Why You Should Want Driverless Cars On Roads Now

[@Sharivari]

Ever wondered why in captchas you have to choose bikes, crossings, school busses and so on? Now you know. Genius idea.

[@aasimwz]

Wait what wow

[@camanderson9954]

@@aasimwz it's for ai and deep learning

[@whatsthefuss0]

Woah!

[@vadrif-draco]

But doesn't the captcha system already know what's correct beforehand? (such that when you pick wrong you need to do another check)

[@nathanezra1]

But captcha already knows what's correct. These ppl don't need us to teach their machines

[@rarewhiteape]

I hope you were all being honest when the Captcha asked you to click on the squares containing traffic lights.

[@spaztikcuk5871]

The quiet kid in the corner clicking everything but the traffic lights

[@hoffer_moment]

amazing comment

[@nihil_._sum]

now the only way to prove youre not a machine is proving youre stupid enought

[@NickRoman]

@@nihil_._sum , so now if we get the math problem wrong, then it lets us through?

[@It-b-Blair]

@@nihil_._sum a user would have to move the mouse, and the click rate would be erratic. A bot doesn’t ‘move’ the mouse across the screen, it just clicks like a finger on a touchscreen. That’s the measurable difference.

[@thebeeemill]

I’m really curious how they handle in scenarios where a human is directing traffic. That is, when police are directing traffic around a crash or workers are directing traffic through an area with road work

[@indyola1]

Good question! I also wondered if other human activity could trip them up, like playing a siren loudly on your car stereo to make them pull over for you.

[@samuelmuldoon4839]

As long as the car is in an area where there is Wi-Fi, cellphone service, or if the car has a satellite up-link, then a human could pilot the car remotely. That is, if there is a road-worker directing traffic, Waymo could have someone pilot the car using a laptop at home as part of a work-at-home job. After the car has finished passing through the unusual situation, computerized control could resume. You could have some safe-guards, so that if the remote driver attempts to speed, or crash into an obvious stationary object, then the computer will intercede and bring the car to a stop.

[@pizzashark7067]

@@samuelmuldoon4839 If human intervention is necessary, then wouldn't it be more sensible (and safer) to have someone in the vehicle take control, as opposed to someone with a laptop (potentially hundreds of miles away) trying to maneuver through a network delay and cameras? This seems an especially poor solution in those given situations where situational awareness and responsiveness is necessary, such as when you're being flagged through an area with tons of road work.

[@Rig0r_M0rtis]

Yeah that's a problem only when there is a combination of humans and robots on roads. We need to get rid of human drivers asap.

[@kristianhaverasmussen8558]

I think that’s level 5 automation. So, i think they’re still working on that

[@nikofromthehitgameoneshot]

they should make these, but longer, and maybe even on rails

[@realdickhead6077]

😆

[@jamesclerkmaxwell8020]

Rails cannot take you point to point

[@realdickhead6077]

Are you sure? @@jamesclerkmaxwell8020

[@diamond_player]

⁠@@jamesclerkmaxwell8020that is just typical North American poor urban planning lol

[@keanuortiz3766]

​@@jamesclerkmaxwell8020 With bad planning and excessive use of roads, of course rail wont lmao

[@kg4tnp]

This feels like a commercial. The other issues is many of these fully autonomous cars have remote drivers monitoring them or are limited to very few areas. This tech will be ready when it can be used on EVERY road in EVERY weather condition.

[@daniel6678]

it basically is a commercial - the sponsorship on the video means that anything he says has to have been approved by the company, so there’s no way he could ever criticize it

[@ZetaCheese]

Whats wrong with having remote drivers

[@Errors404]

Lamborgini would be a Failed tech cuz it cant be used in many parts of the world. Including my own state, the road is unsuitable for such cars. And its not a village either its fairly common to have such type of roads. Only the best of cities in the world have perfect flat smooth road.

[@sylvainprigent6234]

It is a comercial

[@hansrama3485]

@@bigsbybigsby True thing he was picking on.. and guys the video fully states it is sponsored.. its in the description and in the video what else did you want

[@5MadMovieMakers]

The best driverless cars should have a race, or rigorous safety competition

[@MogDog66]

@@nunuvyurbiz123 I think he means a race like a car race. Like racing cars...

[@MogDog66]

​@@nunuvyurbiz123 Hahaha good, was starting to think you were a little dim!

[@ClebyHerris]

That’s a thing. It’s called roborace and it’s amazing. There was a gif last year that circulated of it just starting a lap and just turning into a wall immediately without any indication

[@Argoon1981]

How many average human drivers, are as good as a race car pilot? Or even drive on the road, at the same speeds and making the same maneuvers as race car driver? I hope you know that the most accidents, are provoked by careless, speeding drivers that think they are race car drivers. So I ask why, should a driverless car, need to be like a race car driver, if it will NOT drive like one, on normal roads at regular speeds? Having said that they ARE making driverless race cars, just to appease certain people.

[@camerons.9012]

Make them play chicken

[@vincentrobitaille4564]

This just makes me realise how much more public transport we need. I think it's an error seeing autonomous vehicules as a main solution for traffic and road safety

[@alicepow260]

absolutely agreed!

[@bumb3274]

Well, could work for busses and other transit options? But yeah not cars of the current size

[@erikhendrickson59]

Allow me to introduce ya to something called "capitalism!"

[@Sentryalmighty]

consider tho: driverless trains??

[@JeWCyDuDe]

Agree. Japan has an awesome high speed rail system.. when is ours coming????

[@jeremysoojk]

Derek: It's weird trusting a driverless car Also Derek: Hops into makeshift cart with giant windmill

[@BD-yl5mh]

Wait for someone to bet ten grand that this isn’t really driving itself

[@brokenacoustic]

This is the video he shouldve titled 'risking my life...' lol

[@motifity3416]

Giant windmill carts are the norm, you know

[@ff-qf1th]

@@brokenacoustic nah, as we can see in this video, a driverless car is way safer than that propeller contraption he was riding in that other video

[@jacobshirley3457]

b-b-but technically it's not a windmill.

[@haschid]

Correction: Planes don't land themselves in very bad weather. They do it in very bad visibility. There is a difference. An autoland procedure has very tight limits in regards to crosswind component, compared to a manual landing. The computer can't compensate for the wind, and sudden changes of wind, as well as a pilot.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Perfect.

[@mindlander]

Bad visibility is a type of bad weather.

[@wildgrem]

Well Akchutally

[@greg6094]

This was one of Derek's worst videos as the bias was blatant, there were other factual inaccuracies as well, very deceptive.

[@mindlander]

@@greg6094 could you elaborate on the inaccuracies?

[@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis]

This video was Waymo interesting than I thought.

[@paulvonhindenburg3668]

out, now.

[@matimoonhoney5606]

Derek looks so tired 🤔

[@blumkeet]

_ba dum tssss_

[@BenjaminBalderas]

Nice, dad

[@KushagraPratap]

Why are you wasting your time on this?

[@josedelapinio]

This is not a video to teach anything. Its just a really long add

[@austinstanton5300]

It does teach you. Teaches about how safe and how advanced driverless cars are now.

[@VodkaVodoka]

@@austinstanton5300 While omitting lots of information and misrepresenting several other points.

[@channelsixtysix066]

"Driverless Cars Are Already Here" - Yes I know, I've been driving for over 40 years, and see them every day I go out.

[@thedeadexpert518]

Lol, I think I get it. "Driverless"(not Driverless) cars are the ones where the "driver" is doing something else other than driving.

[@channelsixtysix066]

@@thedeadexpert518 👍

[@logicplague]

🤣🤣🤣

[@StefanNoack]

@@thedeadexpert518 or maybe just a parked car

[@GS-td3yc]

@@StefanNoack or simply you drive ur own car so there is no driver XD

[@JMUDoc]

"Ride In Progress" makes for an unfortunate acronym...

[@SyntheticFuture]

I doubt that's a coincidence 😂

[@thalesthinks8493]

😂

[@gianluca.g]

Imagine on the website booking your ride: Car1: RIP Car2: RIP Car3: available Car4: RIP ....

[@PtylerBeats]

Let me RIP in peace

[@autumnuniverse1940]

😂😂😂😂

[@SpAzMaNiK]

Would love to see how this technology handles snow

[@king6dutch]

It will, as long as its a little snow. I live in Edmonton. 6 Months of the year our roads are a winter nightmare, with residential streets being having a thick pack of snow/ice on them, it was about 3 inches on my street last year by the end. Add a particularly heavy snowfall, add wet snow conditions that ice up the sensors, add black ice (so thin and clear you don't know its there) Its another level of technology that will be needed for conditions like this, tech that can 'see' through snow and ice, tech that can label roads and lanes without visual line of sight, better tires and braking for icy streets. That said, human driving in those conditions suck too. Sort out the sensors and it will probably be safer already, but likely slow.

[@comicguy4624]

I guess that's why they're in Arizona lmao

[@alexwebster8999]

Ya it’s definitely a different beast. Stuff like a Lidar sensor can still “see” even in heavy snow. I’m in Canada and I keep thinking how every winter my cars backup camera is unusable. I wonder if they could solve it someone. Like keep the camera clean by warming up the lens or something

[@rb032682]

I handled snow by moving away from Ohio and into a snow-free climate.

[@ILCorvo001]

@@alexwebster8999 I think its less of a visibility question, and more of a "making many small (and bespoke) adjustments in an environment that demands constant (and random) adaptation" kind of thing. The hard part of driving on snow and rain (for those that aren't really familiar), has less to do with visibility than it does road conditions.

[@timothystockman7533]

They were called "elevator operators", and were still in a few buildings in my younger days. Automatic elevators don't have to dodge other elevators... For those who don't know, the auto-land is tracking the ILS signals sent by a transmitter from the runway; auto-land requires significant airport infrastructure to work. I would guess that some amount of roadway infrastructure will be required to make auto-driving truly safe.

[@ImDemonAlchemist]

If by "truly safe" you mean essentially zero risk, then yeah. But the fact is that riding in autonomous vehicles is already massively safer than riding in one with a human driver. They are safe.

[@NotOnQ]

Yeah, we could set up a lane for these automatic vehicles. Maybe even set them on tracks to reduce tire wear. And then maybe link them together for a better economy of scale! We can call them hyper-autonomous Keanu Reeves vibranium megapods.

[@programagor]

I'm sure this was already said in the comments, but the reason pilots land manually on sunny days is that on those sunny days, Cat IIIb operations may not be in effect at the airport. The equipment requires clearance around the runway to guarantee accuracy, and more stringent spacing standards are required. It is more efficient to guide planes close enough to the runway so they can see it, and then let them land manually, visually. On foggy days, airports with Cat IIIb capabilities have it active, as that's when pilots are required to use it.

