> If the cause of a fatality is 10 seconds of failure, not 5 minutes, humans have greater than 9 9s of reliability.
If you're driving by the textbook, then you have two seconds to react to the car in front braking; the assumption being that you take one second to react normally, and get one extra second for safety.
On the other hand, in something like a play street law grants you exactly zero seconds of response time.
The question is now, of course, whether only those <<10 s intervals count as the failure, or your entire approach to driving (e.g. driving while texting).
Which takes us to 10 9s of reliability. Are there any computers with that level of reliability?
> The question is now, of course, whether only those <<10 s intervals count as the failure, or your entire approach to driving (e.g. driving while texting).
I thought about this all day. I feel that from the moment you can no longer avoid to accident (no matter what you do), until it occurs, is the correct timeframe to measure. Not sure what that number is though.
Say you texted, got in a dangerous situation, then corrected. Is that really a failure? It's a risk of course, and enough people doing that will increase the final death tally. But for each individual driver it's not a failure, if it's not a failure then you can not count it.
i.e. doing it any other way would be counting it twice: Once for those situations that actually caused an accident, and again for taking the risk.
Or put another way, taking a risk and winning is not a failure. (Otherwise where do you draw the line on what a risk is?)
If you're driving by the textbook, then you have two seconds to react to the car in front braking; the assumption being that you take one second to react normally, and get one extra second for safety.
On the other hand, in something like a play street law grants you exactly zero seconds of response time.
The question is now, of course, whether only those <<10 s intervals count as the failure, or your entire approach to driving (e.g. driving while texting).