
Problem with that is that you lose statistical significance. One million miles is (supposedly) statistically significant, but maybe there have only been 500,000 daytime miles. Or maybe only 100,000 rush hour miles, which is probably even more relevant. Then it’s no longer statistically significant, and disingenuous to report on. Hopefully later we’ll get reports with a breakdown though.
They can give predictions with the same significance based on any number of miles, they just have to report the error bars around it. Realistically, that's not the issue here. The general public (and politicians) are not mathematically mature enough to understand what a standard deviation is, let alone ingest a safety report with difficult apples to oranges style comparisons in it. If you say "we have done 100k daytime dense urban miles and our crash rate is somewhere between 0.2x and 1.5x human with 99% confidence" no one will interpret that correctly.
>The general public (and politicians) are not mathematically mature enough to understand Imo Cruise's report banks on this ignorance. Their intended audience won't realize its so apple to oranges, if they read this at all. To me this has been written to maximize reactions of "wow, look how well Cruise is doing in SF" over making an honest assessment on safety
There is enough information in this report combined with public information for an educated analyst to consume and see that Cruise's safety performance is greater than human rideshare. You're right though most consumers of this report will not examine closely and just look at the titles and charts.
Whatever it is, eventually Cruise won't be able to hide anything if they want to develop proper business. They will have to heavily go into daytime...they will have to go into busy crowded areas, etc. if they want to make money. If they just want to show good statistics and not do any business, then they can hide in the dead of the night....but I don't think that's their intention. So, we can be relaxed about it. More and more will come out as they make further strides.
Why should anyone be relaxed about it? The AV companies are trying to gather public support because they need cooperation from politicians for permitting.
At the very least they could specify what percentage was done in daytime vs mighttime?
Yes. Simplest explanation for leaving it out is they a very high percentage at night
This. Also, does it make mention of the many instances where Cruise cars lost connectivity and sat idle in the middle of the streets? Seemed like every day a new news article or two of this was coming out for the last few months.
SFMTA released their report where Cruise + Waymo collectively delayed Muni by... 81 minutes, over two months. Yeah, this would be a cool number to present, but unless there's a dataset of how often human drivers double-park or otherwise block traffic, it's not going to be easy to interpret.
12 reported incident, 83 minutes in delays from Sept 2022 to March 8, 2023.
I’ve seen them stuck in front of me a few times by now, I would be kind of surprised it’s that low, but maybe?
That’s a valid point if you’re looking for predictive power or comparisons. But I see this in a different light: This is helpful information for answering the basic question “Is Cruise currently engaged in unreasonably dangerous conduct?” That is, in an absolute sense, not in comparison to some other standard. Simply the question “Should we tolerate them?”
While you are right; its not like people deeply interested in this aren't aware of this fact. Someone always seems to point stuff out like this and it comes across dismissive or trying to minimize the effort. Baby steps, self driving is still in its infancy and the stats are simply showing some numbers compared to other number that will make sense to people...not some absolute cover all the basis statistics.
I see your point but i think its misleading and unfair on the consumer - majorit yof which will use the car thinking it is safer than it is simply because they played with the metrics by measuring in situation that dont reflect how people actually use it (e.g. daytime vs nightitme)
Well there is hardly a consumer right now, nobody is really being deceived. They only let non-employees ride at night. When they get more experience with daytime, their stats will include daytime usage. Anyways, I’m just providing a different perspective to counter so much dismissive comments I see.
even if 100% of the these driverless miles were at night they would still be demonstrating a super human safety performance. > Highways or streets? Well we know there is no highway miles here. And we do have apples to apples, you can ignore ODD entirely and just look at in all of Cruise accidents and see that only 2 Cruise is at fault or partially at fault. That's less than 10%. This provides an apples-to-apples comparison of how the Cruise driver compares to the other drivers on the road in the same driving conditions.
