Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> But there's little difference between hitting a traffic cone and hitting a small child.

I agree with some of what you have said, but this is the most bizarre statement I have read today.

There are probably hundreds (or more) traffic cones hit for every small child hit by a car, just because there are way more cars per day passing close to traffic cones than to children.

I personally have had my car hit by others 5 times without reporting it to my insurance company (car was parked, hit and run), as the damage was less than my deductible, and I opted to just live with a few dents. Estimating the number of times a car collides with anything per mile driven is very hard.



Yes, that's true, from a reporting/statistical standpoint. I am okay with dismissing those two incidents when evaluating this record. There's a lot of leeway on human driver statistics. As I said above, I've seen 165,000 miles per accident and 250,000 per accident reported/estimated. I've also seen the claim that human drivers go 300,000 to 500,000 miles between accidents on average, but I heavily assume those are based on underreported figures.

My intention in comparing a traffic cone to a small child is the actual safety issue. If a SDC could hit a cone, it could also hit a small child. They're small road hazards which are not generally going to be mapped by the car in advance. I don't want to dismiss the fact that the SDC would've hit a road obstacle, just because in that case the obstacle was a cheap plastic object.


> I don't want to dismiss the fact that the SDC would've hit a road obstacle, just because in that case the obstacle was a cheap plastic object.

I think the point is that if you counted these kinds of incidents in human driver statistics, your miles per accident numbers would come way, way down.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: