Federal depreciation accounts for maintenance and gas as far as I know.
At 3 Dollars/gallon and 30miles/gallon you’re at 10c a mile already. Between tires, oil, other maintenance, and loss of capital value which removes 80% of the value of the car in 60,000 miles or sommat, i am pretty sure you’re going to hit .57 cents/mile sooner rather than later. I trust the govts numbers here more than your back of the envelope “no that doesn’t count” math. Especially considering that insurance isn’t a flat rate good.
Quoting myself to say that I would be surprised if this number was “inflated”. The way taxes work is that you can itemize or take the standard deduction. And mileage is no different. So if your expenses are higher you could take a larger deduction in that year.
I would then expect that the IRS to then undercut the average as it would expect high cost users to deduct more.
Looking at estimation of taxi costs this seems right. Vehicle only costs in New South Wales Australia for instance run about $1.32 per mile(for taxis, does not include licensing fees or labor costs) AAA says the average cost was 60.8c in 2013
An analysis of the costs backs this up. Notably the high usage costs are actually underestimated because the insurance assumption is “middle aged small town 3-10 miles per day”. And well taxis aren’t that
Using the small sedan values from your link
10000 miles: TCO 5820
15000 miles: TCO 6735, marginal per-mile: 18.3c
20000 miles: TCO 7600, marginal per-mile: 17.3c from 15k, 17.8 from 10k
This is almost perfectly linear so we could say the proper cost for this type of vehicle is ~4000 + 18c/mile. Which if you read their article accounts for finance, age-based depreciation (if it sits in your driveway and isn't a "classic" car it still loses value), license & registration and insurance
One other thing to remember about the standard mileage rates, they are intended for use essentially by individual taxpayers using their car for work, the rules specify
Standard Mileage Rate - For the current standard mileage rate, refer to Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses, or search standard mileage rates on IRS.gov. To use the standard mileage rate, you must own or lease the car and: You must not operate five or more cars at the same time, as in a fleet operation,
You must not have claimed a depreciation deduction for the car using any method other than straight-line,
You must not have claimed a Section 179 deduction on the car,
You must not have claimed the special depreciation allowance on the car,
You must not have claimed actual expenses after 1997 for a car you lease, and
You can't be a rural mail carrier who received a "qualified reimbursement."
So a taxi or rental company can't claim the standard rate on their cars, they have to figure actual costs, presumably because it would be lower. I would expect the IRS reimbursement rate to be somewhat higher than the actual marginal rate given that it is inaccessible to most businesses and is intended as a shortcut for individuals who may not even have the data available to calculate real costs
Yes and the sunk portions add up to about 5c a mile so I have no clue where you’re getting your marginal rates from.
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
Yes and the sunk portions add up to about 5c a mile so I have no clue where you’re getting your marginal rates from.
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
No. That is now how marginal costs work in this situation because the “fixed” costs are not actually fixed even if they are convenient for average cost assumptions.
We have been over this before. Your insurance costs are not fixed. If you drive more than the allotted you’re at risk of perpetrating a fraud on your insurance company and losing coverage while forfeiting your premiums. Your depreciation is not fixed (the “age based depreciation” is actually a mileage based depreciation based on the average miles driven for a number of years because estimating value based solely on mileage is difficult without compete market information that does not exist!).
You really do pay that much more money when you drive more. And these estimations are under what it costs to run taxis on a maintenance/fuel basis only.
Yes and the sunk portions add up to about 5c a mile so I have no clue where you’re getting your marginal rates from.
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
No. That is now how marginal costs work in this situation because the “fixed” costs are not actually fixed even if they are convenient for average cost assumptions.
We have been over this before. Your insurance costs are not fixed. If you drive more than the allotted you’re at risk of perpetrating a fraud on your insurance company and losing coverage while forfeiting your premiums. Your depreciation is not fixed (the “age based depreciation” is actually a mileage based depreciation based on the average miles driven for a number of years because estimating value based solely on mileage is difficult without compete market information that does not exist!).
You really do pay that much more money when you drive more. And these estimations are under what it costs to run taxis on a maintenance/fuel basis only.
Presumably the AAA data is accounting for the increased insurance costs and if you don't believe age is a factor you can just look up the same make/model in different years with the same mileage in either a blue book value or a used car website and they won't be the same price. 10k, 15k, 20k are pretty much all exactly on a linear fixed + rate*miles line, this is your linked data
We can model insurance as a fixed cost to get any insurance at all plus another $X/5000 miles or whatever
And there are two studies, one by MIT one by Stanford linked earlier and both conclude the actual ownership cost is ~25-30c/mile
Yes and the sunk portions add up to about 5c a mile so I have no clue where you’re getting your marginal rates from.
