IMO that video is more incriminating that the self driving car had a major fail. It will be hard for Uber to prove that the car's systems were working properly. IMO, the car's sensors didn't sense the pedestrian at all ... so why is the question.
Self-driving Uber car killed a pedestrian
- Thread starter Trav
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Who had custody of the dashcam footage, and what did they have to gain by releasing it to the public, before the investigation ?
The local police in Tempe can legally and rightfully confiscate collected evidence in a possible crime.
Dashcam video and probably the car itself is in the hands of the local authorities. Probably impounded.
It might work differently in Australia, Canada, and Europe, etc.... I don't know.
There is some fear that Uber techs may try to alter or destroy the computer data logs (event recording). Of course this would be obvious to an NTSB investigative team and create a lot of problems if they did try something like that.
Who had custody of the dashcam footage, and what did they have to gain by releasing it to the public, before the investigation ?
The local police in Tempe can legally and rightfully confiscate collected evidence in a possible crime.
Dashcam video and probably the car itself is in the hands of the local authorities. Probably impounded.
It might work differently in Australia, Canada, and Europe, etc.... I don't know.
There is some fear that Uber techs may try to alter or destroy the computer data logs (event recording). Of course this would be obvious to an NTSB investigative team and create a lot of problems if they did try something like that.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I think self driving cars and trucks are a terrible idea. The concept sounds great.... until people get killed.
Law firms are drooling at the thought of driverless vehicles.
There's going to be trade offs. Would you prefer 100% reliability and continue to have about 40,000 people killed each year and some 4.6 million serious injuries or maybe have a small percentage of that? Delay it an extra 10 years and that's an extra 400,000 dead people. Even if it's only 90% better, that would be about 360,000 less dead people over that term. Sometimes good enough will save more lives that waiting for perfect.
If you're willing to make an absurd leap of logic then you can conclude that autonomous cars will eliminate 90% of the current road deaths and you then have a point. Elon Musk would certainly support your opinion.
I don't think there are too many people who are willing to do that. I'm not.
The event depicted in this thread certainly brings your claim into question given the miniscule numbers of autonomous vehicles now in test on the public roads, as does Toyota's withdrawal from its autonomous car road test program.
Well it's hard to find hard numbers but so far Uber has about 3 million miles in testing and the driver death rate so far is 0. However the average death rate is about 1 per million miles with human drivers. A certain number of pedestrian are also killed each year and some of them are unavoidable. The injury rate might be more telling, normally it's in the 70's per million miles traveled, I believe most accidents so far have been fender benders where it was the other party's fault. It's estimated that about 94% of crashes are due to human error.
I'm not sure what you're not willing to do. Drive in one or have them on the roads? They're already on the roads. Look at Tesla.
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I think self driving cars and trucks are a terrible idea. The concept sounds great.... until people get killed.
Law firms are drooling at the thought of driverless vehicles.
There's going to be trade offs. Would you prefer 100% reliability and continue to have about 40,000 people killed each year and some 4.6 million serious injuries or maybe have a small percentage of that? Delay it an extra 10 years and that's an extra 400,000 dead people. Even if it's only 90% better, that would be about 360,000 less dead people over that term. Sometimes good enough will save more lives that waiting for perfect.
If you're willing to make an absurd leap of logic then you can conclude that autonomous cars will eliminate 90% of the current road deaths and you then have a point. Elon Musk would certainly support your opinion.
I don't think there are too many people who are willing to do that. I'm not.
The event depicted in this thread certainly brings your claim into question given the miniscule numbers of autonomous vehicles now in test on the public roads, as does Toyota's withdrawal from its autonomous car road test program.
Well it's hard to find hard numbers but so far Uber has about 3 million miles in testing and the driver death rate so far is 0. However the average death rate is about 1 per million miles with human drivers. A certain number of pedestrian are also killed each year and some of them are unavoidable. The injury rate might be more telling, normally it's in the 70's per million miles traveled, I believe most accidents so far have been fender benders where it was the other party's fault. It's estimated that about 94% of crashes are due to human error.
