Bet 90% of people bemoaning it will change their tune when they are over 80 years old and at that point they shouldnt be driving anymore. You could hop in and just say "take me to county kitchen buffet" and the car drives you there without you risking everyone else on the road.
1988RedT2 said:You'll excuse me if I'm laughing myself silly here. If a self-driving car runs over a pedestrian, that's okay, price of progress, yadda, yadda, yadda. But let somebody cheat on a sniffer test and it's OMG people are gonna die in 50 years, VW is worse than Hitler, oh, the humanity.
Thanks for the yuks, guys!
That's right, I think that intentional killings via deceitful practices are worse than accidental ones that happen despite the best efforts to avoid them! I'll be here all week! Try the veal and tip the waitress!
AI is going to be the 'nuclear power' of my kids' generation. Huge potential energy, with all of the potential benefits and fallout.
A bag lady staggered into the path of a robot. Sounds like a metaphorical crossroads to me?
Just like we haven't nuked ourselves yet, I hold hope that they won't come take our guns n cars n jerbs.
1988RedT2 said:You'll excuse me if I'm laughing myself silly here. If a self-driving car runs over a pedestrian, that's okay, price of progress, yadda, yadda, yadda. But let somebody cheat on a sniffer test and it's OMG people are gonna die in 50 years, VW is worse than Hitler, oh, the humanity.
Thanks for the yuks, guys!
No one is saying it's a good thing or OK that someone died. People are saying that nothing is 100% infallible and while it's a tragedy, it's also true that computers are less prone to mistakes, inattentiveness, indecision or poor reaction times than humans.
And while I know it was hyperbole, no one is saying VW is worse than Hitler, even as a joke that's in pretty poor taste IMHO.
Adrian_Thompson said:STM317 said: They're trying to develop a product that people aren't really asking for right now.No offense, but seriously? Many on here and just about every enthusiast web site/forum are constantly bemoaning (unfairly I feel) the younger generations for wanting autonomous cars and not being interested in cars as a passion or a hobby. Many young (and older/old) people don't understand why we don't have autonomous cars already. There is a huge untapped market waiting for them to become practical, available and affordable. Even the suggestion for those who don't want to drive to move to a city and use public transport would only be moving to the first deployment of mass autonomous cars for Uber/Lyft, Amazon, busses, taxis, Fed-Ex etc. Even if there wasn't a massive pent up demand for the technology many of the biggest game changers in technology weren't things people were begging for (which they are here) Remember Henry Ford 'If I"d asked people what they wanted they would have asked for a faster horse' I don't' remember wishing for the internet or smart phones either. Disruptive tech often drives the economy to bigger and better things, kind of what built this country!
Completely serious! People don't trust autonomous vehicles right now, and that number was falling BEFORE this incident. One poll suggested 78% of people were unwilling to ride in an autonomous vehicle.
Even more troubling, that trust is decreasing across all age groups, most noticeably in young people, who should be the ones most likely to embrace this tech. Again, this study was done before this recent incident, which can't be helping public opinion, even if the autonomous tech isn't liable.
Why would tons of people be asking for vehicles that they don't trust? The corporations are charging into this market with a product, and hoping that with time (or legislation) consumers gain enough comfort to buy in. There's little demand for it right now. Everybody loves the idea of other people in autonomous vehicles, but that number shrinks a ton when you ask them to spend their money on it, and trust their lives or the lives of their kids to it.
Apexcarver said:Bet 90% of people bemoaning it will change their tune when they are over 80 years old and at that point they shouldnt be driving anymore. You could hop in and just say "take me to county kitchen buffet" and the car drives you there without you risking everyone else on the road.
Again, this has been something that you can do for over 100 years. The only thing that's new about it, is it would allow those who can afford it to own their own private taxi instead of calling a taxi or car service.
Either case (Owning an autonomous vehicle, or calling for a ride) would require a person to realize that they're no longer able to safely control a vehicle, which seems to be the toughest part to overcome based on those that I've been around who've had their keys taken away.
In reply to STM317 :
Fair points, but just because people aren't willing to travel in them today, doesn't mean they wont be in 2-5-10 years once the technology is improved massively, it also doesn't mean they don't want them. Also there are surveys out there where people want autonomous cars for at least part of their use cycle be it parking, congestion, multitasking. Those may 'only' show 30-40% want or pull, but I wonder how that compared to the % of people 'wanting' an automobile in 1910, or wanting the internet in 1990? And those surveys you mention were all US based. I wonder (but honestly don't know) what the result of similar survey in say London, Paris, Hong Kong, Beijing , Mexico city etc.