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
No. That is now how marginal costs work in this situation because the “fixed” costs are not actually fixed even if they are convenient for average cost assumptions.
We have been over this before. Your insurance costs are not fixed. If you drive more than the allotted you’re at risk of perpetrating a fraud on your insurance company and losing coverage while forfeiting your premiums. Your depreciation is not fixed (the “age based depreciation” is actually a mileage based depreciation based on the average miles driven for a number of years because estimating value based solely on mileage is difficult without compete market information that does not exist!).
You really do pay that much more money when you drive more. And these estimations are under what it costs to run taxis on a maintenance/fuel basis only.
Presumably the AAA data is accounting for the increased insurance costs and if you don't believe age is a factor you can just look up the same make/model in different years with the same mileage in either a blue book value or a used car website and they won't be the same price. 10k, 15k, 20k are pretty much all exactly on a linear fixed + rate*miles line, this is your linked data
And there are two studies, one by MIT one by Stanford linked earlier and both conclude the actual ownership cost is ~30c/mile
Yes and the sunk portions add up to about 5c a mile so I have no clue where you’re getting your marginal rates from.
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
No. That is now how marginal costs work in this situation because the “fixed” costs are not actually fixed even if they are convenient for average cost assumptions.
We have been over this before. Your insurance costs are not fixed. If you drive more than the allotted you’re at risk of perpetrating a fraud on your insurance company and losing coverage while forfeiting your premiums. Your depreciation is not fixed (the “age based depreciation” is actually a mileage based depreciation based on the average miles driven for a number of years because estimating value based solely on mileage is difficult without compete market information that does not exist!).
You really do pay that much more money when you drive more. And these estimations are under what it costs to run taxis on a maintenance/fuel basis only.
Presumably the AAA data is accounting for the increased insurance costs and if you don't believe age is a factor you can just look up the same make/model in different years with the same mileage in either a blue book value or a used car website and they won't be the same price. 10k, 15k, 20k are pretty much all exactly on a linear fixed + rate*miles line, this is your linked data
And there are two studies, one by MIT one by Stanford linked earlier and both conclude the actual ownership cost is ~30c/mile
It literally explains that they do not prorate those things in that manner. The AAA data is for a very specific personal use ranges.
If you go read the source pdf it explicitly breaks things down into fixed + operating per mile costs and includes depreciation adjustments for increased usage! And just because AAA says their data is based on the assumption of lower usage doesn't mean it has zero applicability to higher usage, especially when their assumption is 15k/year and they still provide data and adjustments for 20k. Why would you expect a massive jump in costs if you drive 30k?
Women who sued Uber on the assertion that the company’s policies failed to protect them and others from sexual misconduct want to have their case heard by a jury. But they say Uber’s terms of service have forced them into arbitration, meaning anyone who uses the app must settle disputes behind closed doors through a third party—not the courts, where proceedings would be public.
The two women who say they were raped by their Uber drivers first filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber in November, arguing that the company failed to conduct rigid enough background checks on drivers and and lacked adequate safety policies. Uber responded in February by filing a motion that said that all the class-action members are legally bound by arbitration, according to the case timeline. On Thursday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed an amended lawsuit, which added seven women to the complaint.
“In gutless fashion, Uber responded to this lawsuit by attempting to force Jane Does, and all other similarly harmed women passengers, to cede their right to the public court system and force them into the soundless halls of arbitration,” the amended lawsuit states.
An amended version of the class-action complaint filed in November states, “Forced arbitration prevents sexual violence survivors, like Jane Doe, from discussing their cases publicly, presenting their claims to a jury of their peers, and consequently, exposing evidence that Uber desperately wants to keep secret.”
Why would they do this? This is a losing argument in so many ways.
Women who sued Uber on the assertion that the company’s policies failed to protect them and others from sexual misconduct want to have their case heard by a jury. But they say Uber’s terms of service have forced them into arbitration, meaning anyone who uses the app must settle disputes behind closed doors through a third party—not the courts, where proceedings would be public.
