Driverless car kills pedestrian

[Clocker]

You knew this was coming.

A self-driving car from Uber Technologies Inc. hit and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona, on Sunday evening, what is likely the first pedestrian fatality involving a driverless vehicle, Bloomberg News reports.

Uber said on Monday that it was halting tests of all its autonomous vehicles in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Toronto and the greater Phoenix area. “Our hearts go out to the victim’s family," a company spokeswoman said in a statement. "We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident."


The vehicle did have a "safety driver" at the time but was self-driving.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/uber-is-pausing-autonomous-car-tests-in-all-cities-after-fatality

[BaffertsWig]

The "safety driver" was busy texting at the time...

[Clocker]

This could turn into a major test case about the responsibility of the driver and of Uber. Could the driver and/or Uber be charged with negligent homicide?

It would seem like the driver would be most likely to be found at fault, given that he or she was behind the wheel at the time and I assume has the ability to override the operation of the car at any time.

[elysiantraveller]

What if it was John Connor behind the wheel intentionally hitting the person to prevent the growth and eventual takeover of Skynet?

[Dave Schwartz]

What if it was John Connor behind the wheel intentionally hitting the person to prevent the growth and eventual takeover of Skynet?


This is so logical! I am sure you are right.

[davew]

There need to be laws about crossing the street outside the painted crosswalks, even if at an intersection.

[jay68802]

There need to be laws about crossing the street outside the painted crosswalks, even if at an intersection.

We also need laws about how fast those horseless contraptions can travel.

[Clocker]

There need to be laws about crossing the street outside the painted crosswalks, even if at an intersection.

The family needs to sue the city for not putting up a bridge there.

[barahona44]

Uber says "Our hearts go out to the family"

To be followed shortly by their wallets.

Other than the "cool" factor and providing transportation to people who for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to drive, I'm still trying to figure out the market for driverless vehicles.

[Clocker]

To be followed shortly by their wallets.



Chump change. 60 Minutes did a story on the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia last night. "The Kingdom" has invested over $3.5 billion in Uber.

[therussmeister]

Uber says "Our hearts go out to the family"

To be followed shortly by their wallets.

Other than the "cool" factor and providing transportation to people who for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to drive, I'm still trying to figure out the market for driverless vehicles.

It is exactly the same market for cabs, Uber and Lyft.

[NJ Stinks]

How much blood money did Tempe receive to allow this to happen in their city?

Why would anybody who can drive want this?

This wasn't a plane that went down but somebody chose to fly and accidents happen. This is somebody dying so somebody can test something that the deceased never chose to interact with. I can't imagine there are more senseless reasons to lose a life. Can you?

[Clocker]

How much blood money did Tempe receive to allow this to happen in their city?



It wasn't Tempe's decision. The governor signed an executive order several years ago, apparently in the hopes of attracting high-tech money and jobs.

I just read that the companies such as Uber like Arizona because of the weather. Robot cars don't deal well with the realities of life, like rain or snow or high wind.

[davew]

Isn't Uber mostly a software company, paying independent contractors to drive their personal car like a taxi? What do they need billions of dollars for? and why do they think it would be cheaper to own the 'self-driving' cars themselves?

[NJ Stinks]

It wasn't Tempe's decision. The governor signed an executive order several years ago, apparently in the hopes of attracting high-tech money and jobs.

I just read that the companies such as Uber like Arizona because of the weather. Robot cars don't deal well with the realities of life, like rain or snow or high wind.

Thanks for the information.

[MutuelClerk]

Can Robocop arrest the car?

[davew]

Can Robocop arrest the car?

I was wondering if Arizona has the death penalty for murdering cars?

[OntheRail]

I was wondering if Arizona has the death penalty for murdering cars?

I heard California has sent a Jerr-Dan to pick it up and whisk it into sanctuary. They have offered it a secured parking space in a San Fransisco.

[barahona44]

I was wondering if Arizona has the death penalty for murdering cars?

The governor rejected a last minute appeal for clemency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4f4mv1GMvc

[Inner Dirt]

As someone who has used computer controlled equipment for decades that have similar components to those needed to operate an autonomous motor vehicle I am not surprised this happened. I am rather appalled that self driving cars are even in the development process. Computer controlled motion is far from foolproof as all components are subject to failure. Look at all the accidents caused by computerized systems on trains and those things run on tracks. Something as simple as moisture making it's way into a connection in a feedback loop can cause multiple system processes to go haywire. I would not want to be anywhere near a self driving car unless I was in a Sherman tank. I hope the deceased's family wins the biggest lawsuit in history.