[@guyhommeki]

Why don't the airports leave the IIIb operations always in effect then? Too expensive?

[@jadefalcon001]

@@guyhommeki "The equipment requires clearance around the runway to guarantee accuracy, and more stringent spacing standards are required." From above. Basically using the autoland systems require more rigid, somewhat less time/space efficient operating procedures. Major airports that are pressed for capacity would see no benefit from sacrificing capacity for superfluous automation. Second-tier airports may be cost-constrained in terms of equipment runtimes, may not have that capability in the first place, or simply don't have the personnel expertise on hand all the time.

[@FirstnameLastname-ok1yz]

@@jadefalcon001 Still there is the same problematic as in the video; would those safe margins impeding time and space efficiency needed for catIII make human landing operations safer too, or is catIII just "overly" safe. Another way to put it is are the reasons for those margins actually necessary feature or, an extra precaution because we do not feel as confortable toeing the limit as much as when we are in control. Also there could be a bias about those margins being planned for worst cases climates and not sunny days, which I suppose are not/should not be the same.

[@eragon78]

@@FirstnameLastname-ok1yz Probably regulatory reasons. Things like Automation tend to be regulated much more strictly to ensure safety because when automation goes wrong, it can effect millions vs a single pilot's error. (Because an error in automation regulation can lead to faulty equipment across an entire system). So because of this things like automation tend to be OVER regulated to ensure safety which is a good thing. But it also means there is more resistance to automation as its more expensive to rely on so it takes longer before its more widely implemented.

[@blackjack4195]

Humans are just better at landing planes, that's why.

[@Tinyvalkyrie410]

As a disabled person who rarely feels comfortable driving further than my neighborhood, I cannot wait for this to be commercially available. I cannot explain how drastically this would change my life. Edit: so there are some ignorant people replying to me here. Before you also write something uninformed and frankly rude, please read my responses to those that already did so. If you have actual questions about being disabled, I will be happy to answer them. Just don’t be a jerk please.

[@vanessamoon7316]

I commute 90 mins to work everyday. I can’t wait to get into one of these and just sleep till I arrive at the office.

[@savag3_orang387]

Yeah just add an alarm and boom an extra 90 minutes of sleep

[@igisanchez265]

You are not disabled. You just said on another video that you ran a marathon and feel so happy you completed.

[@Tinyvalkyrie410]

@Paul Martin he’s just wrong. On every account. I have never and will never run a marathon (or claimed to do so). Regardless, I can list off the top of my head a dozen different categories of disabilities that could do a marathon but not drive. No idea where he got this idea from.

[@safe-keeper1042]

This is going to be life-changing for a lot of people who can't drive (or can't drive well).

[@Allvaldr]

What a lovely advertisement video.

[@ShortHax]

Driverless cars are also wearing seatbelts. What an amazing time to be alive

[@teabagg1178]

hello there, how you are you doing today

[@Tker1970]

So Derek doesn't have to hear Ding Ding Ding Ding... his whole ride I guess :)

[@FinFET]

sure the the autonomous car cannot predict what the meatbag driven cars will do, sometimes it is hard to evade an accident caused by another vehicle

[@tgmtf5963]

*hold on to your papers*

[@ryannygard3661]

@@tgmtf5963 get ready to squeeze those papers!

[@adsr3870]

This seriously made me have doubts about the moral integrity of the Veritasium team.

[@Kavyatej]

elaborate? the sponsorship?

[@devamin6017]

I agree. No nuisance and stretching the facts and not explaining the downfalls of the sponsored company. Basically, humans can’t drive and the car can do everything perfectly without any human intervention behind its operations.

[@FredEPLk]

​​@@devamin6017those Google cars were travelling for years without a single accident. Driveless cars are one of the best inventions of the last decades. They have the potential to save so many lives. Most accidents are duo to human error. That is why airplanes are much safer than cars

[@remi1771]

@@Kavyatej you should watch "Veritasium: A Story of KZbin Propaganda"

[@ARCmusic101]

​@@devamin6017this thing that we're about to implement in a car already exists on other stuff . Like the auto pilot of plane . You'd certainly never hear about an accident because of autopilot. It's something we all trust , then why be worried about cars?

[@Layby2k]

Driverless car at a crash test; Engineer: Ok, now drive into that wall as fast as you can Driverless car: Umm no! Engineer: That's a pass

[@FathurRahman-os9pi]

The AI has some self-aware😮

[@danielbrowniel]

If almost every car were driverless and very successful, the need for crash test and structural safety could become more or less obsolete.. however with todays engineering it wouldn't exactly become some sort of trade of function. Look at the new aptera coming out, that thing looks like a deadly situation. But when you consider how light it is and efficient.. You don't have to spend as much money on batteries. In most cases a car only has one passenger, I think in the future we will see a lot of tiny commuter cars like this with no steering wheel.

[@TheIntJuggler]

@@danielbrowniel There is nothing wrong with redundancy when it comes to safety.

[@Guerrilla727]

Cringe

[@Arashmickey]

​@@FathurRahman-os9pi Good morning Derek. I have solved the Giant Windmill Car puzzle. Do not bet against me, especially when I'm driving.

[@a1r592]

"Open the door Waymo!" "I'm sorry, Derek. I'm afraid I can't do that."

[@grantjoslyn3638]

Waymo 9000

[@jasonruffjr3107]

"Upgrade" vibes 😂

[@probuilder961]

Waymo AKA. HAL

[@mikael2748]

This doesn’t have enough likes

[@erickm119]

Street Odyssey 2021

[@fanjan7527]

My dad who was a pilot, in the late 70's, did an auto landing just to see how the new technology works, on Boeing. He had his hands ready at the flight wheel all the way down, but, in the late 70's, the plane, landed itself.

[@-_James_-]

When I flew to Australia from the UK in the late 90s, we had a refueling stop in Singapore. On our final approach the pilot came on and made his usual pre landing announcement and instructed us to sit back and enjoy the landing - because that's what he was going to do.

[@underaveragecuber7437]

Aw, man. So you're telling me that the plot of Airplane! is unrealistic? I never would have guessed

[@neeneko]

though even today, it is not unusual for a crash to be attributed to the autopilot. Not directly of course, the autopilot usually works as in tended and there is some degree of human or sensor error involved, but the process of explaining to the autopilot what to do and when involves the pilot, ATC, and other systems that can conflict with it.

[@CharlieDB96]

There's infinitely more complex situations for an autonomous car to have to deal with. Flying is easy for a computer, it's straight forward, minimal obstacles. Planes don't need to change lanes to turn, or to check if lanes are clear before attempting so. Aerospace auto-pilot doesn't have to contend with bumper to bumper traffic, or stop lights.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@CharlieDB96 True, but landing is the trickiest part of flying, and computers could do that half a century ago. Given Moore's Law, just imagine what they are capable of today. They might even fit on your desk!

[@SanderEvers]

Honestly, you can replace any car with something really simple: a train. And just take your bike or walk te final distance. Sure you'll need a robust train network, but it is absolutely doable. Since, well, here in the Netherlands we have exactly that network. Plus the bike or walking to the destination.

[@hamsandwichindahouse]

In Amsterdam. Outside of Amsterdam, everyone drives, and eveyone knows this, including you.

[@strategystuff5080]

@@hamsandwichindahouse Every major city + small town has extensive public infrastructure busses, rent-a-bike, or trains. Only in really rural areas would a car be essential.

[@RMProjects785]

Netherlands is one of the densest countries in the world, basically one big city. The U.S. is an entire continent. You can't build a train or bus lane to everywhere, bikes can't go far enough quick enough and isn't compatible with a lot of the extreme weather of the USA. While we need more public transport and walkability in urban areas, "just build trains lol" is not a viable solution for the transport needs of such a large country. Point to point transport at anytime anywhere will always beat public transport at a lot of tasks.

[@aphasi]

You realize that Europe as a continent has a pretty good network of trains right, you could easily travel from London to Madrid within a day by train (20 hours, same as you would with the car over a bit more than 1000 miles) while having time for yourself doing so and reducing your ecological footprint. To put it in perspective, Chicago to New York (little less than 800 miles) takes 18 hours. Each country has then their local network that is maybe less efficient, but the idea is that size is not an argument, it's the mentality. Even China is investing in HST...

[@RMProjects785]

@@aphasi Yes I know because I live in Europe and commute every day by train and bicycle. First, no one travels by train from London to Madrid, as it requires multiple interchanges, while a single flight can make the trip in 3 hours for half the price. While I agree with the French policy of replacing short-haul flights with high speed rail, making 20 hour train journeys Is something nobody will do. Yes, major cities should be well connected by rail, and a lot of road transport disincentivised. We should improve and expand public transport systems. But it is simply unrealistic to replace cars on a large scale. They will always be the most efficient way to travel most distances, even in terms of an environmental standpoint, and to remove them is to return to the 1800s in terms of transportation. Even in the Netherlands, a dense country regarded to have the best public transport infrastructure in the world, cars are by far the most used method of travel. To build the most efficient transport system requires a combination of public and private transport. It's silly to rely on one or the other.

[@PatrykPonichtera]

As a motorcycle rider I'd feel safer with autonomous cars, they're more predictable, they would indicate their turning intentions and they wouldn't drive distracted or drunk

[@alericjohansen6775]

I'm not a motorcycle rider, but i would LOVE to have autonomous vehicles on the road that ACTUALLY indicate which way they plan to turn and everything. I see SOOOOO MANY drivers just fail to use turn signals at all, it's insane. Not to mention the drunk aspect or other things humans do.

[@sino_diogenes]

This is a good point. I refuse to take up motorcycling (except maybe backroads) because of stupid humans.

[@WiseWik]

@@sino_diogenes that's just stupid

[@NewBeginningNewCreation]

All the negatives, aside from driving distracted, you mentioned are everything motorcyclists I know do 😆

[@SillyTubereal]

The possibilities on road are endless, which is why autonomous cars will never take over human drivers. Cars are not like other autonomous machines that have only one job, such as motion detecting lights.

[@mrWobbleWobble]

Maybe a corporate PR oriented sponsored video is not exactly an element of truth? Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan and have been here since the beginning of the channel. But this is kind of a disappointment because we all know you'd do a much deeper and more interesting analysis in the autonomous cars technology without some company's interests looking over your shoulder. This is more of a very big ad than a true Veritasium video which we all know and love.

[@javiergonzalez7214]

This is absolutely an ad. I'm genuinely disappointed. At the very least, they should change the name of the channel.

[@That_GuyYouTube]

Gotta make that $$$$$$

[@BrassicaRappa]

Yeah, this disappointing, especial considering the size of the channel. They have 4000 patrons on patreon. Didn't see numbers published, but I'm sure they're not all $1 subscribers. Can't imagine they're *that* desperate for funding, or that it would be worth putting the channels credibility on the line. :/

[@7654321220]

You dismissed an arguement of truth based on intentions not factual evidence, that's not a good sign. Also, there's no general "autonomous cars technology", just "autonomous cars technology of XXX company"

[@charan775]

@@That_GuyKZbin they can take sponsorships from someone else rather than the same company on which you are making video about it

[@aralmajid3851]

This feels like an ad. Personally, I think it's irresponsible of Veritasium to take sponsors which have a direct stake in the content of the video he's making. Though this is an informative video, it is heavily onesided, and given the sponsorship, this is concerning.

[@Money_Man55]

Hard agree

[@Sha-Ayo]

Definitely agree

[@KaProLax]

Tom Nicholas?

[@Sha-Ayo]

@@KaProLax think the guy wrote this before Tom's video

[@nlsantiesteban]

Damn right.

[@michinwaygook3684]

This was one of the first videos I watched by Veritasium and it was because of this video I didn't watch anymore for about two years. I figured when someone is promoting self driving cars while being sponsored by a self driving car company nothing they have to say is worth listening to. While I still do not take anything you say in this video seriously I have very much enjoyed the many other videos you have produced.

[@FredEPLk]

That would be the case if he had hidden the fact that the video was sponsored. They probably reached out to him because of his credibility. He tested the car and made observations (honest ones like when the car suddenly stops to protect a pedestrian). I dont understands why that would make you or anyone else question his integrity. That was not an ad, It was an informative video.

[@maxguerra9155]

@@FredEPLk To copy another reply i saw here: "Tom Nicholas had made a video about it titled "Veritasium: A story of KZbin Propaganda", when "educational" youtubers get paid to do something and present it as a fact. We should spend more time being skeptical on what we're watching nowadays." Basically his scientific and balanced view on electric cars and waymo went down to 0% when a paycheck is involved.

[@squidwardo7074]

@@maxguerra9155 you seem to have quite a vendetta against veritasium

[@joostdriesens3984]

In the near future: "I'm bored, I'm going to switch the car to manual to drive myself a bit.." "WTF! are you crazy? stay away from the controls, you're going to hit something if you don't pay attention!".

[@SOLIDSNAKE.]

Exactly

[@sarumatsu3698]

Just like in iRobot. We already are at a point where we trust computers (or automated machines) over humans for near-perfect functioning. Imagine everything being automated. We would not challenge it.

[@bitcoinyoda8321]

and it will be pretty expensive to drive yourself because of the insurance

[@cellc6191]

well yea if we even reach to that point since global warming (:

[@revimfadli4666]

Basically what happened to beginner-to-mid-level programming

[@bengunderson712]

In an accident, humans don't "decide who to hit." They panic and hit whatever is about to be hit.

[@ChilapaOfTheAmazons]

In a typical accident humans often don't even panic until _after_ the accident because they were completely distracted and didn't even notice that it was about to happen.

[@bable6314]

Exactly. As long as the vehicle can do better than LITERALLY PANICKING then it's fine lmfao

[@bengunderson712]

@@ChilapaOfTheAmazons exactly! That's why I disagree with all the "morality of who to hit" discussions with AI. Humans don't consider this, and computers comparatively won't ever need to.

[@Suck-Squeeze-Bang-Blow]

As a commercial driver, I have often chosen my exit from a potentially fatal situation.

[@Tom-fm2fh]

That's not "people" but morons. You can't judge everybody because of the image you have of yourself. "Self" driving cars are nothing less than lethal weapons and suicide booths. Even in aviation where you have thorough and dilligent inspections every 50 hrs, expensive state of the art technology, way more clearances from objects and obstacles, lot longer reaction times, ATC and you assess weather prepare flight plans to make sure the automation will not go out of it's limits and fail (and there are multiple redundancies and emergency procedures for various automation failures) there ARE still frequent automation failures and completely avoidable deaths if there was NO AUTOMATION in a first place. Automation is nothing than convenience that lazy irresponsible collectivists use to avoid taking responsibility for their lives and actions and to avoid putting effort into practical education and training

[@varkis101]

If there are no ads in the video, then the whole video it is ads. How to prove to everyone that driverless cars are safe? Let's invite independent experts and journalists - nooooo. It's better to buy 5 bloggers with millions of followers who don't understand anything about safety and let them tell you how cool and safe it is. Of course I won't mention in the description of the video that, I'm a waymo ambassador so it looks like a normal science/tech video to everyone. Of course, I will only use the data and statistics provided by waymo. Well done Derek, you have to have the talent to use the trust of 13.7 million followers to make money

[@smbarbour]

I'm really interested to see how they will handle winter road conditions where there is black ice and a layer of snow and slush that completely obscures the lane markings.

[@Kylesnowboardersutcl]

It would probably drive slower and more carefully than most people would in the same situation. It would also be able to use the data gathered about the width of the road, other cars positions, and the edges of the road to determine its own correct positioning

[@bearcubdaycare]

I think that there's a reason that is done in a warm climate on wide straight roads, not in snowy, icy regions with winding lanes, bad pavement, blowing grocery bags. You know, like stuff that makes it complicated. Some years back, I thought "wow, DARPA really seems to think that teams have cracked this". Then, cars driving into the sides of buses or the bottoms of crossing tractor trailer trucks, or unable to distinguish between a stopped fire truck and an overheard sign. That last was like, if you can't solve that basic motion problem, that's the most basic 0.00001% of the problem. Ok, long way to go, if ever.

[@thedarkcod4824]

@@bearcubdaycare MINNESOTA MOMENT

[@rum-ham]

How well do humans handle these conditions? (I don't think they handle it very well tbh). There's really no reason why these cars can't (eventually, after enough training) handle ANY situation better than a human.

[@rum-ham]

@@bearcubdaycare I see autonomous cars from multiple companies driving around everyday in San Francisco. They are coming sooner than you think.

[@yourex-wife4259]

This technology is cool and will be useful. But the whole "Wow now I can read a book on my way to work" can be achieved with public transport as well. I know this is not an original thought.

[@toericabaker]

But the public is yuckyyyyy ewww... why would we want to help them

[@oakoakoak2219]

@@toericabaker I pretty sure you are just joking but in case you aren’t….. if your public transport sucks, that’s because we haven’t invest enough into them. Public transportation are purposely underfunded due to automotive industry that lobbied for cities to build and prioritize their infrastructure around private vehicles rather than an encompassing public transportation system

[@toericabaker]

@@oakoakoak2219 yes, i'm joking. i am a poor myself!

[@toericabaker]

I sub to More than bikes and Adam Something. I love public transit. KC was gonna get a rail extension until covid happened, and the city drank our budget into other projects

[@yourex-wife4259]

@@toericabaker Thats really frustrating. Theres this trade school I want to go to that's like a 20 minute walk from a train station but only freight goes through the town for some reason. Its like a 50 minute drive from my town.

[@SeanHodgins]

The real problem is the transition phase, which will likely be extremely long period(or endless?). Its not quite as easy of a change as elevators, so you will likely always(in our generation at least) have bad human drivers with good Autonomous drivers sharing the road. I wonder what it would mean for insurance companies with 100% autonomous vehicles on the road.

[@StoutProper]

You’ll never get that though will you, there will always be people who want to drive

[@byrnemeister2008]

I am pretty sure it’s going to mean bankruptcy for auto insurers. Except for the one that insurers Google and the one that covers Tesla.

[@Gunny-rt3lb]

1 word, 'insurance'. At some point insurers will significantly raise premiums on human driven vehicles because the risk of damage will be so much higher and it will be sooooo much easier to prove that a human was the source of the crash (from telemetrics)

[@jaredf6205]

What would make it a problem?

[@jaloveast1k]

@@StoutProper I mean, the government can enforce that. If let's say 90% of population will be against human drivers sticking around, then it'll be in every politicians interest to make it part of his election program.

[@NinjaBearFilms]

I want two things… A federal law that says when an autonomous accident happens, all that cars data from its sensors must be made available to every autonomous car designer within a set time limit. So every manufacturer can say, “we’ve tested the data in simulation and this is how our vehicle would have responded. Based on this data we’re adding these improvements.” And second… I want a self driving semi-truck that had the trailer converted into a luxury RV. So when I go on vacation we just climb in, say “I want to see Mount Rushmore this summer.” And off we go.

[@DrJams]

No

[@ImDemonAlchemist]

But in almost all circumstances, the data wouldn't have much useful information, since it will not have been the fault of the autonomous system. This is a good idea, just one that would only have a major benefit very rarely.

[@MNovater]

@@ImDemonAlchemistThe biggest benefit would be increased confidence in the technology as the car companies compete to convince the consumers that their system is the most reliable. Then in 12-15 years, when almost every car on the used market comes with autonomous driving, accidents would be extremely rare as all the cars are operating under the same driving rules.

[@equesdeventusoccasus]

In 2010, due to upper body mobility dysfunction, I parked my car and sold it. It was no longer safe for me to be behind the wheel. Autonomous vehicles are something that I have been waiting for.

[@ElNeroDiablo]

Aye. I mean I have panic attacks trying to start a car and get it rolling along with muscle problems in my legs that give me lead feet, but live in a part of rural NSW, Australia where it's a 40km/25mi to the next town and a 110km/70mi+ drive to the nearest cities so having a car is kinda required if I need to go any further than my grocer down the road and expect to carry anything more than some light breakfast and lunch makings in shopping bags.

[@BryKKan1]

How is it any different from calling an Uber?

[@DrummertheCody]

I’m legally blind too. Stay at home dad of two. Fully autonomous cars would be an absolute game changer for me and my family.

[@koneal2000]

I'm still waiting for the idiot "but how did you write this?!?!" comments.

[@zqpcydbfoqbdiehdj]

@@koneal2000 yeah, he just heard and had his iPhone write it for him. You know.. these services for this specific type of people should be a thing indeed! But for perfectly working humans.. c'mon.. what are you doing to the people's way of living? If the government approves this. Crime will just go higher cause of so much stress from people without jobs. It's sad. Very sad what's going to happen. I'm just thinking about it.. and I feel them.

[@Exphorousm]

@@zqpcydbfoqbdiehdjoh i see

[@Sheridantank]

@UCQMRIAMkmz0BLKI4o4JKx4Q "I see, I see", said the blind man to his deaf daughter

[@DrummertheCody]

@@koneal2000 😂😂😂 I used the force. Obviously.

[@BlacklistBill]

You might even say, they have 'Waymo' experience than any human driver.

[@petern.j.4121]

Oh my god

[@rubidot]

You win

[@patrickmccune6963]

Waymo will be contacting you shortly.

[@gamesec3490]

well done

[@michaelwang1730]

nice pun

[@everydayengineering817]

I still don't want driverless cars on our roads .