The two women who say they were raped by their Uber drivers first filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber in November, arguing that the company failed to conduct rigid enough background checks on drivers and and lacked adequate safety policies. Uber responded in February by filing a motion that said that all the class-action members are legally bound by arbitration, according to the case timeline. On Thursday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed an amended lawsuit, which added seven women to the complaint.
“In gutless fashion, Uber responded to this lawsuit by attempting to force Jane Does, and all other similarly harmed women passengers, to cede their right to the public court system and force them into the soundless halls of arbitration,” the amended lawsuit states.
An amended version of the class-action complaint filed in November states, “Forced arbitration prevents sexual violence survivors, like Jane Doe, from discussing their cases publicly, presenting their claims to a jury of their peers, and consequently, exposing evidence that Uber desperately wants to keep secret.”
Why would they do this? This is a losing argument in so many ways.
I mean, it is terrible from a standpoint of actual justice, and I hope they are not allowed to do it. But it seems like it makes total sense for Uber to want it. Everything gets swept under the rug. No media attention. No actual admission of any wrong doing. Just some closed door cases and some money here and there. Plus no way to get follow up statistics on how dangerous Uber rides are.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Women who sued Uber on the assertion that the company’s policies failed to protect them and others from sexual misconduct want to have their case heard by a jury. But they say Uber’s terms of service have forced them into arbitration, meaning anyone who uses the app must settle disputes behind closed doors through a third party—not the courts, where proceedings would be public.
The two women who say they were raped by their Uber drivers first filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber in November, arguing that the company failed to conduct rigid enough background checks on drivers and and lacked adequate safety policies. Uber responded in February by filing a motion that said that all the class-action members are legally bound by arbitration, according to the case timeline. On Thursday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed an amended lawsuit, which added seven women to the complaint.
“In gutless fashion, Uber responded to this lawsuit by attempting to force Jane Does, and all other similarly harmed women passengers, to cede their right to the public court system and force them into the soundless halls of arbitration,” the amended lawsuit states.
An amended version of the class-action complaint filed in November states, “Forced arbitration prevents sexual violence survivors, like Jane Doe, from discussing their cases publicly, presenting their claims to a jury of their peers, and consequently, exposing evidence that Uber desperately wants to keep secret.”
Why would they do this? This is a losing argument in so many ways.
I mean, it is terrible from a standpoint of actual justice, and I hope they are not allowed to do it. But it seems like it makes total sense for Uber to want it. Everything gets swept under the rug. No media attention. No actual admission of any wrong doing. Just some closed door cases and some money here and there. Plus no way to get follow up statistics on how dangerous Uber rides are.
My expectation would be more in line with them having a single 'forced arbitration' contract they use, and if they allow one group of plaintiffs to simply ignore it they would probably lose any ability to enforce it in the future. So they are fighting with every expectation of losing so that they can keep their contract defensible.
And one of Uber's worst case scenarios for autonomous vehicles just happened:
Last night a woman was struck by an autonomous Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. She later died of her injuries in the hospital.
The deadly collision—reported by ABC15 and later confirmed to Gizmodo by Uber and Tempe police—took place around 10PM at the intersection Mill Avenue and Curry Road, both of which are multi-lane roads. Autonomous vehicle developers often test drive at night, during storms, and other challenging conditions to help their vehicles learn to navigate in a variety of environments.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel.
A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman’s “next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.” The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said.
This has been one of the big fears in autonomous vehicle research, and has put the program once again in hiatus.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Jaywalking is really dangerous, this reasonably should not slow down autonomous vehicle work at all.
And yet, I have very little faith in reason these days ... Plus I secretly kind of what Uber's autonomous vehicles to fail because I don't like Uber (due to stuff this thread has cataloged in depth) :P
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
People seem to have a weird expectation that autonomous vehicles will be infallible, as opposed to simply being less shit at driving than irrational meatsacks.
Jaywalking is really dangerous, this reasonably should not slow down autonomous vehicle work at all.
And yet, I have very little faith in reason these days ... Plus I secretly kind of what Uber's autonomous vehicles to fail because I don't like Uber (due to stuff this thread has cataloged in depth) :P
"Jaywalking" is a gooseshit term meant to push accountability onto pedestrians from car drivers:
Jaywalking is really dangerous, this reasonably should not slow down autonomous vehicle work at all.
And yet, I have very little faith in reason these days ... Plus I secretly kind of what Uber's autonomous vehicles to fail because I don't like Uber (due to stuff this thread has cataloged in depth) :P
"Jaywalking" is a gooseshit term meant to push accountability onto pedestrians from car drivers:
In Wisconsin, pedestrians have the legal obligation to protect their own safety, unless they cross in designated areas. I don't see what's so complicated or wrong with that.