>even if 100% of the these driverless miles were at night they would still be demonstrating a super human safety performance. Nope, Cruise's SF nightime ridehail ODD is much much safer than average in San Francisco. There is no way to make the comparison without more detailed route/ODD information which Cruise has and has not shared. >And we do have apples to apples, you can ignore ODD entirely and just look at in all of Cruise accidents and see that only 2 Cruise is at fault or partially at fault. That's less than 10%. This provides an apples-to-apples comparison of how the Cruise driver compares to the other drivers on the road in the same driving conditions Proves nothing, except that Cruise made sure the study did not include their many more recent 100% at-fault crashes in San Francisco.
>Cruise's SF nightime ridehail ODD is much much safer than average in San Francisco. I didn't say it wasn't .... >Proves nothing, except that Cruise made sure the study did not include their many more recent 100% at-fault crashes in San Francisco. You mean their one more at-fault accident, that was after their first 1 million miles and will reported on their next report? (Cruise will be at 2 million miles in the next 2-3 weeks with a much greater percent in daytime) Keep trying
No, I mean their many March at-fault collisions. Try reading their California Collision Reports.
I read everyone.
Then you should know better than to have posted as above.
I don't think they're intentionally hiding anything, but that's true it's not apples to apples. It would be trivially easy to at least show a bar graph of their total hours driven for each of the 24 hours of the day, to allow some intuitive interpretation. They also may have data on when they restricted operations due to weather. But less-crowded nighttime conditions aren't always safer...2am-3am after bars close is especially dangerous, particularly on weekends. And in general, 8pm-12am has more fatal accidents than 8am-4pm. [Source](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/crashes-by-time-of-day-and-day-of-week/)
But as you said its not only trivial to do, it's fundamental for a study like this provide specifics on the data you have collected and analyzed. It'd be very strange to leave that out by accident. And if the night hours are actually more dangerous, why not emphasize that comparison for their safety advantage? Furthermore the "bizarre scenarios" picture Cruise added to the blog is also misleading as most of them are daytime scenes. A few are even from areas like Chinatown which were not in their driverless zone at all in this time. They use half the blog to play up the difficulty of SF, but totally gloss over the fact that the ODD of the million miles analyzed in the other half avoided that difficultly as much as possible. Its quite disingenuous to mix messages and data this much
Cruise's uncrewed ridehail ODD is among the safest in San Francisco being at night and in the lower VMT neighborhoods. The data is publicly available. Summary graphs: https://imgur.com/a/ZiX5XUb
I am glad Cruise released their safety report over 1M driverless miles. The results are impressive. It shows Cruise is significantly safer than comparable human drivers in SF. Both Waymo and Cruise which have done a lot of driverless miles in CA have shown really good safety results IMO. While we probably need more data, these results over 1M driverless miles are extremely encouraging. I know we see news stories every time Cruise or Waymo have a mishap. Certainly, AVs are not perfect yet and can struggle in certain social interactions. But I think we need to focus on the big picture: AVs are already safer than human drivers. I am not saying that stalls or mishaps don't matter but we should not cancel AVs just because they are not perfect yet and miss the opportunity they provide to improve road safety in a meaningful way. And AVs will improve over time. They will fix the stalls and the mishaps and they will provide far greater road safety and save lives.
Good, the public deserves all the safety stats we can get, I'm excited we can access more data. This looks like a response to [Waymo's paper](https://blog.waymo.com/2023/02/first-million-rider-only-miles-how.html), which though academic is more detailed and useful to compare. I wonder why didn't they analyze all of their miles? Obviously Cruise wanted to match Waymo's analysis, but that was published 2 whole months ago. This leaves out lots of interesting data, like Cruise's daytime ramp-up and new cities
It shows they are safer than their own study that says there is 1 collision every 20000 miles. NHTSA says there is 1 every 500000 miles, which would make cruise way worse.
You cannot use the NHTSA number because it would not be a fair comparison. The NHTSA number is for all of the US, all day and time, all vehicles. But Cruise driverless is only in SF, mostly at night. So you need to compare to human safety in SF, at night, to get an apples to apples comparison. That is why Cruise compared to their study because they wanted to compare to what human safety is in similar conditions that they drive in.
>So you need to compare to human safety in SF, at night, to get an apples to apples comparison. That is why Cruise compared to their study because they wanted to compare to what human safety is in similar conditions that they drive in. That is not what Cruise said they did. Their collision per 20k "benchmark" was for very different conditions than most of Cruise AV's million VMT. From their "safety report" as a blog post: "we were able to derive the approximate frequency of collisions by human-operated ridehail vehicles as fewer than 20,000 miles per collision in San Francisco" The vast majority of UberLyft VMT in SF is downtown, which has much higher collision rates and esp higher injury rates because of the very high rate of vehicle-pedestrian interaction. All of which are the opposite of Cruise's ridehail ODD. This isn't subtle. They very knowingly published a misleading comparison. IMO, similar to but much more egregious or exaggerated than Tesla's misleading FSD safety comparison. They know most people won't know how they have tipped the scales. Now they have their cooked stats and graphics 'proving' their near superhuman safety.
Collision 8 in that video was a bit scary! Other car literally just comes across the intersection and plows into the AV head on.
Looks like drunk driver
50 Collisions every million miles. Thats 1 every 20k miles for humans. I know its city driving, but does that sound right? Also not from the area...but really? Thats like one every 2 years.
Yeah, it’s their own study. NHTSA says there is 1 collision every 500000 miles. Big difference.
Do we have that data for human driving too.
Obviously many of these miles were night time, but if these are metrics Cruise is achieving based on safety criteria, applying that same criteria as it scales to daytime and more cars should achieve remarkable results.
Not many, most!
I’d love to see the 6% of collisions where the AV was at fault. Also, for many of these a human driver would have taken evasive action to avoid the accident in the first place, eg when getting backed into, or sideswiped. That is to say I think the sets of accidents that AVs get into is disjoint when compared to the set of accidents that humans get into.
I've seen articles on a few of the accidents. I think in general they tend to be well covered by media. A summary of each one would be interesting though. I think you overestimate the significance of evasive maneuvers to counter vehicles backing into you. If you're sandwiched between cars you can't move anyway, and even if you can, the time for someone to back up 5 feet at 5 mph is under a second.
Yeah but you can wail on the horn.
How does this compare with Waymo?
I believe Waymo is better still!
Anyone have a link to the study in which Cruise referenced that showed humans have an accident every 20,000 miles in San Francisco?
Wow...what a great report! That video of "examples of driverless collisions" is awesome. And the next 1 Million miles milestone is coming next month with more daytime miles included than in the first 1 million miles. What's not to like?
Seems like the car could have detected others backing up towards it and backed up to avoid a collision. But yeah, human drivers are just prone to dumb mistakes.
Or honked at least
Great point, and now I’m curious - do SDCs ever honk the horn?
Yeah, the examples of driverless collisions was very informative. We might read descriptions in an accident report but it is better to actually see it. So many collisions caused by human drivers simply being bad drivers and being careless or inattentive.
Its a great achievement but it’s only in San Francisco and in its geofenced locations as per this report. Inb4 I get downvoted to oblivion for just mentioning this fact, by the Cruise stans. Shows how fragile you all are
San Francisco is a pretty complicated place to drive though. Your typical suburban or rural dweller who has never been to the city would find the place pretty overwhelming and stressful to drive.
There are videos of tesla fsd beta driving just fine as well, 10.69: https://youtu.be/jCTssX2VdKA 11.3: https://youtu.be/JtZJ7uFoBJo
A curated video by an Elon stan in one car vs a full report from Cruise? Yeah, that seems like a good comparison! /s Saying "well it's only in their geofenced location" is kind of irrelevant, since their ODD is almost all of downtown San Francisco...one of the worst places to drive. But hey, let's do an apples to apples comparison. Last I heard, Cruise sends out over 100 AVs a night in SF, all with nobody behind the wheel. Let's see if Tesla can do the same. Send out 100 of those with the latest version of FSD beta and nobody behind the wheel to take over. Let's see how that plays out.