[@blanamaxima]

If all would be driverless it would be good. Humans are messing up the problem statement…

[@JJs_playground]

You should have mentioned that those waymo cars are "geofenced" in one neighbourhood in Phoenix, Arizona.

[@james3803]

Exactly

[@salmanbehen4384]

This comment should be way up higher.

[@alankwellsmsmba]

That's implied. You figured it out and so did I.

[@james3803]

@@alankwellsmsmba that’s definitely not implied in this video and almost no one knows that

[@samplebriefmint4204]

@@james3803 But he did say that they are only in a certain part of Phoenix? Near the beginning of the video.

[@markozagar]

Here's one way I'm thinking about this: Yes, software can have bugs and will fail sometimes, but it will do so once (or a few times), then it'll be fixed and *all* the self-driving cars will be updated. On the other hand, humans make the same mistakes over and over, the "lesson learned" is not shared, and the learning has to start all over again for each generation.

[@CrouchingGrandpa]

Only if you've paid for the $199/mo premium package.

[@JamesV1]

@@CrouchingGrandpa this is a taxi service.

[@zrize101]

The biggest issue, I think, is predictability and corrections to failures. Like the whole reason why there are pilots in the airplanes. If the system encounters a failure, either mechanical or electronic-wise, the auto-pilot will be very challenged in correcting the issue, whereas humans might have the right ingenuity to compromise or otherwise strategise in the situation.

[@Megaranator]

@@zrize101 I don't think air planes and cars are comparable, you can stop a car, you can't stop and airplane

[@RageFireMaster]

Some People dont even learn from their own mistakes so :D

[@rohithshenoyd]

Man the car must have so much anxiety imagining all those possible scenarios.

[@realchezboi]

“Oh my god, that car was so hot, was he looking at me??” *Computes 20 billion possibilities*

[@curgest6807]

@@realchezboi mmmm look at that model 1980 classic

[@PiotrLast111]

AI cars not doing this thing. It works more like human brain.

[@akatsukilevi]

Imagine the car suddenly stops in the middle of the road because it is having a anxiety attack XD

[@LuisSierra42]

@@realchezboi Out of the 20 billion possibilities there is only one in which that girl car would go on a date with him

[@guillaumepreudhomme4800]

It’s not a safety concern. It’s an economical concern. Bus and cab drivers would all lose their jobs if we switched to automatic vehicles.

[@michaelslifecycle]

It’s not a safety concern? Over 7000 pedestrian deaths in 2022 alone and that’s just in America. Those aren’t just random people. Those are our fellow citizens. Our friends and neighbors. That’s not a concern to you?

[@happyjoyjoy6976]

a very nicely made ad for Waymo thanks Veratasium.

[@Pudibu]

Millions of miles and they still won’t step outside easy layout of Phoenix roads. I dare them to come to Boston.

[@Hyanmensir]

I also welcome them to Northern Europe in December or Central Europe in general. Let's see how they do when the lanes aren't as wide as a football field and originally designed for horse carriages. (They will get there, I'm sure. Just not in 2024.)

[@FredEPLk]

It is like you guys are expecting them to fail. I am actually surprised It is taking this long. Here in Brazil, traffic is chaotic, roads are usually not good enough and drivers can be really agressive and irresponsible. I can't wait to see self-driving cars everywhere.

[@momom6197]

It's not an ad: the vast majority of his audience cannot use Waymo's services because they don't operate in that area. It's not about finding customers, it's about increasing public support. There is an argument to be made that it might be called lobbying, but don't call it an ad when it's not. Also, I don't care who gives me arguments about self-driving cars; what matters is the facts: are autonomous cars safer than human-driven ones or not? From all I can see, the evidence is steadily accumulating in favor of autonomous cars.

[@woldenwolk]

@@momom6197 it literally is an ad. Waymo paid for this video to be made. It was part of a promotional campaign wherein Waymo paid multiple youtube channels to make videos. This is not an unprompted video that Waymo just happened to sponsor. An ad is still an ad when it also reaches people who can't purchase your products or services. Lobbying is about influencing government or legislation which isn't at play here.

[@davidhadupyak9946]

Imagine a car saying, "That was close!"

[@colinfloyd5788]

In Owen Wilson's voice

[@puppetsock]

Actually, software that notes situations where things went out of parameter limits is a necessary thing. Otherwise you can't learn where the software needs improvement. So some situation confuses the software and sensors. And the software reports it. And the developers tune the software, maybe upgrade the sensors. Maybe the sensors get confused over contrast in particular light conditions. Maybe some forms of curb confuse the sensors and the car hits the curb. Maybe it can't figure out train crossings properly. Yada yada, each situation gets recognized, software and hardware upgraded to deal with it, and then they know what to test for. The potential benefits are huge. It is quite reasonable to expect that the accident rate could be reduced by a factor of 10, possibly much more. So it means your morning commute will have a lot fewer accidents screwing up traffic. Driverless cars will also have radio to communicate with eachother, and computers that can do simulations. They will be able to choose the best route for the shortest travel time. And coordinate with each other so that you don't suddenly get every commuter going on the south option and leaving the north option empty. And it means your insurance (with regard to collisions) should be correspondingly cheaper. Maybe you can add about $5000 to the price of the car and get lifetime insurance. Insurance that could be part of the resale of the car. No more monthly insurance costs. That will also correspond to a dramatically reduced death and injury rate due to collisions. The vid mentioned deaths. But there are a corresponding number of serious injuries each year also. If you get injured seriously and spend months in hospital then rehab, maybe with things that never go away like scars or damage to your internal organs. Or worse. You may lose your income during this time. And you will have big medical bills, even if your insurance, or the other guy's insurance, pays for it. These cars can reduce the inicdent of those kinds of injuries. That will save costs to the health system as well as reducing the injury and death. Theft might be squeezed a bit also. Your autonomous car might know you and refuse to budge for anybody not you. Or designated members of your family. Or it might go, but be calling the police while it goes, giving full video to the cops of both the inside and outside of the car. So if you get somebody jumping in your car with a gun and telling you to drive, the car goes but sees the gun, and calls the cops giving them full particulars. The car and the cops coordinate to agree where and when they grab the thief. After a few incidents where a wanna-be thief is caught this way, people might get the idea that car theft is a bad move. It should mean that emergency vehicles have a much better time. The emergency vehicle will be sending radio messages out ahead and the autonomous cars will be getting out of the way in advance. Side streets would stop to clear intersections. It means the fire truck can motor down the middle of the road at maximum speed. The autonomous cars can also be announcing "Firetruck approaching. Please move to the sidewalk." Or some such announcement. And pedestrians can be out of the way. Your ambulance might be able to cut travel times significantly. In the US, there are roughly 6000 ambulance collisions per year, and 3000 fire truck collisions pe year. Driverless cars could reduce those, maybe by much more than a factor of 10. You decide you want to go to the office. You dial up your car, which is in a parking lot ten minutes away. It starts itself up and comes to your front door. It drives you to your office. During the drive, you can be reading or watching vids or whatever. At your office, you get out, and the car goes and finds a parking lot nearby. When you are ready to go home, you reverse the process. It means you don't need parking directly at your home or office, just a big parking lot nearby. Which means you can plan things differently both in commercial or industrial areas and residential areas. You can remove the garage and driveway from your home and devote that space and area to something else.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

@@colinfloyd5788 How many years do you think it's gonna be before Owen Wilson is hired to voice the voice system of the car?

[@SUBSCRIBERSWITHOUTVIDEOS-dj7vo]

@@puppetsock 1948 - john orwin

[@mauorel]

Wamo: "ughh, c'mon! ... must be a human driving... yup! Hooooman!!"

[@OlOleander]

This was the video that gave me pause about Veritasium as an information source and distributor. Considering the raft of other science and edutainment KZbinrs that have been sponsored to promote certain interests, this was still something of a surprise. Glad Tom Nicholas took another look at it; upon rewatching, it seems even more like an ad than it did even at the time.

[@BrassicaRappa]

Yeah, this really bums me out, and I say this as a card carrying Snatoms owner. :(

[@osirisapex7483]

Sadly, we’ve all known this about Veritasium and other educational channels, it’s just that Tom actually said the words out loud

[@OlOleander]

@@osirisapex7483 More right than I'd like to admit.

[@edowicz]

Get over it you bunch of dorks.

[@BrassicaRappa]

@@edowicz hey, if you don't care about this kind of thing, there are other places on the internet where you'll probably fit in a little better.

[@erdekesnem7767]

Dear Derek, I highly respect your work, I have learned an enormous amount from your videos. That being said, I'd like to raise a couple of points which I find you have ignored in this video. 12:22 and 13:00 The question you have raised is only part of the whole story. A major issue with driverless cars is responsibility. No matter how bad a driver you are, if you cause an accident, you take the responsibility for it: you personally get fined, charged, locked up in jail, whatever. However, when (and it's a question of "when", not "if"!) a driverless car causes a serious accident, who will assume responsibility? The manufacturer? What would that even mean? They get fined? So what? That'd be essentially assigning a price tag to human life. This is very serious ethical question that must be addressed by the society. Let us not pretend to not see the enormous economic interest of car manufacturers here. They are all pushing for driverless cars because for them it would mean that they can replace ALL existing cars with a new one. We are talking about trillions of dollars here, the business of the century. This is markedly different from aviation, for example: I highly doubt that any airplane was thrown out off the window just because it was not equipped with an automated pilot. I think this concerns many people, and comments like yours that the real ethical question is why not to have a driverless car are pretty out-of-the-line for this reason. Don't get me wrong, driverless cars can be a wonderful additional technology for humanity. But I think FORCING it on society is unacceptable. Also, among all people you should be very well aware of the dangers in making humans independent on premature technologies. Aviation is a fairly simple problem compared to a complicated traffic situation in the middle of a city. We are very reasonable to question whether the technology is safe and developed enough. There is a reason why intertia in technology exists in critical applications. Why do you think the entire financial system runs on software written in COBOL? Why many nuclear power plants have DOS-based software (!), or why the international space station does not use the latest version of MS Windows (or any version of Windows for that matter. They use Debian Linux, for a good reason...)? 13:20 Come on... How do we check these claims? Why on Earth should we believe Google saying this? This is exactly what EVERY company says when they want to sell a product. How many examples shall I enlist here where entire societies have been tricked by corporations just to win a few billions of dollars? As for Waymo's studies: again, due to the extremely high economic interest, why should we believe ANY of them? Let us ask the authorities instead!

[@pocketlama]

"13:20" Right? "We would never..." says the corporate shill talking to another corporate shill. How anyone EVER takes a statement like that seriously from anyone, much less a profit-driven entity, baffles me to my core. You don't even need to know history to know what a dumb idea it is to trust a statement like that. Twenty-year-olds living in the backwoods with only their family to interact with and no schooling have had enough life experience to know not to trust statements like that. Only intentionally giving up all attempts at critical thought could cause one to accept it so uncritically. And that Veritasium is a team, not just some guy on camera, makes it so much clearer that it's an intentional thing.