[Big Russ]

Anyone think that waiting for the facts to come out could be the wise thing to do?

[davew]

Anyone think that waiting for the facts to come out could be the wise thing to do?

We have learned 'facts' never come out, just the version we are supposed to see.

[JustRalph]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142672/uber-deadly-self-driving-car-crash-fault-police

It’s on now!

[therussmeister]

Anyone think that waiting for the facts to come out could be the wise thing to do?

Might be wise, but it's no fun.

[Show Me the Wire]

Anyone think that waiting for the facts to come out could be the wise thing to do?

Only facts that matter, a pedestrian was hit and killed by a self-driving vehicle. The push for self-driving vehicles is supposedly all about safety. The safety comes from eliminating human error while operating a lethal machine.

[letswastemoney]

I find the idea of a self-driving car bizarre. Driving is something that needs a human being at the controls and monitoring the surroundings at all times.

[Show Me the Wire]

We have learned 'facts' never come out, just the version we are supposed to see.

Distracted driving, the car was texting another robot.:)

[Racetrack Playa]

What if it was John Connor behind the wheel intentionally hitting the person to prevent the growth and eventual takeover of Skynet?
IDK who J.Conner is...
, but if this car was driven by a Human , most of us never would have heard of this accident.:rip:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2018/03/13/arizona-official-10-pedestrian-deaths-week-show-major-crisis/422808002/?hootPostID=bde400c9f1e69cfe28c9e6983a37d31f

[PaceAdvantage]

I can't imagine there are more senseless reasons to lose a life. Can you?I can. How about being murdered by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported 15,000 times but somehow kept being able to come back again and shack up in some of those nifty "Sanctuary Cities" the USA is reported to have up and running in some choice ultra-liberal cities.

Do you shed tears over those senseless deaths time and again? Because I don't see you posting such emotional responses to THOSE...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSGBct3RgX0

[davew]

Only facts that matter, a pedestrian was hit and killed by a self-driving vehicle. The push for self-driving vehicles is supposedly all about safety. The safety comes from eliminating human error while operating a lethal machine.

Is running a bicycle across the street in front of a car still considered being a pedestrian?

[Big Russ]

Might be wise, but it's no fun.

In that case, I'm going with culling the herd.

[Tom]

Anyone think that waiting for the facts to come out could be the wise thing to do?

Would have been the thing to do....for Uber.
Testing has been halted while they discuss the possible negative to a driver-less car.

Should have done that before they started the testing.
I hope civil suits bankrupts these worthless morons.

[NJ Stinks]

I can. How about being murdered by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported 15,000 times but somehow kept being able to come back again and shack up in some of those nifty "Sanctuary Cities" the USA is reported to have up and running in some choice ultra-liberal cities.

Do you shed tears over those senseless deaths time and again? Because I don't see you posting such emotional responses to THOSE...



Nobody invited the illegal immigrant - somebody invited the riderless car.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nobody invited the illegal immigrantYou're kidding, right?

[menifee]

Would have been the thing to do....for Uber.
Testing has been halted while they discuss the possible negative to a driver-less car.

Should have done that before they started the testing.
I hope civil suits bankrupts these worthless morons.

You know what your right! In fact, we should just ban cars! Walking is much safer. And that flying too! How dangerous! Why do we need to fly!

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/

[Tom]

They didn't allow passengers on the flying tool when it was being tested.

[Big Russ]

I watched the video. I feel confident that the vehicle I'm currently driving would have slammed on the brakes in that situation. Not good Uber! I won't even comment on the "safety driver".

[davew]

uber video released - dark sweatshirt, night, driver seems to be reading book or something.. 40 mph in view for maybe 2 seconds

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/video-driver-autonomous-uber-distracted-005504917.html

[JustRalph]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17149958/tempe-police-fatal-crash-self-driving-uber-video-released

Vid at the bottom

[JerryBoyle]

Using 1 death as propaganda to halt and/or be skeptical of autonomous driving is way more dangerous than autonomous driving itself. Of course there are cases where a human could have made a better decision, but on the aggregate, a computer will do a better job driving the car than you or I. It doesn't get distracted, doesn't drink, doesn't get tired, doesn't fall asleep, etc, etc, etc. Though I'm sure there are many Tesla skeptics lurking, they have the data to back up this idea - that even driver-assist features reduce accidents. Again, there are edge cases a la the guy who drover under a truck because the car didn't see it against a brightly lit sky, but it's dangerous to push a false narrative based on these few, highly publicized cases.

[JerryBoyle]

I'd go as far as to say, promoting the fear of autonomous driving makes you a despicable human being who becomes accountable for all following driving related injuries/fatalities...

[jocko699]

I'd go as far as to say, promoting the fear of autonomous driving makes you a despicable human being who becomes accountable for all few driving related injuries/fatalities...

WTF are you talking about?

[JerryBoyle]

Uber says "Our hearts go out to the family"

To be followed shortly by their wallets.

Other than the "cool" factor and providing transportation to people who for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to drive, I'm still trying to figure out the market for driverless vehicles.

The benefit for autonomous driving is HUGE. No more DUIs, so fewer DUI related accidents leading to fewer deaths/injuries, reduced prison population + reduction in time cops spend on DUI related stops meaning fewer tax dollars and better police work. Fast travel time and less congestion because the driving is more efficient (no more useless braking, dangerous lane changes, etc). Leads to less time wasted in traveling + optimizing time spent in the car either resting or doing other work. Fewer accidents in general, so fewer injuries/deaths and cheaper insurance. Opens up ride sharing market even more as your car no longer needs to stay where you are, so you can either rent it out, or not own a car at all.

The knock on economic and social effects of this are massive and greatly greatly greatlyx10000000 under appreciated...

[JerryBoyle]

WTF are you talking about?

When advocating for no autonomous driving, you're advocating for a more dangerous path...

[PaceAdvantage]

He's saying that someone who promotes the fear of driverless vehicles should be responsible for all the countless deaths caused by cars driven by fallible human beings...or something to that effect.

Because, let's face it...he's 100% correct.

You guys really think computer controlled vehicles, once fully tested and fine tuned, won't be SAFER than all the idiot human drivers you and I almost get killed by every single day?

Drunk Drivers
Sleep Deprived Drivers
Stoned Drivers
Distracted Drivers
BAD DRIVERS
i can go on....

There is NO WAY driverless vehicles could be worse and/or cause more injuries/deaths. No way.

[jocko699]

Ok, I am alright with that but my concern was a despicable comment. Let's be truthful, some have a different opinion, but to say they are despicable is unacceptable.

The computer programming is written by humans and potential issues will happen.

At the end of the day a careless and negligent driver pays both criminally and in a civil court. What remedy does a victim's family have in this case? Who will be jailed? After all, someone died and our answer is oh well less people will die with A.I.?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'd go as far as to say, promoting the fear of autonomous driving makes you a despicable human being who becomes accountable for all following driving related injuries/fatalities...

Finally a realistic goal in life.

[barahona44]

The benefit for autonomous driving is HUGE. No more DUIs, so fewer DUI related accidents leading to fewer deaths/injuries, reduced prison population + reduction in time cops spend on DUI related stops meaning fewer tax dollars and better police work. Fast travel time and less congestion because the driving is more efficient (no more useless braking, dangerous lane changes, etc). Leads to less time wasted in traveling + optimizing time spent in the car either resting or doing other work. Fewer accidents in general, so fewer injuries/deaths and cheaper insurance. Opens up ride sharing market even more as your car no longer needs to stay where you are, so you can either rent it out, or not own a car at all.

The knock on economic and social effects of this are massive and greatly greatly greatlyx10000000 under appreciated...

Eventually, these cars may come about. Still doesn't answer the question , where is the "market" for these cars.? In other words, who is going to buy them.I seriously doubt they'll be inexpensive. And when people start promising paradise IF ONLY this or that would happen, yours truly starts getting suspicious.I mean people were in prison long before cars were ever invented. :D

[Clocker]

Drunk Drivers
Sleep Deprived Drivers
Stoned Drivers
Distracted Drivers
BAD DRIVERS
i can go on....

There is NO WAY driverless vehicles could be worse and/or cause more injuries/deaths. No way.

Probably, once all the cars on the road are autonomous.

On the other hand, an experienced human is more likely to recognize the bad actors listed above, and better able to drive defensively against them. And the bad actors will still be there, able to turn off the auto driver, like the guy in a hurry on the freeway, weaving from lane to lane to make better time.

And it is clearly the case that currently, an experienced driver is better able to drive in less than perfect conditions, such as rain, snow, ice, etc. Which is why all the robot cars are being tested in Arizona and California.

Until I see a lot more evidence, I believe that the best system is a human driver with safety over-rides, such as a braking system that stops the car when it detects the car is approaching an obstacle too quickly.

[JerryBoyle]

Eventually, these cars may come about. Still doesn't answer the question , where is the "market" for these cars.? In other words, who is going to buy them.I seriously doubt they'll be inexpensive. And when people start promising paradise IF ONLY this or that would happen, yours truly starts getting suspicious.I mean people were in prison long before cars were ever invented. :D

A family can now own 1 car instead of 3. Not only that, but we can rent out the spare time if we want. That's an enticing proposition...

Lol though I get your point abt moonshot promises, the things I listed are very real and very tangible benefits are they not? Fewer people drunk driving is an unqualified success for any number of reasons

[Clocker]

In other words, who is going to buy them.I seriously doubt they'll be inexpensive.

Big Brother says everyone. Big Brother knows what is good for you, and cost to you is of no concern.

[JerryBoyle]

Probably, once all the cars on the road are autonomous.

On the other hand, an experienced human is more likely to recognize the bad actors listed above, and better able to drive defensively against them. And the bad actors will still be there, able to turn off the auto driver, like the guy in a hurry on the freeway, weaving from lane to lane to make better time.

And it is clearly the case that currently, an experienced driver is better able to drive in less than perfect conditions, such as rain, snow, ice, etc. Which is why all the robot cars are being tested in Arizona and California.

Until I see a lot more evidence, I believe that the best system is a human driver with safety over-rides, such as a braking system that stops the car when it detects the car is approaching an obstacle too quickly.

In aggregate, I don't think this is true. There will be special cases where a human driver could have performed better, but take 1000s of cases where a bad actor does something e.g. your weaving lane-to-lane, and a computer will manage a larger percentage of those cases successfully.

Basically, reading the news and a lot of the responses here, the bar is being set at: the autonomous (or driver assisted) functionality should be better than a human in any and all conceivable situation before it should be used. My argument is that that is dangerous. The bar can be set much lower (in fact, my opinion is that the functionalities available now are already making roads safer) to create a safer driving environment.

[JerryBoyle]

All that being said, a legitimate argument is the marketing around the driverless features. Tesla branding their software as "autopilot" is dangerous and seems to have created the false sense of security that allowed the guy decapitated by the truck to watch a movie instead of the road...

[Clocker]

A family can now own 1 car instead of 3.


Unlikely, given the way people live today.

Not only that, but we can rent out the spare time if we want. That's an enticing proposition...
That's a revolting proposition. A vehicle is a very personal possession, with personal stuff in it. No way I give a stranger access.

[FantasticDan]

That's a revolting proposition. A vehicle is a very personal possession, with personal stuff in it. No way I give a stranger access.

Clocker's car :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Suddenly, I feel like a gun owner.

I'll give you my keys when you pry (or take) them from my cold, dead hands.

Just because other people can't handle driving doesn't mean I should turn in my car.


....matter of fact, I'm still pissed we're not riding horses....

[JustRalph]

Clocker's car :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Man, Dan........ that was funny........... :lol:

[Inner Dirt]

Probably, once all the cars on the road are autonomous.

On the other hand, an experienced human is more likely to recognize the bad actors listed above, and better able to drive defensively against them. And the bad actors will still be there, able to turn off the auto driver, like the guy in a hurry on the freeway, weaving from lane to lane to make better time.

And it is clearly the case that currently, an experienced driver is better able to drive in less than perfect conditions, such as rain, snow, ice, etc. Which is why all the robot cars are being tested in Arizona and California.

Until I see a lot more evidence, I believe that the best system is a human driver with safety over-rides, such as a braking system that stops the car when it detects the car is approaching an obstacle too quickly.

Also the common components used in computerized motion systems do not function well in the cold. The same components if used in a manufacturing environment requiring precision would be inside a climate controlled building.
Using components and systems that could tolerate all the elements encountered on roads without problems would be prohibitively expensive and require extensive and frequent maintenance.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/976235697375010816

[Tom]

Using 1 death as propaganda to halt and/or be skeptical of autonomous driving is way more dangerous than autonomous driving itself.

How many deaths are acceptable?
Assuming none of them are related to YOU, of course.

[Tom]

You guys really think computer controlled vehicles, once fully tested and fine tuned, won't be SAFER than all the idiot human drivers you and I almost get killed by every single day?
Operative words here being "fully tested and fine tuned."
Of course this is the future - no doubt about it. We walked on the freaking moon decades ago.

BUT, the technology is NOT full tested at this time, and in no way, shape or form should ANY testing be done with civilians on the test grounds unless fool-proof back up controls are in place.

I would love to the risk-assessment that was done on the testing.

[davew]

A family can now own 1 car instead of 3. Not only that, but we can rent out the spare time if we want. That's an enticing proposition...

Lol though I get your point abt moonshot promises, the things I listed are very real and very tangible benefits are they not? Fewer people drunk driving is an unqualified success for any number of reasons

You can do that now. (have 1 car instead of 3 and rent out when not used)

Are you expecting roads specific for autodrives? Like no pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, crazy drivers...

Don't they have laws now about driving drunk? The have ignition blocks where you have to blow into something before car will start. This does nothing to prevent the drunk from stealing a normal car. Maybe they should require all vehicles have a ignition block...

[JerryBoyle]

You can do that now. (have 1 car instead of 3 and rent out when not used)

Are you expecting roads specific for autodrives? Like no pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, crazy drivers...

Don't they have laws now about driving drunk? The have ignition blocks where you have to blow into something before car will start. This does nothing to prevent the drunk from stealing a normal car. Maybe they should require all vehicles have a ignition block...

When a car is autonomous, a family which feels the need to have many cars can purchase fewer. The car no longer has to stay where the person who drove it is.

Yes, someone can do something stupid and still drunk drive. They should be punished. But, when cars are autonomous, there will be fewer DUIs. How is this debatable?

[JerryBoyle]

How many deaths are acceptable?
Assuming none of them are related to YOU, of course.

Fewer deaths/injuries than we currently have with human drivers. We have already hit this point. It's something that is testable. Even vehicles with driver assist features cut down on accidents. Hence my point about being a bad human if you're advocating against autonomous vehicles.

[JerryBoyle]

Operative words here being "fully tested and fine tuned."
Of course this is the future - no doubt about it. We walked on the freaking moon decades ago.

BUT, the technology is NOT full tested at this time, and in no way, shape or form should ANY testing be done with civilians on the test grounds unless fool-proof back up controls are in place.

I would love to the risk-assessment that was done on the testing.

What does fully tested mean to you?

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Hence my point about being a bad human if you're advocating against autonomous vehicles.

Aren't you a bad person if you don't already own one of the Teslas? Or at least haven't quit gambling to start saving for one ASAP? Lives are on the line here.

[Inner Dirt]

What does fully tested mean to you?

Do you know anything about the computerized motion control systems that are needed to operate an autonomous vehicle?

[JerryBoyle]

Aren't you a bad person if you don't already own one of the Teslas? Or at least haven't quit gambling to start saving for one ASAP? Lives are on the line here.

I ride a horse I never accepted this "driving" thing, personally

[JerryBoyle]

Do you know anything about the computerized motion control systems that are needed to operate an autonomous vehicle?

Not as much as I'm guessing you think you do. What's your point? I'm no climate scientist, but it's clear there's global warming attributable to humans burning fossil fuels....

[Clocker]

I'm no climate scientist, but it's clear there's global warming attributable to humans burning fossil fuels....

Wow, who could have seen that coming? :D

It's all settled science and skeptics need to just listen to their betters who know what is good for them. Anyone that questions authority is a despicable human being.

[JerryBoyle]

Wow, who could have seen that coming? :D

It's all settled science and skeptics need to just listen to their betters who know what is good for them. Anyone that questions authority is a despicable human being.

There's no bomb emoji that I could drop in after that

[Inner Dirt]

Do you know anything about the computerized motion control systems that are needed to operate an autonomous vehicle?


Not as much as I'm guessing you think you do. What's your point? I'm no climate scientist, but it's clear there's global warming attributable to humans burning fossil fuels....

I am pretty sure I know more about computerized motion control than 99.999% of the population and then some. You seem to be very adamant about the benefits of autonomous vehicles with no understanding of what can cause catastrophic failures that lead to serious consequences.

Many of the items needed to operate the self driving car function best and have longer lifetimes in clean climate controlled environments, the exact opposite of what they will encounter over the road. Extreme hot, cold, moisture or vibration can cause immediate failure of components. Computer controlled systems don't always just shutdown when something causes a feedback loop to become corrupted, they can cause uncontrolled runaway motion. Also during the testing process these self driving cars are going to get care and maintenance they would never see if they sold to John Q. Public.