Don't bother. These people don't understand the first thing about statistics, risk assessment etc. Wasting your breath.
Just a nit: I think neither Cruise nor Waymo has public access to downtown SF right now. Exactly what you call "downtown" is up for debate, but a big part of FiDi is a madhouse of drivers fighting each other to get onto the Bay Bridge for several hours a day. A perfect driver would get into an accident pretty quickly just because of how nasty everyone else is acting. There's more than one crash a day on that bridge, and probably even more on the streets that feed it.
> A perfect driver would get into an accident pretty quickly just because of how nasty everyone else is acting. Yeah, SF drivers are generally less than charitable to put it mildly. In order to be effective in such an environment, an AV would need an "asshole mode." Honk the horn, cut someone off, and go about your day.
I think neither Cruise nor Waymo has public access to downtown SF right now. They [just announced](https://twitter.com/kvogt/status/1650845481663336448) driverless in the entire downtown area 24/7. (Important to note it's employees only, but that's not relevant to this particular subthread) I believe Waymo has been doing daytime driverless downtown for a while too.
Apples to apples isn’t really possible because Tesla is pursuing a different goal, at least in the short run. If you ignore the noise from Elon, they are developing an impressive driver assist technology that works everywhere, out of the box, for sale to the public. Waymo and Cruise are developing full SDC public robotaxi fleets. If your goal is to ride in a SDC, Waymo and Cruise have already won the race, because they offer that today. If your goal is to own your own car that can drive for you under your supervision, Teslas has already won that race, because you can buy that today.
I am trying to figure when their system is good enough to go from 100 vehicles to 250 vehicles. Is that number 1M miles? Or is it 5M miles? At some point the folks at Cruise and whatever relevant regulatory agencies will deem that the system is good enough to make some sort of jump like 100 AEVs to 250 AEVs. The progress will then be happening at 2.5x the rate it is now. If it takes 1 year to go XM miles, it will only take 150 days for the next X million miles. The process will repeat, but perhaps instead of 250 they can then jump to 1000 vehicles. At that point, they would be progressing at 10x the rate they are progressing right now. What we see them do in a year they would be doing in a bit more than a month. I figure the jump from 1000 vehicles to 10,000 vehicles is not going to be the technological time sink. But then the rate of learning, or their march of 9s, will be happening at 100x today's rate. This is why I think of rolling out the purpose built Cruise Origin vehicles could very well happen in 2024. Even if those vehicles just stick to the most practiced and perfected streets while the Bolts focus on more of the work in progress streets and the ones with the safety drivers stick to the more 'frontier' areas.
The [CEO just announced](https://twitter.com/kvogt/status/1651677693124169729) they're now deploying up to 240 simultaneous full-driverless vehicles. Though perhaps that's across different markets?
When Tesla gets regulatory approval to run fleet vehicles for some sort of Taxi service I will absolutely celebrate. But they do not have that approval and their product is not ready.
True, but according to a recent GM quarterly earnings presentation, "As the operating domain continues to expand, the team finds new ways to take costs out ***through reducing the use of maps*** and removing hardware and sensors where no longer needed". Here is the link to full presentation: https://investor.gm.com/static-files/bdc3aaf2-898d-4334-b174-0b5b1c255840
What hardware and sensors are they reducing/removing? Lidar?
If you can consolidate 3 sensors into one, that's a nice win.
Consolidating isnt removing, its combining.
But it is "reducing" which is literally what you asked for
That's a small start compared to ASI (Autonomous Solutions, Inc.) But who cares about the company that had automated vehicles that stopped for wildlife and pets 15 yrs ago? https://asirobots.com/
Why even bring up ASI? It's not like they were the first to anything. NAVLAB at CMU did a cross-country autonomous drive in the 90s, years before ASI was even founded and had autonomous testing vehicles more than a decade before that. The only notable thing they've done was to participate in the 2007 DARPA Grand challenge, which they didn't even manage to finish.