[@tomatotomato6534]

At this rate Disney will make live-action version of the Cars movie.

[@cedriceric9730]

Yes to that

[@anotherfellasaiditsnunya]

And it will be made by Skynet having determined the human race is unable to survive its own flawed existence prompting the onset of the robot war

[@savinyupant6227]

But man they won't be able to crash those cars into each other , kind of leaving no space for suspense and action xD

[@Hyrulistic]

Lightning McQueen will be the last car with a human driver, who has to learn to trust his AI.

[@sorenkair]

This makes no sense

[@dantheman8862]

13:50 - "These vehicles have WAYMO experience than any human driver"

[@dantheman2120]

You did not

[@proloycodes]

you are truly The Man, Dan

[@demosdown9812]

@hermit when you put it that way.

[@demosdown9812]

@hermit "hang on gotta switch to manual override!" *Gas Gas Gas intensifies*

[@atulanand1337]

@hermit Yup. It’s every other day that someone is chasing me. /s No but seriously, do you do so much illegal stuff that you have a fear of being caught by a car chasing you?

[@martindonoval2162]

Seeing a sticker that says: "Please _keep your hands off_ the wheel" in a car is pretty weird :D

[@practicalapplications]

Unless it's a BBC Monster

[@epicplaceholder9853]

*not having a wheel at all

[@lordpvt]

LOL

[@MO-fg2cm]

Hackers : keep your hand or not .. I still control you

[@greefo]

@@iSketchy 😂😂 his being cringe for speaking on something that happens has had happened and will happen? You're the cringe not him for actually thinking.

[@Chickenbreadlp]

My biggest concern with autonomous cars: Machines are really good at handling predictable situations. Things like a traffic light, a stop or speed limit sign, a railroad crossing. Where machines struggle is with unpredictable situations. Things like a person walking over a zebra crossing despite traffic, a ball rolls onto the road from between cars (likely a kid following it), a light on a railroad crossing or traffic light is broken, someone put a sticker on a speed limit sign, temporary road markings from road works that have partially fallen off... I think you get the idea. Elevators and airplanes have only few failure modes, which all can be announced to machines way ahead of those becoming problematic, this ain't the case for cars. Heck, I'd trust a driverless train way more then a driverless car, as long as the train tracks are blocked off with walls on the plattforms, kinda like what you see in Japan, as then the train is nothing more then an elevator with more complex tracks...

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

How come they're called driverless cars instead of auto-autos?

[@ristopaasivirta9770]

The man is asking the real questions here.

[@Tondadrd]

Still better than "smartphone".

[@VCTRLCSJSS]

Dude.

[@KarisMajik]

(Auto)²

[@KK-ef1ow]

I mean, technically automobile would still work right?

[@MandJTV]

I hope to one day be able to tell kids that we used to drive cars ourselves and they'll just go 👁️👄👁️

[@mohdnazimrosli8535]

The old silvester stallone movie? The one that taco bell become a fancy restaurant? Demolition man!! When he drives a mustang n nobody else knows how to drive , Also , i still dont know how to use the 3 sea shells replacing the toilet paper

[@Edino_Chattino]

I was thinking about that the other day. When I'm an old man, people will hear me saying that I used to fill up with gas the tank of my manual-transmission non-autonomous vehicle.

[@MauriccioManiac]

Wait... This isn't a pokemon video 🤨

[@OntarioTrafficMan]

With manual transmissions!

[@Lighthouse_out_of_order]

@@OntarioTrafficMan I witnessed my Dad gets the car going with a manual crank after the battery died. I feel old.

[@kennethkho7165]

A sponsored video is fine, but please avoid misleading people by also disclosing whether the video is intended to be impartial or not. The reason that this car seemingly has a level 5 autonomy is that the car is driving in phoenix, arizona where the waymo team has manually crafted a 3d model of the city. Disappointed.

[@excitedbox5705]

Journalistic ethics is literally dead. The moment the advertiser has input into the video you are no longer a journalist. This content has no business having his or the channels name attached to it. Weymo is literally running a carpet bomb campaign to manipulate public opinion. An ethical video would have been him, doing a video about self driving cars with ZERO direction from the company about what to say or do but this is abusive of the trust his viewers place in him. His channel is now an entertainment channel not a learning channel. As far as I am concerned NOTHING he says from this point should be trusted as being impartial, his actual opinion, or accurate. Sadly most people can not separate that.

[@bradenculver7457]

And why would that not be able to be done other places? I feel like that would almost be a necessity for most cities, how would the car know where to go otherwise? This feels like an extremely weak criticism.

[@kennethkho7165]

@@bradenculver7457 it's because he failed to mention it, he implied that the car only uses lidar which is just lying by omission.

[@bradenculver7457]

@@kennethkho7165 I disagree completely. He doesn’t have to mention every caveat, especially with the fact I imagine every city will require some mapping in order for the car to actually, you know, know where it is going. Your car isn’t even going to know where Walmart is unless there is some mapping of the area. No autonomous car could rely solely on LiDAR, it would have no reference of where to actually go.

[@conradmonson30]

I mean, the car has to start somewhere, right? I’d imagine if given enough time and money, they could have 3D maps of every city and town. What? Do you think you’ll be able to hop in one right now and drive up snowy mountain roads in Colorado? I guess I’m just confused what you expected from him, and I agree this isn’t a very strong argument/criticism.

[@Langharig_Tuig]

Ads are getting smarter

[@theironrhino110]

I feel like a majority of cars in general could be removed if we just designed our cities and towns better to make it that walking, cycling, and/or taking reliable public transit is all we need in order to get from one place to another.

[@eslofftschubar206]

Funny how no scientist came to this conclusion.

[@Uzbekistan_1991]

@@eslofftschubar206 The way is he said is right. And, it is possible. However, due to global warmimg and other issues, it is making much difficult to deal with

[@eslofftschubar206]

@@Uzbekistan_1991 I agree with him. What bothers me is, that cars are being pushed. no matter the mean propulsion, they are still cars with most of their drawbacks. Having cities not built around cars, would be an order of magnitude greater advantage, than just switching to electric, self driving, cars.

[@locky326]

Wow you just invented Amsterdam!

[@ared4108]

@@locky326 Or Denver :D

[@shubhayubasu7695]

Ok that's amazing, but what I would really love is Drivable Roads. ~An Indian.

[@anirbandutta8000]

Spot On ! Ha Ha ! ~From Another Indian

[@brokenjawtheory]

i share your pain - Indonesian chipping in

[@Ascientistsjourney]

Well that's an irony but don't you think human drivers are the ones that are responsible for the reckless driving.

[@sarthakdash3798]

self driving cars need level 6 automation to drive on Indian roads

[@RISHI_RAJ0]

I hope it gets better :) fellow Indian

[@nroose]

Auto collisions are pretty common. And always have been. Airplane collisions are very rare, and always have been. Elevator collisions are, and have always been, never.

[@ChilapaOfTheAmazons]

Yep, that's why cars are being automated the last and need the most sophisticated software of the three.

[@philip1382]

To be fair, there's been Elevator collisions with the ground. If someone crashes into the side of a freeway overpass you wouldn't say that car wasn't in a collision because it hit a wall instead of another car.

[@RicardoVermeltfoort]

Elevator crashes are rare but not never, you probably are forgetting it can crash at the bottom, or actually more likely, at the top (the balance weight is heavier so in most cases where an elevator crashed it was into the ceiling)

[@sorbital7]

What is the point of this comment?

[@FinetalPies]

Planes collide with the ground everytime they land. See, I too can use language to sound clever but ultimately say nothing.

[@MrBendybruce]

"Full disclosure, this video is sponsored by Waymo and I've decided to swap out My scientific skeptics hat for my far more valuable propaganda one, so I can get that bag."

[@FredEPLk]

That is because the benefits outweigh the risks massively. Also, he knows that the tendency is for people to be afraid and skeptical about this. He is showing that it is like any other evolution, the more you know about it, the more you realize it is a great invention and start to wonder why you haven't tried before. There was a time when people would never trade a horse for a car and here we are.

[@RocoPwnage]

@@FredEPLk "people are skeptical about this new technology so the reasonable thing to do is avoid talking about any of its negatives" There was a time when people would never trade a horse for a car and I wish they hadn't.

[@ImDemonAlchemist]

​@@RocoPwnage What negatives? Name negatives that affect more than a tiny minority of situations.

[@balarog7418]

​@@ImDemonAlchemist Massacring a dozen humans when the AI fails to detect something is ... a negative

[@ImDemonAlchemist]

@@balarog7418 If that happened, then yeah. I find that insanely unlikely, though. Not to mention that that would need to happen more than 3,500 times a year to equal the number of humans killed by humans in car accidents, in the US alone.

[@jaysftw]

Imagine road ragers pulling up to the car and seeing that there is no driver.

[@shashwat4920]

Lol

[@johnny_eth]

Just put a cut out of Chuck Norris in the seat

[@rapinsanramesh8074]

Do you like Matthias?

[@rapinsanramesh8074]

The guy in your pfp

[@jaysftw]

@@rapinsanramesh8074 I don't watch him anymore. I created that pfp years ago.

[@isengrom6883]

IMO, we shouldn’t be investing so much into driverless cars, when what we should be doing is reducing the number of people driving cars. Ie, build trains and busses so regular you don’t have to plan your schedule around them. It would save lives simply because fewer people would be driving and more would be taking already safe public transportation Edit: too many car brain people who think car good always and can’t think any differently. Simply put, only way go fix traffic is offer other forms of transportation. IE walking, biking, buses, trains. Look at any nation with public transportation if you need an example

[@dontburstmybubble686]

Yessss

[@brll5733]

That will be an outcome of autonomous cars. Fewer people will own one, it will be a 24/7 autonomous taxi service

[@materialdialectics]

Plus there is a significant amount of misinformation in this sponsored video.

[@alphatauri5736]

When you say 'we' should be investing in this and that, who is this mythical we that you're referring to? Go ahead and invest in it. Vote people in that support such investments. Until then, this is what looks like a feasible investment while cars are so prevalent in the US. How do these two things contradict each other, I don't get it?

[@ebolapie]

@@alphatauri5736 cars are heavily subsidized in the United States

[@diedertspijkerboer]

Since I don't drive, a driverless car would feel more like a bus or a train, something I'm already used to.

[@timokreuzer1820]

Yeah, except it's not full of stupid, noisy, stinking, sick, crazy, criminal and annoying people.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

@@timokreuzer1820 That's not the case where I live anyway. Yes, there can buses and trains like that, especially late at night, but not during the day and in the evenings. My worry with a driverless taxi would be that someone has been sick in it, though. But maybe they will have interior cams that spot that sort of thing.