Also, as I keep saying, it's not just Uber and Lyft that want them. All the freight carriers and major retailers want them for transporting goods.
I wonder how many people will even notice they are in an autonomous bus taking them from terminal to terminal at an airport or something similar in 10 years when they start to come on line?
Finally, there are scales of autonomous vehicles from 1-5 (zero being what we had a few yeas ago) Just about all companies are already producing vehicles with level 1, 2 and 3 autonomous driving with things like automatic cruise control, stop and go, emergency braking, lane keep assist etc.
I hope autonomous cars become a thing as long as we are able to continue to drive our own vehicles as well. Which to be honest considering you can still ride horses and bikes on the road, I am not to worried about.
My biggest worries are what are insurance premiums going to be like on regular cars and what happens when the autonomous vehicles are maintained by Jim Bob in a barn with duct tape and bondo.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
I'm not saying that they don't have appeal. There's a ton of appeal for businesses, who have shareholders to please above all else. But Lyft, Uber, GM, Ford, etc are really in the business of selling their product to consumers, and not businesses. Waymo is probably best positioned to cater to businesses as they'll probably just license the tech to whoever pays them.
It's all a case of big business putting their self interest (Profits) above the interests of the general public. They test them in public, putting the public at risk to an extent. And their acceptance will eliminate many jobs. Again, to increase profits of big business.I think we're getting closer and closer to a point where capitalism is more or less going to start cannibalizing itself.
In reply to STM317 :
Great point, but just because people are saying they don't trust them now doesn't mean they don't want them or wont trust them in 1-5-10-20 years. I wonder what the result of those surveys would be in other countries or markets. Especially mega cities. Don't' jump and say lets try them there then, we've already given away our lead in things like solar and wind generation by wanting to protect the status quo while other countries invest flat out in what could have been American lead fields.
Also, it's not just Uber/Lyft who want them, it's also commercial applications. Amazon, Fed-Ex, etc.
Finally, iI didn't just say people were calling for this technology, I also said that things like the car, the internet and smart phones weren't' technologies people were asking for, they weren't', but they were game changers all the same. I wonder what the result of similar surveys about cars would have been in at the turn of the last century when they were at a similarly early point in their development cycle as autonomous technology is today? I'll bet there would have been fewer people who 'wanted' or 'trusted' these new fangled automobiles than want or trust autonomous cars today?
93EXCivic said:My biggest worries are what are insurance premiums going to be like on regular cars and what happens when the autonomous vehicles are maintained by Jim Bob in a barn with duct tape and bondo.
Like, oh, doing a quick respray and painting over the various sensors, then going out for a test drive?
We've already seen the tip of the iceberg on this, where someone bought a salvage-titled Tesla and couldn't get it to go. Turned out that Tesla had remote-bricked it due to it being considered totaled. They were somewhat-rightly concerned about getting a bad reputation in case a repaired car crashes or catches fire. That was some years ago; I wonder what they do now with the growing pile of bent Teslas?
STM317 said:In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
I'm not saying that they don't have appeal. There's a ton of appeal for businesses, who have shareholders to please above all else. But Lyft, Uber, GM, Ford, etc TODAY are really in the business of selling their product to consumers, and not businesses. Waymo is probably best positioned to cater to businesses as they'll probably just license the tech to whoever pays them.
Note the word I added. TODAY. just because these businesses have one business model today doesn't mean it will remain the same. Don't forget the other side of the 'autonomous' coin is the 'sharing' community. Don't just look at not just the ride share services, It's not just Uber and Lyft. What about companies like Zipcar, car2go and even Truro? Look at how not keeping up with the times and sticking to the old business model worked out for Kodak, Polaroid, Borders etc. They all failed to react fast enough to changing technologies and marketplaces. I guarantee that everyone of the companies you mention has past failures like those strongly on the mind of their board of directors and all the employees.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
I can absolutely see other places adopting autonomous tech way before the US does. You made a great point earlier about the US being more independent than any of the other places you've experienced. I think the US love affair with the automobile stems from that independent spirit.
If we're still 10+ years away from these things being adopted, is there a reason why they need to currently be testing on public streets?