I'm not sure what you're not willing to do. Drive in one or have them on the roads? They're already on the roads. Look at Tesla.
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
You also need to understand that neither the software nor the hardware for these autonomous vehicles were built from scratch. The hardware is off the rack while the software was developed from some existing application, maybe a video game.
Just the way microcomputer software is developed. Nobody writes millions of lines of code when they can take an existing application and adapt it with a few hundred thousand lines.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
You also need to understand that neither the software nor the hardware for these autonomous vehicles were built from scratch. The hardware is off the rack while the software was developed from some existing application, maybe a video game.
Just the way microcomputer software is developed. Nobody writes millions of lines of code when they can take an existing application and adapt it with a few hundred thousand lines.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
I think you have very selective tunnel vision. It's been mentioned before. Lots of drunk, texting, sleepy and others distracted drivers on the road. Usually most accidents due to human error aren't in the clear blue sky with a super alert driver. That I'll grant you might make a human driver better than an autonomous vehicle. But in those other situations, well they happen all the time. I was just in court recently waiting for another case and I heard the tail end of a drunk driving case. Pretty empty courtroom, guy hit a tree, cops claimed he was drunk, had the classic symptoms. Seemed pretty open and shut to me, defense attorney was trying to claim otherwise. You might be part of the 80% who believe they are an above average driver. They also feel that the other 80% are below average.
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
I think you have very selective tunnel vision. It's been mentioned before. Lots of drunk, texting, sleepy and others distracted drivers on the road. Usually most accidents due to human error aren't in the clear blue sky with a super alert driver. That I'll grant you might make a human driver better than an autonomous vehicle. But in those other situations, well they happen all the time. I was just in court recently waiting for another case and I heard the tail end of a drunk driving case. Pretty empty courtroom, guy hit a tree, cops claimed he was drunk, had the classic symptoms. Seemed pretty open and shut to me, defense attorney was trying to claim otherwise. You might be part of the 80% who believe they are an above average driver. They also feel that the other 80% are below average.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
I think you have very selective tunnel vision. It's been mentioned before. Lots of drunk, texting, sleepy and others distracted drivers on the road. Usually most accidents due to human error aren't in the clear blue sky with a super alert driver. That I'll grant you might make a human driver better than an autonomous vehicle. But in those other situations, well they happen all the time. I was just in court recently waiting for another case and I heard the tail end of a drunk driving case. Pretty empty courtroom, guy hit a tree, cops claimed he was drunk, had the classic symptoms. Seemed pretty open and shut to me, defense attorney was trying to claim otherwise. You might be part of the 80% who believe they are an above average driver. They also feel that the other 80% are below average.
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think that I understand all too well just how simplistic the reasoning behind these inner workings is.
I don't think that you do.
If you want the benefits of semi-autonomous collision avoidance, you don't need to spend Benz money since you can get this in a Subaru that also offers the active safety advantages of standard AWD that also works better than the Mercedes system.
Consider just how much processing power you devote to driving down the road each day and then explain to me just how some autonomous system can do it as well, much less better.
We are collectively way more capable than we sometimes give ourselves credit for being, while automated systems are typically less so.
I use network applications every day with the latest software. Not sure I'd want to rely upon this to carry me safely down the road.
I think you have very selective tunnel vision. It's been mentioned before. Lots of drunk, texting, sleepy and others distracted drivers on the road. Usually most accidents due to human error aren't in the clear blue sky with a super alert driver. That I'll grant you might make a human driver better than an autonomous vehicle. But in those other situations, well they happen all the time. I was just in court recently waiting for another case and I heard the tail end of a drunk driving case. Pretty empty courtroom, guy hit a tree, cops claimed he was drunk, had the classic symptoms. Seemed pretty open and shut to me, defense attorney was trying to claim otherwise. You might be part of the 80% who believe they are an above average driver. They also feel that the other 80% are below average.
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
Fairly advanced collision mitigation features are quite available.
My 17 Honda pickup truck has this suite of mitigation products plus others not listed here.
Anyone can point to a lone accident, and blame anything for it, but the compiled data on the individual mitigation components seems absolutely clear cut.
UD
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, you've overstated the death rate per vehicle miles traveled by a factor of nearly one hundred. You could look it up.
Second, the estimate that 94% of crashes are due to human error is questionable and many accidents attributed to human error are caused by factors not anticipated by the driver that also won't be anticipated by autonomous machines.
Third, I think I made it pretty clear that it would take a significant leap of logic to accept that autonomous vehicles would bring the reductions in fatalities that you claim.
Finally, I'm unaware of any fully autonomous mode for any Tesla currently for sale. Yeah, Tesla does offer a semi-autonomous operating mode but also makes it clear that the driver must maintain awareness at all times while underway. There have been fatal accidents in cases where drivers relied upon their Tesla's autonomous systems and ignored the road ahead.
Sorry you're right, that's per 100 million miles not per million.
The point is that those systems are already out there and in use. I believe 2014+ Mercedes E class and many other more recent years have collision avoidance systems as standard or as an option. I'm sure they're going to do a study at some point to see how many accidents those cars got into versus the ones that didn't have them.
Also I'm not sure you're clear that I'm not the one making those claims, it's the companies making those vehicles that are making those claims. They're still in testing at this phase, at some point it will be ready. But like fusion power, hydrogen power, or AI, it could be one of those things that's always 10 years down the road, but it looks like it's going to be sooner rather than later. If they didn't think it was achievable and didn't provide some benefit, they'd probably just give up. It's easy for you to be negative on it when you don't know what the inner workings are.
Fairly advanced collision mitigation features are quite available.
My 17 Honda pickup truck has this suite of mitigation products plus others not listed here.
Anyone can point to a lone accident, and blame anything for it, but the compiled data on the individual mitigation components seems absolutely clear cut.
UD
You cannot take collision avoidance systems and their track record and apply it to full autonomous driving. While collision avoidance system greatly supplement drivers in situations that are "boring" like stop and go, or monotonous highway trips, they still require full engagement of the driver. So you have both the driver and the avoidance system complementing each other.
It's been mentioned before that fully automated system cannot rely on human decision making for critical situations, because by then, the operator is too detached from the process to properly and quickly react.
It's been mentioned before that fully automated system cannot rely on human decision making for critical situations, because by then, the operator is too detached from the process to properly and quickly react.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
I think you're still missing the point. I'm in complete agreement with you there so far. It's just that when the humans are impaired, the machines will not be. Though I suppose there will be the case where the OS crashes. Flying was pretty dangerous when it started out, but lately it's been getting safer and safer. It'll be the same with any other technology, it gets better with time. Also the danger seems to be in being a pedestrian so it's more dangerous to be outside an autonomous vehicle now than inside it. If you don't consider Tesla an autonomous vehicle, then so far there have been 0 driver deaths in testing so far. I'm sure the injury numbers are much better too.
It'll be great when they're on the road, less crazy drivers out there and I'm sure it'll be easy to cut them off...
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
I think you're still missing the point. I'm in complete agreement with you there so far. It's just that when the humans are impaired, the machines will not be. Though I suppose there will be the case where the OS crashes. Flying was pretty dangerous when it started out, but lately it's been getting safer and safer. It'll be the same with any other technology, it gets better with time. Also the danger seems to be in being a pedestrian so it's more dangerous to be outside an autonomous vehicle now than inside it. If you don't consider Tesla an autonomous vehicle, then so far there have been 0 driver deaths in testing so far. I'm sure the injury numbers are much better too.