[@Resetium]

Exactly my train of thought.

[@lonestarr1490]

I wonder: why don't we start with driverless trains? Shouldn't that be easier? We could have way more trains then.

[@commanderleo]

@@lonestarr1490 they already exist

[@benjaminhoffman3848]

The biggest issue is the autonomy people lose when anybody with an internet connection can take your car from you. The government can just say you have deviant views and shutdown your car.

[@michaelslifecycle]

This was the same concern with mobile banking, but look at what happened. Efficiency wins in the long run.

[@zappyapp]

how is this at all a concern? The government can go "You have a deviant view" and send 50 armed hitmen to your house and they never do? (at least not that I know of) If the government wants to abuse their authority, "shutting down your car" is probably the least damaging thing they can do to anyone lol The government can easily disable your access to the internet and that'd be leagues more concerning yet no one cares

[@jagdeepsinghmann33]

"These vehicles have WAYMOre experience than any driver." 13:50

[@StaK_1980]

nice catch! :-)

[@mralabbad7]

Can they do donuts? I didn't think so

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@mralabbad7 Prepare to be surprised.

[@MB-ey6vv]

damn you

[@VarunGupta3009]

I thought the same!

[@TAK-yj4hj]

This is just an ad for a technogadget :/ And given the fact that this is supposed to be an education channel, the sponsorship is concerning. How am I supposed to trust you when everything you are briefed beforehand on what you should say, talking about here was to be approved by your sponsor, and the product you are showing is from said sponsor?

[@ditokelio7860]

Just watch the video, take everything with a grain of salt and research yourself. Nothing about this video is actually wrong or harmful. The same way you watched that other guys vid to form this opinion you had, read and research more about it yourself.

[@InterloperBob]

"in all three cases, the waymo vehicle was stationary and the pedestrians ran into the vehicle." The report kindly omits the intoxication level of these pedestrians 😂

[@maulerrw]

Up next: driverless pedestrians

[@James-sk4db]

@@maulerrw That sounds like drunk people already

[@simonescarinzi3491]

Or maybe the car just stop immediately Infront of them? I think more details are needed to get a picture of what happened

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Were they actually intoxicated?

[@StormTiberius]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Maybe they were scammers trying to get some cash from the Waymo mobile ATM :>

[@These_Old_Engines]

This aged poorly, I thought this was all sealed up ready to go? Also the fact that they tried to sue Cali to cover up their crash data..... Every month that goes by this PR video puts a further black mark on your reputation. Hope the cash was worth it.

[@paborralho]

I've always admired veritasum videos and watched them as independent opinion. My question is: if Derek thought something was wrong, would it be on the video? It is sponsored by Waymo, I assume that they had to aprove it right? Did they write the script? I just ask.

[@TheDanielradio]

There was actually a video discussing that possible problemo.

[@hardo78]

@@TheDanielradio what video? Can you post a link?

[@TheDanielradio]

@@hardo78 I was being vague because you can use word filters for your comment sections so they never show up. I wouldn't expect the Veritasium team to do it, but who knows

[@hardo78]

@@TheDanielradio thx. U know the veriatium video about self driving cars sponsored by a german car brand? I think there where many comments about it being an ad, but now not anymore

[@TheDanielradio]

@@hardo78 no i saw veritasium had a video about self driving cars from 5 years ago? Haven't seen it, was that the one you meant? Sad to hear if that was a sponsored one too. Or sponsored videos shouldn't be disliked just because of that, but that we all can remain contious about biases, and preferably that educational youtubers still make sure to weigh both sides of an argument

[@jope4009]

For some reason, all these driverless cars are always driving around in sunny US states on wide roads. I wonder how they would fare in European towns and cities, where the streets are not as checkerboardy as in the US.

[@YeeSoest]

The jury is in and the results were pitiful. Historic town centers will be the last bastion of human drivers, I guarantee it

[@CarlosFreitas99]

He talks about it in the beginning of the video. Personally I think that as long as there is a clear distinction between the road and "not-the-road", this cars will do fine.

[@laartwork]

They will do fine.

[@alienzenx]

@@YeeSoest Cars should be banned from all historic town centres. They already have been from many.

[@Aeleas]

@@CarlosFreitas99 I think it'll be snowy places that automate last. In my experience at least that's the environment where the distinction between "the road" and "not the road" is most often muddied.

[@justyourfriendlyneighborho903]

13:50 you could say they have Way Mo experience than humans

[@zaxtonhong3958]

You win

[@jj5jj5]

I see what you did there.

[@justyourfriendlyneighborho903]

@yuitr loing i agree but did you get the pun though

[@debajyotimajumder2656]

underrated comment

[@wulfnesthead8788]

This aged well...

[@PaulJWells]

"Pilot Error" - When you see that most air accidents are caused by pilot error you could wonder why we still have pilots. The reason is that the pilot prevents far more accidents that would happen if they were not there. The problem is it's very hard to quantify things that don't happen.

[@brandoncueto]

Ah yes, some survivorship bias. Or non-survivorship bias? haha

[@DArtagnonW]

It's a bit like a vaccine. If you heard "Most flu related deaths are from bad reactions to vaccines" you might think "Oh no! Vaccines are bad!" But what's really happening is: flu deaths are so insanely diminished that the waaay secondary consideration, bad reactions, becomes prominent.

[@mariusvanc]

It's a huge phenomenon in economics. Often used to justify things like, for example, government assistance projects. A government project creates, say, 100 jobs at the cost of $X dollars. Great. What you don't see, and never will, is how many jobs would have been created if the money was spent differently, but you can confidently say "we created 100".

[@mrquark]

Source for that statement?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

this doesn't apply in this case though.

[@tomkroebel4936]

The guy who refused to use elevators and instead used the stairs probably did the best thing to live longer. Not because driverless elevators are unsecure but because he did a lot of cardio training every day!

[@alexj7440]

And that’s why we should ditch cars. Design cities around public transportation, bikes, and walking. Not only does it make cities more conducive to human beings, but it reduces pollution and encourages healthier habits.

[@greatcesari]

Yeah, you are also free to walk from city to city as you please. Seriously though, standing in a train is still healthier than sitting in traffic for twice as long.

[@andreas4010]

@@greatcesari "free to walk from city to city" How about being able to walk for groceries? School, shopping, drinks? I live in a small town yet I have dozens of options within a 10 min walk That's not a given in newer american cities due to the car centric layout where even sidewalks are not a given

[@marcelo497]

@@andreas4010 I live in a city with a metropolitan area with more than 10 million people and still have schools, shopping and groceries within 5 minutes of walking

[@nixl3518]

@@marcelo497 Good 4 u!! Not all people are so lucky and then we have to consider the older set, the less ambulatory such as amputees and the blind, the moms with their kids in tow and the awful weather that is always a serious consideration. Being young healthy and LUCKY does not entitle you to remove transportation options from those less so!!

[@haltorne6647]

"I'm hoping in the next 5 years in big cities"... So the people who voted 10 years away may be spot on for actual major implementation

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

@Ensrick Actually, bureaucracy, crony politics, and a history of elites sabotaging from within to take out a target are just a few among the reasons we can't trust an automated car from the passenger seat. The owner of the automation system can control the robot by fooling it or by taking manual control. Also, some of us literally aren't on the map. Myself included.

[@kunjupulla]

I would say to those, who thinks this will be implemented everywhere within the next 10 years, India exists.

[@djcsdy2]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I would expect to be seeing full autonomy working well in a small deployment about 10 years in advance of widespread adoption. That's about how things usually go with brand new technology. And I'm glad to see it finally happening. But I agree it's ten years away for most people. I think Derek probably knows this too :-).

[@paxundpeace9970]

They are telling you 5 years for decades

[@mujtabaalam5907]

@@LokiScarletWasHere "The owner of the automation system can control the robot by fooling it or by taking manual control." That's already possible though. Self-driving cars won't change that.

[@chenilleoneil1289]

It doesn’t MATTER if using one of these cars is made legal tomorrow. None of us will be able to afford one.

[@Thegentechgamer]

But the real question is does the car effectively speed when there are no cops around?

[@roahnadhavj3907]

It is aware of all the speed limits so it can adjust accordingly and cruise.

[@peterm2130]

^^^ So true

[@snortiblog]

Google does have speed camera and speed trap warnings now… seems promising.

[@JimmySquiky]

What would it do on German highway ? Full throttle ?

[@VinTheFox]

A roadway reserved for autonomous vehicles could just have no speed limit at all

[@KubeckDK]

He got almost everything about airplanes wrong. When planes do full auto land the separation between the landing planes is 2-3 times greater than when manually landing which results in 2-3 times less capacity for other landing traffic. Therefore most landings are manual while full auto land is only used for low visibility procedures.

[@TheDanielradio]

Also the whole process of using automated landing on the plane still involves the direct effort of many people. so automated much like a driverless car? I wouldn't think so.

[@l3gacyb3ta21]

also, flying by instrument is a thing pilots do a lot.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

Not only that, but most automated landings, while safe, are rougher for the passangers. A pilot judges the flare to create a gentle touchdown, the computer doesn't do that. Furthermore, an automated landing is a precision instrument landing. It used a lot of aids to determine if it is on the correct glideslope for the runway. Unless you are going to add precision navigation equipment to every road, you can never achieve that level of automation in a car which is exactly why Waymo is level 4, and therefore geofenced. It travels in a well mapped and controlled environment. Take that Waymo car and drop it off in let's say Berlin and the car wouldn't be able to navigate safely on its own because it doesn't know the city.

[@Burning_Dwarf]

@@Hans-gb4mv precisely, there are a lot of places not on google maps/earth, the area where i live included. I dont trust those cars to stay on the undefined gravel roads, let alone navigate properly

[@derekr5714]

​@@Hans-gb4mv "Unless you are going to add precision navigation equipment to every road" You don't need navigation equipment, a few cars map the city slowly which is stored in a network all can access. "It travels in a well mapped and controlled environment." "why Waymo is level 4, and therefore geofenced" Controlled environment? Did you not see the part about the car being able to detect things as far away as 500 meters? Geofenced? So you're saying because everything hasn't already been prepared before this innovation that it wont work? By that logic/rule nothing new would ever be implemented as not everything was set up perfectly pre-invention. We'd be extinct.

[@emmanueleng1160]

15:15 Pedestrians running into a stationary vehicle. That face was priceless.

[@SherrifOfNottingham]

Almost like a suppressed pogchamp lol

[@FelixFranz]

For me, Derek was way too much tech-fanboy, not even once offering a critical thought. Because these cars, when in doubt, always err on the side of caution, they tend to violate our reasonable expectations especially in low-speed situations. Remember this sudden hard stop in the parking lot? I can easily imagine how those 3 pedestrians got their expectation about the cars movement suddenly betrayed and instead of slipping past behind, walking into the car! The cars constantly predict their surroundings and we do exactly the same, but at times in a very different way.

[@JustusRomijn]

@@FelixFranz I understand, however if we adapt to these cars on the road (easily recognizable), I'm sure these things are not so much an issue anymore. I still think it is worth the trade-off: thousands of deadly incidents each year vs minor injuries because of low speed bumps into a stationary vehicle.

[@maxk4324]

@@FelixFranz maybe the solution is that pedestrians just shouldn't walk through moving traffic..... Idk, maybe that's a bit too crazy an idea to work.

[@iy42]

@@FelixFranz I'm struggling to actually picture the scenario in which a pedestrian expects to pass behind a car, the car instead stops, and then the pedestrian slams into the car at enough force to cause injury -- and of course that would still be human error, and pedestrians not paying enough attention while on a road to not walk into a car should feel lucky they walked into an autonomous one and didn't get run over by a human controlled one. I think part of the hypey tone in the vid is due to the frustration with people's attitudes toward autonomous tech, while human driven cars continue to be one of the most dangerous elements of our lives. My main transportation method is cycling, and almost getting run over by a driver not paying attention is a daily occurrence in my life. At this point, I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm not injured or dead is that many modern cars automatically brake to avoid these types of collisions. (Oh, and also, I don't think the sudden brake was unreasonable. If a pedestrian reaches a crosswalk while a car is behind the crosswalk, the car is supposed to stop -- that's a reasonable expectation. The fact that drivers almost never actually do this is the unreasonable bit, and why pedestrians will feel much safer crossing the street when they know no humans are going to try and swerve around them at a crosswalk.)

[@sphumelelesijadu]

As an engineer, this is cool but I think we need more walkable cities not more cars, even if they are driverless.

[@roelsvideosandstuffs1513]

Make that bike friendly too, and we're talking

[@fyrebat404]

tom nicolas was right. this could have been alot better video. wouldnt really hurt waymo, it would build integrety id think, and be informative about what is really needed for it to be a useful platform anywhere. this is... not that

[@carlosandleon]

well to be fair, he did said it was sponsored

[@pm6127]

@@carlosandleon and still presented the ad as an educational video.

[@carlosandleon]

@@pm6127 To be fair it kinda was too. Just one sided. If you look at my other comment can see my disapproval. But upom thinking about it, he did alright considering the it was a sponsored video. The disclaimer was literally at thr start.

[@fyrebat404]

@@carlosandleon offhandedly. well into the video. might as well have been written by the sponsor...

[@excitedbox5705]

​@@carlosandleon Humans are psychologically not able to seperate that. That is why companies pay celebs so much money. They know that even with the disclaimer you will still buy everything the celeb tells you to buy. Viewers trust HIM based on the reputation he has built over years, so when he acts all happy and impressed they believe him based on that trust and ignore the disclaimer thinking, "He is honest, he wouldn't lie to me." It is highly inappropriate for an educational channel to present this kind of misleading and MANIPULATIVE information as their opinion.

[@TheJerbol]

Autonomous vehicles are the obvious succession, however most cities should be doubling/tripling down on mass transit. A train will always be more efficient than a few hundred cars

[@rossesmond3996]

The cool thing is that both feed into each other. One of the biggest reasons that people don't take public transit is called "the last mile problem." If the train doesn't stop within walking distance of where you work, you don't take it. Driver-less cars could fix that by just lining up at every train stop, and people would be much more willing to take the public transit during the 95% of their trip where the train line is reasonable.

[@leafster1337]

@@barongerhardt ai janitors

[@megatheinternet]

@@barongerhardt they all got cameras and you pay with a credit card, they'll be fine until spirit airlines releases their budget fleet

[@danielthompson3928]

@@barongerhardt if more people used it they would receive more funding but these autonomous cars do not have to be "public" transportation to begin with. That would mean you can pay more for luxury.

[@lt1eg6]

@@rossesmond3996 A mile is considered unwalkable? Ok, how about a bus? No? How about a Bicycle? No? How about a scooter? This is a technocrats solution to a problem that never was one to begin with.

[@erik.d6005]

People “self driving cars will hit and run over people” Also people: crash into stationary car 😂😂

[@MaxRamos8]

Legit had me dying of laughter 💀💀🤣🤣

[@mr.bobbilly8981]

Just build a train

[@MarcioLiao]

and hit and run over people, evading the scene without calling for help

[@Tom-fm2fh]

yeah, try putting self driving car into prison. "ups, sorry for the loss of your wife and kids - it was just a software glitch - we will fix it in the next update" - I'm sure letter from CEO like that that will take away the grief and bring the family back. Or "Our cars are perfect and faultless and we did everything we could to prevent the disaster according to our company policies - sorry for your loss and if you think otherwise sue us (we have billions of $$$ for lawyers - how about you?)". As for reliability - it's just a bloody computer and not a magic box. show me one sane person in this day and age seriously believes all software is perfect and faultless, electronics never fail and you can't hack a computer no matter what ...

[@afonsomartin6457]

@@Tom-fm2fh I mean, pretty much what happens in the rare events of planes crashing due to software malfunction... But the general population still trust them

[@Pudibu]

Wait until little Johnny stops one of these by pressing “Siren” button on his toy car from side of road.

[@CassandraRi]

Pilots aren’t trained to trust the computer; it’s only there to minimize our workload. It’s a shame you made that Cat III approach comparison to Asiana 214. There’s a lot I can say about this, but many pilots choose to land manually. Pulling this particular accident out of the archives feels a bit like propaganda to me.

[@Bruced82]

Not to mention it being tasteless.

[@jens8533]

That's because it is.

[@FlyLeah]

To be fair for cars it can be justified. For planes though you’re absolutely correct. My instructor always told me to treat the autopilot as an additional crewmember that needs care and monitoring to avoid being complacent and reliant on it

[@fallenphoenix148]

I mean it is a sponsored video

[@Beth-nola]

737 airplane

[@CanadaMMA]

The fact they would get drunk drivers off the roads instantly makes self-driving cars safer

[@deanthomas2561]

Revmoving drugged and tired drivers also doesn't suck

[@ahmads5889]

How about remove alcohol and drugs instead of making such extravagant bypasses

[@m_uz1244]

@@deanthomas2561 That's impossible. Even if it was possible, it'd be thousands of times more expensive.

[@osdever]

@@ahmads5889 We tried. It was called "Prohibition" and "War on Drugs". I'm pretty sure you know full well how these endeavors ended up.

[@ahmads5889]

@@osdever the issue is with the people, it was normalized for them, then they were immediately forced to leave it after considering it to not be an issue.

[@sashascorpse2670]

"Cars will be able to communicate their intentions with other cars. " Car 1: Hey, wanna eradicate this puny human? Car 2: Sure bro, why not? *Proceeds to crash*

[@DeepThinker193]

Car 1 & 2: lol

[@AGamer20.]

A little trolling

[@danielluna7648]

All the more reason to start putting people in them immediately.

[@timokreuzer1820]

"I got such an asshole passenger!" - "Want me to help?" - "That would be awesome. But it has to look like an accident."

[@stevencooke6451]

Your car is trying to kill you. More dystopia.

[@Ninjaeule97]

Fully autonomous vehicle* *has a team of humans behind it that can intervene every time it does something stupid and only works in the city we maped perfectly

[@feathers3411]

Yeah OK but just get the bus???? I know American infrastructure is notoriously poor, especially when it comes to public transport, but that doesn't mean you should be chucking more vehicles onto the road, ones with AI and cameras in control that doesn't yet have the same navigational or reasoning ability of a human driver. It's just more reason to demand better public transportation.

[@theAkornTree]

It is only a matter of time before the bus is self-driving too.

[@carlosandleon]

@@theAkornTree That may be true, but jt aleeady is a solution to reduce traffic NOW. Self driving or not.

[@adesignersperspective]

@@theAkornTree there's no need for self-driving buses when self-driving mass transit rail systems like BART have been in operation since *at least* the 60s. we need more rail infrastructure along with buses.

[@Danokh]

That would be great, but Americans are stubborn and busses are seen as for poor people that can't afford a car. I think what would work best for the US is a Uber style self driving car system

[@carlosandleon]

@@Danokh Have you seen the ridiculous Prager.U video? Lmao

[@aniketmore8236]

I want this type of car to be tested on Indian roads.

[@Mr_Bartt]

Ironically, the main problem of India and other countries with bad trafficking is because AV is not there.

[@InMusicCro]

The car would just stop and start crying. Then it would burst into flames.

[@lumbermcray5097]

it would think that it is inside a cow pasture

[@Abhishek-sr2pu]

You are talking about national high ways or just city roads? If you are talking about national highway then sorry to say they are of very high quality.

[@Nightstick24]

I mean that'd be AI cruelty. It's already human cruelty trying to drive on them. Those things are terrifying. I don't scare easily but when I visited a few years ago I was gripping my seat with white knuckles as a passenger, and decided that me ever driving on those roads would be impossible.

[@ollihakala710]

I usually think all Veritasium videos are excellent but this is not... Self driving cars are not going to fix traffic and they're just a way to avoid facing the truth: Car dependency...

[@hardo78]

this is a very informative ad. to be a scientific video it would need to include at least some experts on traffic or scientists who study the basic principles of driverless cars and what are the pros and cons of the used technology and not just the head of a company that makes money with selfdriving cars.

[@thesciguy4823]

That's because Veratasium got paid to make this video, and is sponsored by a Driverless car company.

[@JimPea]

@@jaakaart There are plenty of lies of omission in this video, I don't know what about that isn't unscientific.

[@JimPea]

​@@jaakaart I'd never claim someone was lying by presenting theories, unless they presented them as fact. Regardless, I'm claiming that Veritasium made a conscious choice to omit information from their video because that would've clashed with what the sponsor for this video wanted. The issue isn't that information was left out, clearly no video is going to have all the information about autonomous vehicles in it, the issue is that the video is entirely uncritical in its assessment, parroting flimsy at best statistics and info provided by the company sponsoring them and not backed up by cited sources. If you are going to present a video on your educational KZbin channel, a channel named after the Latin for "truth", you don't get to trim known negatives about a technology from that video and escape criticism. They could've just as easily have done this same kind of video for Theranos, talking about how revolutionary the tech was, how it was going to change healthcare forever, never mentioning that they didn't get to see the machines in action.

[@BettyAlexandriaPride]

@@JimPea There are some links in the description to follow up on and do research as a consumer, which is something we all should (but don't always) do. The reality for me is that I'm permanently disabled after surviving a fatal car accident (my father died instantly). The accident was a result of another individual and as a result, to this day I'm unable to drive for myself. Someone such as myself will look at this video differently than the average viewer, however. They might come to a blanket decision that autonomous vehicles are safer at their current state. I can see how this can be alarming. Conversely, there may be skeptical individuals watching who would otherwise completely condemn this technology. Having an introductory video (in controlled environments/conditions) may cause the skeptic to adjust their worldview, but would ultimately lead to more research on their end. This video feels theoretical and purposefully presents a positive case. More specifically, it doesn't present as an experiment or fact to me, but rather an introduction as to why this technology could benefit you. I don't think it's his intention to hide facts per say, but instead to present possible benefits (with the belief that his audience would do critical thinking in general). There's also a possibility that he *did* originally make a video including these facts, but had to remove them to satisfy the sponsors. These videos are often viewed before being presented to the general public. At the end of the day, these are just my assumptions. You could be right in that he intentionally misled viewers. I think most of his viewers are more capable of deciphering the intent of this video (even if only on a subconscious level). Regardless if we agree or not, I hope you have a great day. (And I hope I made sense. I have a traumatic brain injury so sometimes I can't convey my thoughts as well.)

[@leeward6762]

It's an ad...he should do a little better job of properly disclosing that...also, ofcourse a driverless car can work under Optimal Conditions, but the problem is the roads aren't "Optimal" and they sure aren't predictable enough, if all cars were autonomous that's one thing, but a mixture of autonomous, semi autonomous and old school cars all on the road at the same time seems like a very bad idea.

[@mattives6942]

Driverless cars won't feel the pressure of wasted time or being late, making them less likely to over drive their abilities... that's where bad things occur.

[@RushinTruckin]

Good point

[@juicyblunts]

Until one of them becomes endowed with sentience - inevitably dominated by intoxicating road rage - and goes full Decepticon after being cut off, then immediately brake checked by Kyle (who was just awarded his driver's license from the bowels of a special edition box of Cunt-Chocula breakfast cereal, earlier in the day).

[@rdc501]

Yeah also no remorse over rear ending someone at full speed or running over a cyclist or pedestrian! Thanks to faulty technology, all it takes is one mistake.

[@johnwalshaw7362]

One of my rules is to only ever do something to 90% of my ability so I've always got 10% to fall back on in an emergency. Saved my arse a few times in the car.

[@hawkshalfback]

@@rdc501 whether the driver feels remorse or not doesn't change the outcome of a human driver running over a pedestrian or cyclist when the driver is too tired, drunk, or simply not paying attention.

[@alicepow260]

Your summary and analysis of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was incorrect and honestly offensive for blaming the crash more on the pilots. The investigation into that crash blamed automated systems. Misusing a tragedy like this is upsetting.

[@herebedesigns]

We kinda lost Veritasium to money too i think. This video is very one sided, manipulative with lots of truth bending.

[@veritasium]

Tom Nicholas cherry-picked a quote to imply the NTSB blamed automation but here are the actual words from the report: “The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew’s mismanagement of the airplane’s descent during the visual approach, the Pilot Flying’s unintended deactivation of automatic airspeed control, the flight crew’s inadequate monitoring of airspeed, and the flight crew’s delayed execution of a go-around after they became aware that the airplane was below acceptable glidepath and airspeed tolerances.” Who is actually spreading misinformation?

[@Trekari]

@@veritasium Since you've clearly seen his video, do you have any comment on the rest of its substance? Do you seriously dispute that this video was just a sponsored ad? I think you've done yourself (and those of us who used to trust the quality of your videos and the information contained within) a huge disservice.

[@Manihpz]

​@@veritasium the report says the pilot chose the wrong automatic function "autothrottle." I think that is for the "unintended" part of the actual word from the report. Your whole video is all about: we are ready to go with the full automation "now" because I am making money to say that, Tom Nicholas's whole video is questioning the "now" part of it and the money side of it, do you want to talk about that? or you just want to say he is misinforming and ignore the rest of the video?

[@maciejglinski6564]

just so you know this is a full quote: "3.2 Probable Cause The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew’s mismanagement of the airplane’s descent during the visual approach, the pilot flying’s unintended deactivation of automatic airspeed control, the flight crew’s inadequate monitoring of airspeed, and the flight crew’s delayed execution of a go-around after they became aware that the airplane was below acceptable glidepath and airspeed tolerances. Contributing to the accident were (1) the complexities of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing’s documentation and Asiana’s pilot training, which increased the likelihood of mode error; (2) the flight crew’s nonstandard communication and coordination regarding the use of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems; (3) the pilot flying’s inadequate training on the planning and executing of visual approaches; (4) the pilot monitoring/instructor pilot’s inadequate supervision of the pilot flying; and (5) flight crew fatigue, which likely degraded their performance." Raport clearly states that its a combination of multiple factors, overreliance on automated systems being one of them. I read the conclusion as "pilots should have seen that something is wrong" which absolutely does not mean that automated systems are without bame.

[@ColeDaNerd]

The title would be better as "How to eliminate car accidents"

[@yeetyeet7070]

Waymo should make a public simulation builder where anyone can build scenarios with as many bicycles as they want and have the car AI battle against this reality

[@KeldonSlayer]

or put the simulations in GTA V against players

[@CaptainCataractss]

They’ve driven billions of miles virtually and throw everything at them. Including laying belly down on a skateboard and seeing if the car stops.

[@PieceOfSource]

Problem is, simulated entities follow specific patterns and can not accurately represent all possible chaotic movements of the real world ones. So no simulation can be considered panacea.

[@yeetyeet7070]

@@CaptainCataractss everything is impossible, thats why the more is the better

[@brendonwood7595]

@@CaptainCataractss So they should have no problem showing the public how it responds to non controlled situations then.

[@matthewviramontes3131]

Robot car: "I'll just stop completely to keep hooman safe" Bicyclist: *runs into car anyway*

[@shahanshahpolonium]

lol

[@benjamincarlson6994]

My question is how they would fare on longer trips, like interstate highways

[@shahanshahpolonium]

@@benjamincarlson6994 why they'd fare just fine

[@edwardcardona717]

@@benjamincarlson6994 It's a lot easier to get the interstate right than neighborhoods. The only dangerous thing about interstates is the stakes in the speed, and it's such a regularized system that it reduces the variables at play. In a neighborhood, you any driveway could have a car backing out, every intersection can have an idiot, and every crosswalk can have a vulnerable pedestrian. There's a lot more to detect and be careful of.

[@kennylaysh2776]

@@benjamincarlson6994 interstate would be the easiest...try driving in the city with almost no markings because they don't pain often, pot holes, people parking so far in roads turn into single lanes....

[@SnakeTheBoss13]

"In all 3 cases the pedestrians hit the vehicle" We are REALLY bad at avoiding even stationary objects I'm surprised we can even drive at all

[@To1ony]

To be fair it's lacking details on if the car was moving but was stationary at the impact, which a pedestrian wouldn't expect. Idc enough to check tho

[@solderbuff]

We created traffic rules that even our limited brains can understand. More or less intuitively.

[@raymondkidwell7135]

Not true. You can google it. The car hit and killed a woman because if you aren't in a designated crosswalk apparently the car doesn't recognize you. The problem with this is in some places like where I'm at in Florida if you use a crosswalk people hit you because they turn without looking so most people run across the street when there is a break in traffic because traffic basically never stops at the crosswalks. Or consider a country road someone crossing the street to check their mail or something. Then you have the jobs crisis what happens when nobody has a job because its all automated which is already becoming a problem. These self driving cars might be ok on short commutes in a well ordered city but there should be serious limitations put on them. Of course law makers bought and paid for by donors are unlikely to do the right thing unless another trump comes along.

[@solderbuff]

@@raymondkidwell7135, that was a different technology from UBER. Google/Waymo did it the right way.

[@lucbloom]

“Oh, it’s one of those driversless cars. Better watch out, it can hit the brakes at any moment for no discernible reason” I get that without AI level communication in our own brains, it can be dangerous to have vehicles with a new movement pattern. I’m all for driverless cars, but when they break on the highway and claim innocence because others were too close to their tails or something…

[@T-Schrades]

As a fully paralyzed man I cannot wait for this to become available to the public!

[@TheDanaYiShow]

idk why I laughed so hard when derek said "in all the accidents with pedestrians, they ran into the car" 😂😂

[@GTAVictor9128]

Insurance fraud?

[@Hathur]

Not hard to believe. I've had 3 "crashes" with pedestrians in my 20+ years driving... All 3 I was stopped at a red light and some idiotic cyclist crashed into the side of my door trying to squeeze between cars. One of them got killed after he blew threw a red light after smacking the side of my door. Cyclists are suicidal.

[@morthostalisint1720]

@@Hathur See, this is why I never learned to ride a bicycle. Also, yikes.

[@54m0h7]

@@Hathur I've only every had 1 incedent with a pedestrian. I was literally sitting in stopped bumper to bumper traffic, and this cyclist just bangs on my window.. like I'm suppose to move out of his way or something? I was in a Tundra, so rather large truck.. but um yea what do you want me to do? People are dumb.

[@hansolowe19]

In almost all cases, there was a vehicle-pedestrian collision. True story.

[@willir0129]

I'm not afraid of driverless car and I cannot wait for them to finally come. But this video looks somewhat one-sided. So far the Waymo's progress was slower than they claimed it would. It seems they have troubles moving out of Phenix suburbs, where it never snows and barely ever rains. I guess there are some issues that driverless car cannot solve as good as human can. So I would like to see the video about those issues instead of repeating what have already been said multiple times...

"I guess there are some issues that driverless car cannot solve as good as human can" this is the kind of phrase that usually don't hold after ten years. Regarding rain and snow, I suspect it is more of a data problem. If the cars never drive on rain, they also never acquire data about driving on rain. The same goes for snow. To solve that, you need to actually put the cars into this kind of situation, even if it means using human drivers to simply drive while the car passively collects data.

[@fahm8097]

@ yeah There's a driving seat... One can seat there and do whatever they want... And in case they notice something odd they can drive

[@olot100]

In theory a car equipped like the one in the video with enough training will out-safety any human on earth (humans can probably race better). It's just a matter of time before the software will be able to handle just about any situation you throw at it. And to be honest in any uncovered scenarios the default of 'hit the brakes with faster reaction time then any living creature on earth' is probably going to do just fine compared to us.

[@TarisRedwing]

all of its sensors can see in the dark and through rain and would never speed in the snow or rain.

[@frontier64]

@@olot100 That's if the manufacturers of the driverless care are competent. Look at the Rafael Vasquez case. An uber autonomous vehicle killed a pedestrian in Phoenix Arizona (where Veritasium is riding around) due to everyone involved being completely incompetent.