STM317 said:Adrian_Thompson said:STM317 said: They're trying to develop a product that people aren't really asking for right now.No offense, but seriously? Many on here and just about every enthusiast web site/forum are constantly bemoaning (unfairly I feel) the younger generations for wanting autonomous cars and not being interested in cars as a passion or a hobby. Many young (and older/old) people don't understand why we don't have autonomous cars already. There is a huge untapped market waiting for them to become practical, available and affordable. Even the suggestion for those who don't want to drive to move to a city and use public transport would only be moving to the first deployment of mass autonomous cars for Uber/Lyft, Amazon, busses, taxis, Fed-Ex etc. Even if there wasn't a massive pent up demand for the technology many of the biggest game changers in technology weren't things people were begging for (which they are here) Remember Henry Ford 'If I"d asked people what they wanted they would have asked for a faster horse' I don't' remember wishing for the internet or smart phones either. Disruptive tech often drives the economy to bigger and better things, kind of what built this country!
Completely serious! People don't trust autonomous vehicles right now, and that number was falling BEFORE this incident. One poll suggested 78% of people were unwilling to ride in an autonomous vehicle.
Even more troubling, that trust is decreasing across all age groups, most noticeably in young people, who should be the ones most likely to embrace this tech. Again, this study was done before this recent incident, which can't be helping public opinion, even if the autonomous tech isn't liable.
Why would tons of people be asking for vehicles that they don't trust? The corporations are charging into this market with a product, and hoping that with time (or legislation) consumers gain enough comfort to buy in. There's little demand for it right now. Everybody loves the idea of other people in autonomous vehicles, but that number shrinks a ton when you ask them to spend their money on it, and trust their lives or the lives of their kids to it.
Even if, for the sake of argument, autonomous cars never take off as street-driven passenger cars, every business in the world that has to pay drivers is clamoring for them, and that's not a tiny market.
STM317 said:In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
If we're still 10+ years away from these things being adopted, is there a reason why they need to currently be testing on public streets?
I'd say yes, because if we wait 10 years for real world testing we will just be 10 years further behind the development curve. What's the old adage, 'no plan survives and encounter with the enemy'. We don't' have a known list of unknowns so at some point we need the real world. And as I said previously, I really don't' want us too loose out on another technological advantage as we have with solar and wind by letting someone else test up front. I truly hope with all my being that an investigation shows there is no one, not even Lewis Hamilton could have avoided this tragedy and that while involved, the 'autonomous' vehicle and 'safety driver' are 100% cleared of any poor 'decision' making or mistakes. I'm not saying that's the case, I just hope it is.
I would assume that there will be a very thorough investigation, not just by the local Police and all the parties involved, but by the NTSB and NHTSA as well.
STM317, I'm glad we can disagree and keep it civil. Cheers.
Apexcarver said:Bet 90% of people bemoaning it will change their tune when they are over 80 years old and at that point they shouldnt be driving anymore. You could hop in and just say "take me to county kitchen buffet" and the car drives you there without you risking everyone else on the road.
Oh boy, that makes me think of my 94 YO father-in-law. He got in a fight with my bro-in-law and said "That's it, I'm moving back to Bridgeton!" Problem is, Bridgeton is 3000 miles away. The prospect of addled minds telling robot cars where to go could cause some interesting scenarios.
Navigation tables will need to be upgraded .
Do GPS satelites black out in heavy storms like TV 's often do ?
Inattention meets inattention.
iceracer said:Navigation tables will need to be upgraded .
Do GPS satelites black out in heavy storms like TV 's often do ?
GPS signals are in a band that penetrates rain & clouds pretty well.
If you haven’t seen the video, the Uber driver was paying attention on her cellphone and not watching the road. That said, I cant see how it would have made a difference. The victim wore dark cloths, was crossing in the middle of an active lane of traffic, nowhere near a crossing or intersection, and she was n the pitch black between pools of light created by streetlights. Nothing reflected from her or her bike either. She just appeared out of nowhere, no time to stop or swerve.
Odd that the autonomous systems didn’t see her, Cadillac’s night vision would have seen her clearly. Maybe the Uber LIDAR can’t see at night?
This was a triple fail.
The video and the details of the accident scene clearly show that the car failed to operate as intended. It failed to sense and react to a pedestrian crossing from left to right at a walking pace, across at least one, possibly four lanes of traffic depending on exactly where this took place on the widening road. This should not have happened. The car failed. I'll repeat that to let it sink in. The car failed. Would a human driver have done better? Maybe, maybe not. A human could not have done any worse. Uber got lucky that this happened at night, with poor human visibility, with an inattentive pedestrian crossing in an unsafe manner. It makes it easier to excuse, and say that it was the pedestrians fault (which it largely was,) and to say a human wouldn't have done any better, which may be true. But that glosses over the other truth. You need to look at this through the car's "eyes." To the car, this was a bright sunny day with no traffic. A pedestrian was crossing the street, and although they did not have the right away, the car could "see" her as she crossed at least one if not multiple lanes before stepping in front of the car. But the car did not slow. The car did not stop. It either did not see the pedestrian, which is a failure, or it did see but failed to react. Failure. Now people are back tracking and saying it did just as good as a human would have done. Then what is the point? This car does not care about night and day. I'm pretty sure it's not programmed to stop at crosswalks, but mow down jaywalkers. This could just as likely have occurred in broad daylight at a cross walk. Uber got lucky.
