Exactly! You actually CAN have 50 people finish something 50x faster, but it takes a shitload of planning, and that equals time and money no company I have ever worked for, or even known of, would allocate to something that isn't generating immediate income.
Take the Hoover Dam for example: Dsigned over 3 ish years and built in 5, at a time when nothing that huge had ever been made before, at less than a billion in today money, and 2 years ahead of schedule. It's 90 years old.
It doesn't pay well, but "park ranger" is exactly that.
Fuck. That's exactly it.
I'm gonna need a bell curve hooded figure meme template of this comment, this is comedy gold.
nothing, it's an open standard now: SAE J3400
Those people can just carve "FUCK" into their own foreheads, then everyone will know they're fuckheads, no patches required.
Once more, I'm literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone's point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you're talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn't, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn't work unless that context is there.
(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here's the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI's for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla%20drivers%20have%20the%20highest%20accident%20rate%20compared%20with%20all,over%2020.00%20per%201%2C000%20drivers.)
No one's talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I'm not justifying anything because I'm not injecting my opinion here. I'm only pointing out that without context, counts don't give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that's just math. You can't even derive a rate without that context!
If you're worried about the veracity of the claims, I can assure you they're true.
The NHSTA hasn't issued rules for these things either.
the U.S. gov has issued general guidelines for the technology/industry here:
https://www.transportation.gov/av/4
They have an article on it discussing levels of automation here:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/automated-vehicles-safety
By all definitions layed out in that article:
BlueCruise, Super Cruise, Mercedes' thing is a lvl3 system ( you must be alert to reengage when the conditions for their operation no longer apply )
Tesla's FSD is a lvl 3 system (the system will warn you when you must reengage for any reason)
Waymo and Cruise are a lvl 4 system (geolocked)
Lvl 5 systems don't exist.
What we don't have is any kind of federal laws:
https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles
Separated into two sections – voluntary guidance and technical assistance to states – the new guidance focuses on SAE international levels of automation 3-5, clarifies that entities do not need to wait to test or deploy their ADS, revises design elements from the safety self-assessment, aligns federal guidance with the latest developments and terminology, and clarifies the role of federal and state governments.
The guidance reinforces the voluntary nature of the guidelines and does not come with a compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism.
(emphasis mine)
The U.S. has operated on a "states are laboratories for laws" principal since its founding. The current situation is in line with that principle.
These are not my opinions, these are all facts.
Kevin