korrents

What Philip Koopman thinks about self-driving cars

@philip-koopman · 13 positions · 0 changes of mind

Professor at Carnegie Mellon University who works on self-driving car safety and dependable embedded systems, principal technical contributor to the ANSI/UL 4600 autonomous-vehicle safety standard and author of How Safe Is Safe Enough? He writes the Safe Autonomy blog, which is largely an argument that the industry's public safety claims do not survive contact with the statistics.

Philip Koopman did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

9 dated positions, 2020 to 2024, in their own words. Our reading of what Philip Koopman has said — not written or endorsed by them.

  1. Our readingAt current ride volumes it would take a leading robotaxi fleet about twenty years without a single fatality to show it is as safe as the average human driver.

    Their wordsAt current deployment rates it will take Waymo about 20 years with ZERO fatalities to show they are net as safe as average human driver fatality rates (including the old cars, impaired drivers, etc. in that comparison baseline).

    ↗Perspective on Waymo's Safety Progresssafeautonomy.blogspot.com

    Interesting
  2. 13 days earlier

  3. Our readingNobody has driven enough miles to show that robotaxis save lives, so the claim that they already do is not supported by the data.

    Their wordsBut their latest study is for only 7.1 million miles. They need something like 40 times more data prove they are actually saving lives with statistical confidence (likely even more).

    ↗Waymo's Misleading Claim of Saving Livessafeautonomy.blogspot.com

    Interesting
  4. 5 months earlier

  5. Our readingThe self-driving industry's strategy of answering criticism with 'we are saving lives' has failed, and it will have to change both how it deploys and how it talks.

    Their wordsAt a higher level, the real event was a catastrophic failure of the industry's strategy of relentlessly shouting as loud as they can "Hey, get off our case, we're busy saving lives here!"

    ↗My Automated Vehicle Safety Prediction for 2024safeautonomy.blogspot.com 1st of 2 in this piece

    Interesting
  6. 5 months earlier

  7. Our readingThe choice presented to the public, between human drivers who kill people and immature robotaxis, is a false dilemma that leaves out everything else that improves road safety.

    Their wordsThey frame the situation as a choice between continued human drivers killing people (without statistical context) vs. immature robotaxis who don't drink and drive (but make other mistakes).

    ↗AV Safety and the False Dilemma Fallacysafeautonomy.blogspot.com 1st of 3 in this piece

    Interesting

  9. Our readingIt is too early to know whether robotaxis are safer than human drivers where it counts, in fatal crashes.

    Their wordsIt is too early to know whether current robotaxi technology is safer than human drivers for fatalities.

    ↗AV Safety and the False Dilemma Fallacysafeautonomy.blogspot.com 2nd of 3 in this piece

    Interesting

  11. Our readingAutomatic emergency braking is doing far more for road safety today than autonomous driving is, and it is left out of the argument.

    Their wordsNon-autonomous technology (AEB) is making far more of a contribution right now -- but is missing from the false dilemma.

    ↗AV Safety and the False Dilemma Fallacysafeautonomy.blogspot.com 3rd of 3 in this piece

    Interesting
  12. 6 months earlier

  13. Our readingA self-driving car should be roughly ten times safer than a human driver before it is deployed, to leave engineering margin for what nobody can predict.

    Their wordsTaken together, there is an argument to be made that AVs should be safer than human drivers by about a factor of 10 (being a nice round order of magnitude number) to leave engineering margin for the above considerations.

    ↗The case for AVs being 10 to 100 times safer than human driverssafeautonomy.blogspot.com

    Interesting
  14. 2 years earlier

  15. Our readingNobody can drive the billions of representative miles that would prove a self-driving system safe before deploying it, so deployment always precedes proof.

    Their wordsBut nobody will ever get to the billions of representative miles necessary to say anything compelling about expected safety until after they actually deploy their fleet.

    ↗Number of miles as a self-driving car progress and safety metric (Metrics Episode 1)safeautonomy.blogspot.com 1st of 3 in this piece

    Interesting

  17. Our readingMiles driven measures how well funded a self-driving company is, not how safe it is or how far ahead.

    Their wordsBut having a ton of miles doesn’t mean you’re ahead, it just means you’re well-funded and you’re out there operating.

    ↗Number of miles as a self-driving car progress and safety metric (Metrics Episode 1)safeautonomy.blogspot.com 3rd of 3 in this piece

    Interesting