And no, I didn't watch your video. Please make your own argument and I will respond.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
It's "dangerous" because our culture has set it up to be such by laws.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
It's "dangerous" because our culture has set it up to be such by laws.
It's very definitely dangerous to walk in to a street when cars aren't expecting pedestrians regardless of current or earlier abuses of the law.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
It's "dangerous" because our culture has set it up to be such by laws.
That we decided the law should reflect the reality of physics isn't gooseshit.
Any vehicle traveling at normal roadway speeds will have a window where no matter how attentive a driver or how Schumacher like their reaction speeds(both of which a self driving car will be superior at) the vehicle can not stop before hitting something(one) that appears in front of it.
We decided we'd rather have roads with good traffic flow, rather than roads people could/would just wander into and out of as they saw fit. I've been places where this isn't the norm(India), and those people in the 20s made the right fucking choice.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
Of course the investigation will change things. If it's determined that she stepped into the road closer than the stopping distance of the car, then the collision was physically impossible to avoid and thus it's not a "failure" of the autonomous system.
Cars kill 4500 and injure 70000-79000 pedestrians each year. So "apples-to-apples" statistically, for this 1 death, self-driving vehicles should have also had 15 non-fatal collisions with pedestrians.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
...well of course the first death from an autonomous vehicle happened at Uber.
I thought a Tesla car killed a driver a few years ago.
the Teslas cars aren't self-driving
just irresponsibly close to self-driving
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
If this were the case we would expect a large increase in collisions of all types with self driving cars hitting things all over, but a study by Virginia Tech found a slight overall decrease in collision rate (for Google's tech anyway, and everybody's tech is likely to produce different rates). If the woman had survived after going to the hospital but was still hit and nothing else had changed we would be talking about injuries not fatalities
...well of course the first death from an autonomous vehicle happened at Uber.
I thought a Tesla car killed a driver a few years ago.
Federal investigators ruled that the driver was at fault since he ignored multiple warnings from the driver assist system. Which, you know, is only supposed to assist and not drive autonomously while some asshole watches a movie or falls asleep.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
If this were the case we would expect a large increase in collisions of all types with self driving cars hitting things all over, but a study by Virginia Tech found a slight overall decrease in collision rate (for Google's tech anyway, and everybody's tech is likely to produce different rates). If the woman had survived after going to the hospital but was still hit and nothing else had changed we would be talking about injuries not fatalities
This would be assuming that all accident rates would increase or decrease in the same proportion and not that e.g. self driving technology in its present state is more likely to catastrophically fail by never recognizing a pedestrian compared to other modes of failure.
I understand the history of Jaywalking. I didn't watch the video, but I've read about it before. It doesn't change the fact that currently, something like 80% of accidents involving pedestrians are with pedestrians that were not on a crosswalk.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
The woman was crossing Park Street near Hughes Place when the crash happened, officers told News 3. The pedestrian was wearing all dark clothing and was not in a crosswalk at the time.
The driver stayed on scene and is cooperating with police, officials said. The driver will not be cited, according to a release from Madison police.
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
Of course the investigation will change things. If it's determined that she stepped into the road closer than the stopping distance of the car, then the collision was physically impossible to avoid and thus it's not a "failure" of the autonomous system.
Cars kill 4500 and injure 70000-79000 pedestrians each year. So "apples-to-apples" statistically, for this 1 death, self-driving vehicles should have also had 15 non-fatal collisions with pedestrians.
Human driven vehicle accident stats already include "impossible to avoid" scenarios, so no, it would not affect the stats. That is not to say such a scenario means the vehicle is at fault, but that you can't remove those from MTBF calcs.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
Not all miles are equal, and the most popular neighborhoods for uber drivers are going to have a much higher accident rate by their very nature.
Also if we're including Tesla, they have ~300 million miles driven with their close-but-not-quite autonomous vehicles. As in, the "autopilot" was turned on. So one fatality there is much lower than average of human drivers.
That said, this isn't data, it's all just anecdotes of publicly available articles and memories and such.
This also seems to be going far afield of Uber. Didn't we have a self-driving cars thread a while ago?
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The difference between human drivers and autonomous vehicles is where the liability lies. When I kill someone in my Ford, Ford doesn’t bear responsibility. When I happen to be inside the vehicle when my Uber self-driving car kills someone, Uber bears responsibility.