The "driver" failed to do his job. He had a false sense of trust in the car, and failed his basic mission. He got lucky. Remove the self driving car from the equation, and he hit and killed a pedestrian. Sure, he likely would not have been able to prevent it. The dash cam shows the road to be almost unrealistically dark, and the pedestrian appears to come out of nowhere, which we now know was not the case. But preventable or not, he was not paying attention, which would have put him at fault regardless.
The pedestrian was the one who was ultimately responsible for her own safety. She failed to look up and make sure the road was clear. Don't know how she missed the headlights, or if she just assumed the car would yield. Unfortunately she paid the ultimate price. So not as big a deal as it could have been. Lucky for Uber, and self driving cars in general.
I'm not sure the driver could have reacted in time to do anything based on the lighting in the video, although obviously he wasn't paying attention at all so we'll never know for sure. I can see how criminal charges could be laid here against the safety driver.
I'm not sure a human-piloted car would have avoided that accident - the first thing you see are reflectors and it would take a moment to realize just what you were looking at.
I would have expected the sensors on the AV to have picked up this pedestrian. That is definitely a problem and one that I hope will spark a lot of careful study. If they had, then the pedestrian could very well have been one of those people who were saved by an AV but nobody would have ever known. As it is, she has taken an unfortunate place in history as the first pedestrian definitely killed by an AV.
First as far as robot cars - did you not see Battlestar Galactica!!
Next, in Las Vegas we have a high number of pedestrian fatalities and 75% of them involve J walking and 90% of them happen within 200ft of a cross walk. Idiots get off one bus and dart across 6 lanes of traffic trying to catch the next bus. The pedestrian is 100% at fault whether a human or cylon is driving. Stupid will always find a way to out smart really smart people, albeit not intentionally.
I can see some people welcoming them with open arms and others not. I'm in the not category. Raise your hand if your computer or phone has worked 100% flawlessly in the last 500 hours. I don't want to be on the freeway rebooting my car or have my hacked car drive itself to a hackers chop shop.
Mr not paying attention safety driver is definelty in trouble and may well be charged with negligence. It's a similar situation to a drunk drive hitting a J walker; if they were sober no charges would be filled but driving impaired instantly shifts the blame to the drunk driver.
Finally there are serious challenges for autonomous cars but J walkers aren't one of them. These fatalities will continue as long as stupid people are intent on playing in traffic. It's a harsh attitude I know but it's just the reality of the situation.
Tragic, but it may not have been avoidable. We will not know for this exact situation. Uber, and all the other AV companies will learn from it.
I think it's been pretty well proven that AVs are overall safer than a human driver. I know I would trust one over my wife, brother, MIL, and most if not all of my elderly relatives. Sad, but true.
As for the comment "has my phone or computer worked flawlessly for the last 500 hours"... well, yes my phone and computer both have; assuming I keep up with the updates. Same cannot be said for me and my wife; our updates (sleeping, eating, etc.) have had a few issues--to the point that I've been driving my wife in to work this week. Sure would be nice if she had auto pilot.
I haven't read all of the previous, but I do live in the area and travel that spot often. It was my route to the gym for years. It is a very dark place between a large park and the zoo. Both have minimal lighting intentionally. The rods crests a hill and is curving to the left where this happened. It is very hard to see and easy for something like a pedestrian to be hidden by the hill and curve.
The uber cars travel in packs and I deal with them on a daily basis. They are better then the google cars because they don't randomly jam the brakes because a car gets next to them. They definitely have far fewer sensors visible on them than the google or gm test cars. I like to cut across the front of them when on my motorcycle to see how they react. You have to get uncomfortably close to get the brakes to trigger compared to the other 2. Google cars far out number gm 100 to 1 on seeing on the road.
I have been next next to each type when they get caught in the intersections as well. Uber pulls to the right of cars and pulls into the curb area, google looks stuck out there and appears to have drivers take over. They are interesting toys and usually not an issue.
That at being said, we have all been in accidents and some can be avoided and sometimes not. All eyes are on this like 2007 Britney Spears, it will be interesting to see how it is interpreted or if it will just disappear from the discussion. Google cars where still on the road in force today.
You'll need to log in to post.
