Makes sense if the person just walked out into the road etc. The car may have been able to drive itself but there was in fact a person behind the wheel. IMO, based on current info this incident, while unfortunate, is typical of accidents that happen every day between normal vehicles and pedestrians and the "autonomous" part of this vehicle didn't play a part in the incident.
so essentially that leads to one death is no different than the other....
full implementation is beyond scary the way I play it out in my feeble mind....
another simple example would be to acknowledge this 'one offing' is a simple indicator how it can be used in a variety of ways if hacked.....
fk that......fk that bs all day long....
no way I buy into this horseshite......short term/long term/any term.....
we aren't designed to function this way as a species......
Oh I agree but not getting into all the "hack" stuff as that also played no part in this accident. Driver-less cars, IMO, will be an option, but folks will still hopefully be able to choose to drive normal autos. I was just saying that in this accident the driverless aspect played no part. The thread title is also incorrect given there was an actual driver in the vehicle and another example of folks jumping to conclusions without knowing the relevant facts.
why does it matter if one is behind the wheel when you don't have your hands on it to react in a pinch? it would be a gimme it would lead to more thumbtapping (which is already a monster issue on the road) or sheeple simply takings naps, watching movies, more stupid laws being created, or wtfe....
the thread title was scripted to emphasize the point why this tech shouldn't be unleashed that would 'drive' the discussion to this level.....
Makes sense if the person just walked out into the road etc. The car may have been able to drive itself but there was in fact a person behind the wheel. IMO, based on current info this incident, while unfortunate, is typical of accidents that happen every day between normal vehicles and pedestrians and the "autonomous" part of this vehicle didn't play a part in the incident.
so essentially that leads to one death is no different than the other....
full implementation is beyond scary the way I play it out in my feeble mind....
another simple example would be to acknowledge this 'one offing' is a simple indicator how it can be used in a variety of ways if hacked.....
fk that......fk that bs all day long....
no way I buy into this horseshite......short term/long term/any term.....
we aren't designed to function this way as a species......
Oh I agree but not getting into all the "hack" stuff as that also played no part in this accident. Driver-less cars, IMO, will be an option, but folks will still hopefully be able to choose to drive normal autos. I was just saying that in this accident the driverless aspect played no part. The thread title is also incorrect given there was an actual driver in the vehicle and another example of folks jumping to conclusions without knowing the relevant facts.
why does it matter if one is behind the wheel when you don't have your hands on it to react in a pinch? it would be a gimme it would lead to more thumbtapping (which is already a monster issue on the road) or sheeple simply takings naps, watching movies, more stupid laws being created, or wtfe....
the thread title was scripted to emphasize the point why this tech shouldn't be unleashed that would 'drive' the discussion to this level.....
I always have a motive relative to the 'why'.....
I don't buy the bold given rampant cell phone use, eating, putting on make up, etc folks do while driving that distracts and prevents one "having hands on it to react in a pinch". What happened in this particular incident can and has happened in thousands of previous accidents in that someone walked into the street and got hit. The autonomous vehicle had nothing to do with it if current facts hold up. Yes, I know there are many cons to driver-less vehicles and I don't think I'd ever feel comfortable in one. However none of that applies to this particular case, IMO.
Not giving my control over anytime soon but the day will come, for all of us, to have to. And drunks? And every worthless mofo who can't leave their phones alone for 2 seconds? Please. Half the public aren't driving now. There is nothing controlling their cars. Something should.
Miles driven vs human? I fully expect more deaths at the hands of new technology in beta to cause more. Duh. Fully accept that. The way these things have always worked. Companies working in the field better have their insurance up. Sue the crap out of them for the mistakes.
Stop flying if this scares you so. Planes have been operating just like this uber car for a long long time now. You all keep filling the seats. Those self flying uber craft in the air are so much different. Rolls eyes. Please. You don't want to jump into the back seat of a self driving car rental after arriving to your vacation destination in the back seat of a self driving plane.
Or, put another way, "Pedestrian hits autonomous Uber vehicle, causes minor damage to vehicle"
Yeah, even that title looks to play on the Self-Driving car fear. They could leave that out and the accident would be the same as thousands of other accidents. I click bait leads to $$ though. Always follow the money.
(03-21-2018 08:54 AM)Paul M Wrote: Not giving my control over anytime soon but the day will come, for all of us, to have to. And drunks? And every worthless mofo who can't leave their phones alone for 2 seconds? Please. Half the public aren't driving now. There is nothing controlling their cars. Something should.
Miles driven vs human? I fully expect more deaths at the hands of new technology in beta to cause more. Duh. Fully accept that. The way these things have always worked. Companies working in the field better have their insurance up. Sue the crap out of them for the mistakes.
Stop flying if this scares you so. Planes have been operating just like this uber car for a long long time now. You all keep filling the seats. Those self flying uber craft in the air are so much different. Rolls eyes. Please. You don't want to jump into the back seat of a self driving car rental after arriving to your vacation destination in the back seat of a self driving plane.
comparing air travel to terrain is fishing vs. hunting for elephant.....
there's quite a difference when it comes to terrain conditions vs. only having to monitor weather.....
and oh yeah, uber lawsuits is an excellent move in solving the variables.....jfc.....
how about slowly integrating tech with human interaction.....kinda like abs and other computerized systems....
(03-21-2018 08:54 AM)Paul M Wrote: Not giving my control over anytime soon but the day will come, for all of us, to have to. And drunks? And every worthless mofo who can't leave their phones alone for 2 seconds? Please. Half the public aren't driving now. There is nothing controlling their cars. Something should.
Miles driven vs human? I fully expect more deaths at the hands of new technology in beta to cause more. Duh. Fully accept that. The way these things have always worked. Companies working in the field better have their insurance up. Sue the crap out of them for the mistakes.
Stop flying if this scares you so. Planes have been operating just like this uber car for a long long time now. You all keep filling the seats. Those self flying uber craft in the air are so much different. Rolls eyes. Please. You don't want to jump into the back seat of a self driving car rental after arriving to your vacation destination in the back seat of a self driving plane.
comparing air travel to terrain is fishing vs. hunting for elephant.....
there's quite a difference when it comes to terrain conditions vs. only having to monitor weather.....
and oh yeah, uber lawsuits is an excellent move in solving the variables.....jfc.....
how about slowly integrating tech with human interaction.....kinda like abs and other computerized systems....
Wires corrode and fry, sensors and computers break, batteries weaken inhibiting the performance of the internal systems, underpaid programmers and manufactures sabotage, and regular humans get smart enough to modify the computer and electronics. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is living a phucking pipe dream. Give me new car with 1990 Civic technology. Could make an exact replica for about $2,000 and I don't have to worry about the computer breaking, replacing sensors, or looking at a check engine light every 2 weeks that I have to pay a dealer $500 to clear because it requires their proprietary special software update. When a new car cost $40k and cost $1,000+ to fix everytime it breaks, that ain't "progress".
The difference between this and air traffic is that there is a real pilot navigating the takeoff and landing where there may be congestion. Also, I don't have the capability to fly myself around so there is no choice but to have a pilot do it... and hells no, I don't like it. I feel safer driving myself 12 hours than taking a 90 minute flight I have no control over.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018 11:06 AM by EverRespect.)
(03-21-2018 12:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote: it's not about uber......it's about the tech vs. human ability to react....
~25 yrs. ago, I had some drunk dipshite straddling the dotted line in front of a bar on a 45 mph state hwy at 2 a.m.....I missed him by inches.....b/c I was behind the wheel, he lived to see another day....if 'it' would've simply been a critter, I would've flat out ran his arse over.....tell me how you program that bs.....
it's the tech that only has the ability to recognize whatever is programmed.....the variables are fk'n endless of thingys that can go wrong....
Except that humans have shown that even in ideal situations where nothing happens outside of the standard expected behavior (like a person walking out in the middle of the road), we absolutely suck at driving.
Quote:In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
The sad truth is... automated cars WILL make the roads safer. Humans **** things up all the time during regular conditions. The claim of 'humans are safer' is total BS.
You may feel you are a better driver than everyone else on the road, and that's fine. Automated cars will get take all those other bad drivers and replace them with a driver that wont get distracted or tired.
There are +30,000 deaths in a year to prove how bad humans are at driving.
(03-21-2018 12:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote: it's not about uber......it's about the tech vs. human ability to react....
~25 yrs. ago, I had some drunk dipshite straddling the dotted line in front of a bar on a 45 mph state hwy at 2 a.m.....I missed him by inches.....b/c I was behind the wheel, he lived to see another day....if 'it' would've simply been a critter, I would've flat out ran his arse over.....tell me how you program that bs.....
it's the tech that only has the ability to recognize whatever is programmed.....the variables are fk'n endless of thingys that can go wrong....
Except that humans have shown that even in ideal situations where nothing happens outside of the standard expected behavior (like a person walking out in the middle of the road), we absolutely suck at driving.
Quote:In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
The sad truth is... automated cars WILL make the roads safer. Humans **** things up all the time during regular conditions. The claim of 'humans are safer' is total BS.
You may feel you are a better driver than everyone else on the road, and that's fine. Automated cars will get take all those other bad drivers and replace them with a driver that wont get distracted or tired.
There are +30,000 deaths in a year to prove how bad humans are at driving.
When humans phuck up, at least there is a liable party. What is my recourse when a driverless vehicle experiences a blown alternator, disabling its computers and sending it into my living room? I also have no doubt that, while there are bad human drivers, a driverless vehicle will never be better than an alert and defensive human driver.
(03-21-2018 12:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote: it's not about uber......it's about the tech vs. human ability to react....
~25 yrs. ago, I had some drunk dipshite straddling the dotted line in front of a bar on a 45 mph state hwy at 2 a.m.....I missed him by inches.....b/c I was behind the wheel, he lived to see another day....if 'it' would've simply been a critter, I would've flat out ran his arse over.....tell me how you program that bs.....
it's the tech that only has the ability to recognize whatever is programmed.....the variables are fk'n endless of thingys that can go wrong....
Except that humans have shown that even in ideal situations where nothing happens outside of the standard expected behavior (like a person walking out in the middle of the road), we absolutely suck at driving.
Quote:In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
The sad truth is... automated cars WILL make the roads safer. Humans **** things up all the time during regular conditions. The claim of 'humans are safer' is total BS.
You may feel you are a better driver than everyone else on the road, and that's fine. Automated cars will get take all those other bad drivers and replace them with a driver that wont get distracted or tired.
There are +30,000 deaths in a year to prove how bad humans are at driving.
When humans phuck up, at least there is a liable party. What is my recourse when a driverless vehicle experiences a blown alternator, disabling its computers and sending it into my living room?
Liability is the biggest roadblock to the adoption of driveless cars. The Lawyers need a piece of meat.
Quote:I also have no doubt that, while there are bad human drivers, a driverless vehicle will never be better than an alert and defensive human driver.
I agree with you, but if my drive yesterday in the sleet is anything to go by... 90% of drivers are NOT alert.
Which brings up a point I rarely hear mentioned... how are driverless cars going to be able to deal with changing weather conditions from rain/sleet/snow/ice and back?
Machine Perception isn't good enough to be able to see an icy spot on the road 100 feet ahead.
(03-21-2018 12:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote: it's not about uber......it's about the tech vs. human ability to react....
~25 yrs. ago, I had some drunk dipshite straddling the dotted line in front of a bar on a 45 mph state hwy at 2 a.m.....I missed him by inches.....b/c I was behind the wheel, he lived to see another day....if 'it' would've simply been a critter, I would've flat out ran his arse over.....tell me how you program that bs.....
it's the tech that only has the ability to recognize whatever is programmed.....the variables are fk'n endless of thingys that can go wrong....
Except that humans have shown that even in ideal situations where nothing happens outside of the standard expected behavior (like a person walking out in the middle of the road), we absolutely suck at driving.
Quote:In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
The sad truth is... automated cars WILL make the roads safer. Humans **** things up all the time during regular conditions. The claim of 'humans are safer' is total BS.
You may feel you are a better driver than everyone else on the road, and that's fine. Automated cars will get take all those other bad drivers and replace them with a driver that wont get distracted or tired.
There are +30,000 deaths in a year to prove how bad humans are at driving.
When humans phuck up, at least there is a liable party. What is my recourse when a driverless vehicle experiences a blown alternator, disabling its computers and sending it into my living room?
Liability is the biggest roadblock to the adoption of driveless cars. The Lawyers need a piece of meat.
Quote:I also have no doubt that, while there are bad human drivers, a driverless vehicle will never be better than an alert and defensive human driver.
I agree with you, but if my drive yesterday in the sleet is anything to go by... 90% of drivers are NOT alert.
Which brings up a point I rarely hear mentioned... how are driverless cars going to be able to deal with changing weather conditions from rain/sleet/snow/ice and back?
Machine Perception isn't good enough to be able to see an icy spot on the road 100 feet ahead.
Or even a large puddle. There is a spot on the way home from work that I have to change lanes to avoid if there is rain, else major hydroplaning. Can't program that knowledge from Silicon Valley.
At the very least it appears that the car was overdriving it's sensors as there was zero indication that it tried to decelerate or take evasive action.
Anyone know what kind of sensors the system uses? Visual, RADAR, LIDAR, etc?
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2018 02:32 PM by Kaplony.)
(03-21-2018 12:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote: it's not about uber......it's about the tech vs. human ability to react....
~25 yrs. ago, I had some drunk dipshite straddling the dotted line in front of a bar on a 45 mph state hwy at 2 a.m.....I missed him by inches.....b/c I was behind the wheel, he lived to see another day....if 'it' would've simply been a critter, I would've flat out ran his arse over.....tell me how you program that bs.....
it's the tech that only has the ability to recognize whatever is programmed.....the variables are fk'n endless of thingys that can go wrong....
Except that humans have shown that even in ideal situations where nothing happens outside of the standard expected behavior (like a person walking out in the middle of the road), we absolutely suck at driving.
Quote:In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
The sad truth is... automated cars WILL make the roads safer. Humans **** things up all the time during regular conditions. The claim of 'humans are safer' is total BS.
You may feel you are a better driver than everyone else on the road, and that's fine. Automated cars will get take all those other bad drivers and replace them with a driver that wont get distracted or tired.
There are +30,000 deaths in a year to prove how bad humans are at driving.
until actual hrs over time is compared, there is no way that posit can be made with a straight face....
real conditions are quite different than the data that has been collected to date.....
wtfe.....you'll never convince me....the variables are endless and the differential won't mean dick anyway....
/
driverless uber car kils pedeatrian in Tempe