It'll be great when they're on the road, less crazy drivers out there and I'm sure it'll be easy to cut them off...
1. Watched the video however cameras don't see like humans do.
2. One sec she's not there, next sec she is...right in front.
3. Suicide by car?
4. Very poor headlight beam pattern. Poor "down-the-road" light thrown.
5. The 'driver' is clueless, has no night vision due to staring into a bright screen, lighting up the interior and is oblivious to the danger she's allowed herself to be in.
6. The driver is a woman...look again. She will now have to live with herself the rest of her life and for all to see on world-wide video.
7. Surprised at the lack of self-protection...of both women.
8. Really bad for Volvo's 'safety' image.
9. What kind of 'self-driving technology' worthy of the name can't see/detect in absolute darkness??
2. One sec she's not there, next sec she is...right in front.
3. Suicide by car?
4. Very poor headlight beam pattern. Poor "down-the-road" light thrown.
5. The 'driver' is clueless, has no night vision due to staring into a bright screen, lighting up the interior and is oblivious to the danger she's allowed herself to be in.
6. The driver is a woman...look again. She will now have to live with herself the rest of her life and for all to see on world-wide video.
7. Surprised at the lack of self-protection...of both women.
8. Really bad for Volvo's 'safety' image.
9. What kind of 'self-driving technology' worthy of the name can't see/detect in absolute darkness??
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
there is a bill in congress to prevent victims from sueing when hit by an automatic car, you have to use arbitration which is secret.
and when you accept Uber rules, you agree to that now.
not good
*hand rubbing intensifies*
there is a bill in congress to prevent victims from sueing when hit by an automatic car, you have to use arbitration which is secret.
and when you accept Uber rules, you agree to that now.
not good
*hand rubbing intensifies*
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
1. Watched the video however cameras don't see like humans do.
2. One sec she's not there, next sec she is...right in front.
3. Suicide by car?
4. Very poor headlight beam pattern. Poor "down-the-road" light thrown.
5. The 'driver' is clueless, has no night vision due to staring into a bright screen, lighting up the interior and is oblivious to the danger she's allowed herself to be in.
6. The driver is a woman...look again. She will now have to live with herself the rest of her life and for all to see on world-wide video.
7. Surprised at the lack of self-protection...of both women.
8. Really bad for Volvo's 'safety' image.
9. What kind of 'self-driving technology' worthy of the name can't see/detect in absolute darkness??
The video might be different from the actual view in the driver's seat. Pretty much the woman wasn't looking. The view from inside kinda looked a little like some enhanced night vision/infrared view. The software probably needs to be tweeked too, if it's just driving by itself on an empty road, it mind as well stick to the speed limit. I think they make it go a little faster because everyone else goes faster so it does that just to keep up with traffic. But there was no traffic.
1. Watched the video however cameras don't see like humans do.
2. One sec she's not there, next sec she is...right in front.
3. Suicide by car?
4. Very poor headlight beam pattern. Poor "down-the-road" light thrown.
5. The 'driver' is clueless, has no night vision due to staring into a bright screen, lighting up the interior and is oblivious to the danger she's allowed herself to be in.
6. The driver is a woman...look again. She will now have to live with herself the rest of her life and for all to see on world-wide video.
7. Surprised at the lack of self-protection...of both women.
8. Really bad for Volvo's 'safety' image.
9. What kind of 'self-driving technology' worthy of the name can't see/detect in absolute darkness??
The video might be different from the actual view in the driver's seat. Pretty much the woman wasn't looking. The view from inside kinda looked a little like some enhanced night vision/infrared view. The software probably needs to be tweeked too, if it's just driving by itself on an empty road, it mind as well stick to the speed limit. I think they make it go a little faster because everyone else goes faster so it does that just to keep up with traffic. But there was no traffic.
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
I don't understand the need for self driving cars.
Will someone explain please?
Yeah, still don’t understand why people are so lazy and not wanting to drive their own vehicle ???
Maybe they want more time to play with cellphone.... ?
I don't understand the need for self driving cars.
Will someone explain please?
Yeah, still don’t understand why people are so lazy and not wanting to drive their own vehicle ???
Maybe they want more time to play with cellphone.... ?
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
I don't understand the need for self driving cars.
Will someone explain please?
You and I may be old school, but whether we like it or not, there is a purpose. Young people, for starters, aren't getting licensed like they used to. Secondly, self driving cars, if done correctly, certainly will be safer. At the very least, computers are easier to teach than people.
Now, do I want self driving cars? Please, wait until I'm dead, thanks. Then again, my maternal grandfather never owned an internal combustion engine of any sort in his life, and he farmed. He probably thought the same thing about the car.
I don't understand the need for self driving cars.
Will someone explain please?
You and I may be old school, but whether we like it or not, there is a purpose. Young people, for starters, aren't getting licensed like they used to. Secondly, self driving cars, if done correctly, certainly will be safer. At the very least, computers are easier to teach than people.
Now, do I want self driving cars? Please, wait until I'm dead, thanks. Then again, my maternal grandfather never owned an internal combustion engine of any sort in his life, and he farmed. He probably thought the same thing about the car.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
I think you're still missing the point. I'm in complete agreement with you there so far. It's just that when the humans are impaired, the machines will not be. Though I suppose there will be the case where the OS crashes. Flying was pretty dangerous when it started out, but lately it's been getting safer and safer. It'll be the same with any other technology, it gets better with time. Also the danger seems to be in being a pedestrian so it's more dangerous to be outside an autonomous vehicle now than inside it. If you don't consider Tesla an autonomous vehicle, then so far there have been 0 driver deaths in testing so far. I'm sure the injury numbers are much better too.
It'll be great when they're on the road, less crazy drivers out there and I'm sure it'll be easy to cut them off...
You'd have had to have made something close to a valid point for me to have missed it.
You didn't.
Your bringing aviation into the thread betrays a complete lack of understanding of how aircraft are operated.
Suffice it to say that the dramatic reduction in airliner hull loses over the past fifty years has nothing to do with autonomous systems and everything to do with better standardization of operating procedures as well as better cockpit resource management.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not going to comment on your driving acumen, since I haven't seen it, nor should you comment on mine.
You also miss the point in that clear blue skies aren't where a decent driver will exceed the abilities of an autonomous system, it's rather in treacherous conditions that a real human driver will prove more adept and more capable. Cruising down a moderately congested highway on a clear above freezing roadway, an autonomous vehicle would probably be great and no more boring than driving the car. Coat that roadway with snow and ice and the autonomous vehicle becomes a potential death trap while the decent and experienced driver can handle the conditions with aplomb.
If you'd feel personally safer in a fully autonomous car, then by all means buy one should one become available within your lifetime.
I think you're still missing the point. I'm in complete agreement with you there so far. It's just that when the humans are impaired, the machines will not be. Though I suppose there will be the case where the OS crashes. Flying was pretty dangerous when it started out, but lately it's been getting safer and safer. It'll be the same with any other technology, it gets better with time. Also the danger seems to be in being a pedestrian so it's more dangerous to be outside an autonomous vehicle now than inside it. If you don't consider Tesla an autonomous vehicle, then so far there have been 0 driver deaths in testing so far. I'm sure the injury numbers are much better too.
It'll be great when they're on the road, less crazy drivers out there and I'm sure it'll be easy to cut them off...
You'd have had to have made something close to a valid point for me to have missed it.
You didn't.
Your bringing aviation into the thread betrays a complete lack of understanding of how aircraft are operated.
Suffice it to say that the dramatic reduction in airliner hull loses over the past fifty years has nothing to do with autonomous systems and everything to do with better standardization of operating procedures as well as better cockpit resource management.
- Status
