[commaai]

Not really. It's mostly subjective, but a good metric is time between user action needed. We did 2 hours of press demos on highways without a single one. (usually it's about an hour)

In addition to us, we have a community of users on slack with thousands of miles of experience with each system. I think most would generally agree with the quality assessment. You'll also find a bunch of YouTube videos comparing them.

[magic-chicken]

So you test the system with human drivers for a few miles, and if none of them dies then it's secure ? You actually rely on the subjectivity of uninformed users to assess the reliabilty of a safety-critical system ?

>> Not really. It's mostly subjective.

No. The quality of a safety-critical system is not subjective.

>> I think most would generally agree with the quality assessment.

You are not qualified to make that claim, and neither are your users.

[nojvek]

Self driving systems is in its very early days and commaai is one of the open ones i.e you can take the software and verify under the hood. commaai isn’t also lying that it’s a glorified cruise control.

Unlike crash safety, crash and burn, topple etc, there are no open tests or third party certifications that can verify that car model X is subjectively this safe and passes this scenarios.

The big cos are notoriously secretive and throwing a lot of marketing money to create hype.

I’m just glad that certain states have allowed such cars to be tested on the streets.

We have to start somewhere.

[mynewtb]

A good metric would be collision avoidance in a multitude of realistic tests, simulating all kinds of dynamic obstacles and vehicle error modes.