The difference between human drivers and autonomous vehicles is where the liability lies. When I kill someone in my Ford, Ford doesn’t bear responsibility. When I happen to be inside the vehicle when my Uber self-driving car kills someone, Uber bears responsibility.
If you kill someone driving for another company that company does bear the cost. It’s really not that different.
This may be the most well documented pedestrian accident due to the car's sensors and cameras. It may be safe to say that we can wait and see where the fault lies.
Posts
Using the small sedan values from your link
10000 miles: TCO 5820
15000 miles: TCO 6735, marginal per-mile: 18.3c
20000 miles: TCO 7600, marginal per-mile: 17.3c from 15k, 17.8 from 10k
This is almost perfectly linear so we could say the proper cost for this type of vehicle is ~4000 + 18c/mile. Which if you read their article accounts for finance, age-based depreciation (if it sits in your driveway and isn't a "classic" car it still loses value), license & registration and insurance
Insurance etc aren’t sunk
So a taxi or rental company can't claim the standard rate on their cars, they have to figure actual costs, presumably because it would be lower. I would expect the IRS reimbursement rate to be somewhat higher than the actual marginal rate given that it is inaccessible to most businesses and is intended as a shortcut for individuals who may not even have the data available to calculate real costs
Simple, that article says you will pay 58.2c/mile if you drive 10000 miles. This is a total cost of $5820/year. It also says that if you were to drive 20000 miles instead it would cost 38c/mile for $7600/year
So each extra mile over 10k costs (7600-5820)/10000 or $0.178/mile
Because you have fixed costs in the assumption ($4k/year) that account for 40c/mile @ 10k and 20x/mile @ 20k
If you drove one mile in a year you would be "paying" $4000/mile
No. That is now how marginal costs work in this situation because the “fixed” costs are not actually fixed even if they are convenient for average cost assumptions.
We have been over this before. Your insurance costs are not fixed. If you drive more than the allotted you’re at risk of perpetrating a fraud on your insurance company and losing coverage while forfeiting your premiums. Your depreciation is not fixed (the “age based depreciation” is actually a mileage based depreciation based on the average miles driven for a number of years because estimating value based solely on mileage is difficult without compete market information that does not exist!).
You really do pay that much more money when you drive more. And these estimations are under what it costs to run taxis on a maintenance/fuel basis only.
Presumably the AAA data is accounting for the increased insurance costs and if you don't believe age is a factor you can just look up the same make/model in different years with the same mileage in either a blue book value or a used car website and they won't be the same price. 10k, 15k, 20k are pretty much all exactly on a linear fixed + rate*miles line, this is your linked data
We can model insurance as a fixed cost to get any insurance at all plus another $X/5000 miles or whatever
And there are two studies, one by MIT one by Stanford linked earlier and both conclude the actual ownership cost is ~25-30c/mile
It literally explains that they do not prorate those things in that manner. The AAA data is for a very specific personal use ranges.
Why would they do this? This is a losing argument in so many ways.
I mean, it is terrible from a standpoint of actual justice, and I hope they are not allowed to do it. But it seems like it makes total sense for Uber to want it. Everything gets swept under the rug. No media attention. No actual admission of any wrong doing. Just some closed door cases and some money here and there. Plus no way to get follow up statistics on how dangerous Uber rides are.
My expectation would be more in line with them having a single 'forced arbitration' contract they use, and if they allow one group of plaintiffs to simply ignore it they would probably lose any ability to enforce it in the future. So they are fighting with every expectation of losing so that they can keep their contract defensible.
This has been one of the big fears in autonomous vehicle research, and has put the program once again in hiatus.
Why? This happens all the time and the driver is not held responsible because the pedestrian was outside of the cross walk. From this last friday:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/crash-involving-pedestrian-closes-part-of-park-st-in-madison/717093601
So why would this kill autonomous vehicles? The fact it hasn't happened before should be a testament to the effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.
And yet, I have very little faith in reason these days
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
People seem to have a weird expectation that autonomous vehicles will be infallible, as opposed to simply being less shit at driving than irrational meatsacks.
"Jaywalking" is a gooseshit term meant to push accountability onto pedestrians from car drivers:
In Wisconsin, pedestrians have the legal obligation to protect their own safety, unless they cross in designated areas. I don't see what's so complicated or wrong with that.
And no, I didn't watch your video. Please make your own argument and I will respond.
Aren't driverless vehicles supposed to be bringing all kinds of safety benefits? Doesn't the use of LIDAR mean that vehicles can "see" pedestrians even if they are wearing dark clothing at night? Never mind that we shouldn't require people to wear something special just to be outside at night.
Also, let's talk about how the police immediately go to "crossing the street outside the crosswalk" and then if you watch the video here (https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/tempe-police-investigating-self-driving-uber-car-involved-in-crash-overnight) you can see a smashed up bicycle 12 seconds in. Hmm.
Which brings me back to my statement that Jaywalking is dangerous and you shouldn't do it.
"More safe" does not mean "perfectly safe." Autonomous vehicles should definitely be the former! But they shouldn't be held accountable for the latter. There should be some work here on Uber's side to see why their system failed, but it is not an indictment on autonomous vehicles that they were involved in an accident.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's "dangerous" because our culture has set it up to be such by laws.
It's very definitely dangerous to walk in to a street when cars aren't expecting pedestrians regardless of current or earlier abuses of the law.
of course, uber is trying to kill public transit to justify their outrageous valuation, so in their world that's all we'll have.
That we decided the law should reflect the reality of physics isn't gooseshit.
Any vehicle traveling at normal roadway speeds will have a window where no matter how attentive a driver or how Schumacher like their reaction speeds(both of which a self driving car will be superior at) the vehicle can not stop before hitting something(one) that appears in front of it.
We decided we'd rather have roads with good traffic flow, rather than roads people could/would just wander into and out of as they saw fit. I've been places where this isn't the norm(India), and those people in the 20s made the right fucking choice.
Not like a trolley or a bus stops any faster if you step in front of it.
So far, autonomous vehicles have not even proven to be "more safe" than unimpaired human drivers. Human drivers in the US average about 1 fatality per 100 million miles, and that includes the 30% of fatalities that are drunk driving related. So they have to way more safe than the existing average rates. Here's fatality #1 for AVs, who have not even racked up 100 million miles yet (Waymo just hit 4 million miles total in November, Uber hit 2 million in December.)
whole lot less of them on the road for the same throughput though then the uberbus or whatever they call their fake bus service.
Well with a sample of a single incident, that hasn't been investigated at all, not controlling for any statistical factors you've convinced me.
Even with a single incident, you can predict a MTBF. If the first failure was at, generously, 20 million miles, it is extremely unlikely the MTBF is greater than 100 million miles.
Additionally, investigation doesn't change the case at all if we're simply referring to all fatalities; regardless of whether the woman is at-fault or not, we're comparing apples to apples here.
Of course the investigation will change things. If it's determined that she stepped into the road closer than the stopping distance of the car, then the collision was physically impossible to avoid and thus it's not a "failure" of the autonomous system.
Cars kill 4500 and injure 70000-79000 pedestrians each year. So "apples-to-apples" statistically, for this 1 death, self-driving vehicles should have also had 15 non-fatal collisions with pedestrians.
I thought a Tesla car killed a driver a few years ago.
the Teslas cars aren't self-driving
just irresponsibly close to self-driving
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Yea, this is the first bystander killed.
If this were the case we would expect a large increase in collisions of all types with self driving cars hitting things all over, but a study by Virginia Tech found a slight overall decrease in collision rate (for Google's tech anyway, and everybody's tech is likely to produce different rates). If the woman had survived after going to the hospital but was still hit and nothing else had changed we would be talking about injuries not fatalities
Federal investigators ruled that the driver was at fault since he ignored multiple warnings from the driver assist system. Which, you know, is only supposed to assist and not drive autonomously while some asshole watches a movie or falls asleep.
This would be assuming that all accident rates would increase or decrease in the same proportion and not that e.g. self driving technology in its present state is more likely to catastrophically fail by never recognizing a pedestrian compared to other modes of failure.
Human driven vehicle accident stats already include "impossible to avoid" scenarios, so no, it would not affect the stats. That is not to say such a scenario means the vehicle is at fault, but that you can't remove those from MTBF calcs.
Not all miles are equal, and the most popular neighborhoods for uber drivers are going to have a much higher accident rate by their very nature.
That said, this isn't data, it's all just anecdotes of publicly available articles and memories and such.
This also seems to be going far afield of Uber. Didn't we have a self-driving cars thread a while ago?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
If you kill someone driving for another company that company does bear the cost. It’s really not that different.