Converting things to rates is how you understand them in a meaningful way, particularly for things that are planned to be expanded to full scale.

(The one thing I would like to see done differently here is including an error interval.)

Yeah, I'm glad that they are trying to do a rate, the problem is that the numerator in the human case is likely far larger than what they are indicating.

Of the Tesla accidents, five of them involved either collisions with fixed objects, animals, or a non-injured cyclist. Extremely minor versions of these with human drivers often go unreported.

Unfortunately, without the details, this comparison will end up being a comparison between two rates with very different measurement approaches.

With Tesla redacting as much as they are, I think we have to assume the worst.

I couldn't find Waymo's stats for all crashes in 12 seconds of googling, but they have breakdowns for "crashes with serious injury" (none yet) "crashes resulting in injury" (5x reduction) and "crashes where airbag deployed" (14x reduction), relative to humans in Austin

Austin has relatively low miles so the confidence intervals are wider but not too far from what they show for other cities

We updated the title to the original. All, please remember the section of the guidelines about editorialising of title.

Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Given that there are only about 20 of these, 7 reported crashes seems _extremely high_.

> and other self driving technologies

I mean, this isn't self-driving. It has a safety driver.