I am pretty sure there are plenty of people in here that have had a sensor fail on a car and send a false warning message, like when it tells you you have a flat tire when you don't or your windshield washer fluid is empty when you just filled it? What happens when a sensor controlling the motion of a self driving car fails?

[JerryBoyle]

I am pretty sure I know more about computerized motion control than 99.999% of the population and then some. You seem to be very adamant about the benefits of autonomous vehicles with no understanding of what can cause catastrophic failures that lead to serious consequences.

Many of the items needed to operate the self driving car function best and have longer lifetimes in clean climate controlled environments, the exact opposite of what they will encounter over the road. Extreme hot, cold, moisture or vibration can cause immediate failure of components. Computer controlled systems don't always just shutdown when something causes a feedback loop to become corrupted, they can cause uncontrolled runaway motion. Also during the testing process these self driving cars are going to get care and maintenance they would never see if they sold to John Q. Public.

I am pretty sure there are plenty of people in here that have had a sensor fail on a car and send a false warning message, like when it tells you you have a flat tire when you don't or your windshield washer fluid is empty when you just filled it? What happens when a sensor controlling the motion of a self driving car fails?

Again, what's your point? Yes, there are engineering challenges. Did I say there weren't?

[JerryBoyle]

I approached this with a few main arguments:

1. Skeptics seeing one article about an autonomous vehicle or feature failure and using it to argue something along the lines of "lol see this is ridiculous" is dangerous, stupid, and short sited

2. There are huge benefits to autonomous driving

3. There are already verifiable safety improvements when using driverless features. As such, if you're trying to persuade people away from thinking this technology is worth pursuing and worth pursing quickly, you're really doing harm.

4. Seems like people want the bar for adoption to be set at "it must never crash or cause a crash in any circumstance, ever". This is silly as we could make the roads safer with earlier adoption

[JerryBoyle]

There is an awesome parallel here between this and CRW teams. Sure, perhaps you can handicap one race better than the computer. But over thousands and thousands of races, the CRW team using a well developed model will perform much better

[Inner Dirt]

Again, what's your point? Yes, there are engineering challenges. Did I say there weren't?

My point is you are adamant about how wonderful something is while knowing absolutely nothing about the downside or caring to consider it. All the while talking down to those who don't share your uneducated belief.

[JerryBoyle]

My point is you are adamant about how wonderful something is while knowing absolutely nothing about the downside or caring to consider it. All the while talking down to those who don't share your uneducated belief.

Hmmm, can you provide evidence for either of these? Either that I know absolutely nothing about it, or that I haven't considered the downside? Sounds like you just wanted to submit to the world that you know more than 99.9999% of the rest of us, so you projected my lack of knowledge in your mind...

[davew]

When a car is autonomous, a family which feels the need to have many cars can purchase fewer. The car no longer has to stay where the person who drove it is.

Yes, someone can do something stupid and still drunk drive. They should be punished. But, when cars are autonomous, there will be fewer DUIs. How is this debatable?

A family will not need any car as long as UBER is around with their autonomous cars ... and there will be some battery powered so you can save on greenhouse gases (except what is made to make car, batteries, and method to charge car).

[Inner Dirt]

Hmmm, can you provide evidence for either of these? Either that I know absolutely nothing about it, or that I haven't considered the downside? Sounds like you just wanted to submit to the world that you know more than 99.9999% of the rest of us, so you projected my lack of knowledge in your mind...


Ok post something that shows any knowledge of how any system in a driver less car functions including some of the components. Make it quick so I know it came from your own knowledge and didn't Google something.

[PaceAdvantage]

A family will not need any car as long as UBER is around with their autonomous cars ... and there will be some battery powered so you can save on greenhouse gases (except what is made to make car, batteries, and method to charge car).Who's gonna want to wait around for UBER every time someone wants to take a quick trip somewhere?

[JerryBoyle]

Ok post something that shows any knowledge of how any system in a driver less car functions including some of the components. Make it quick so I know it came from your own knowledge and didn't Google something.

Just so you know I read this quickly, no. I'm not a dancing monkey...

[Clocker]

Who's gonna want to wait around for UBER every time someone wants to take a quick trip somewhere?

Just hop in the auto-driving car. Unless someone else in the family has the only car, or you rented it out for the afternoon.

[davew]

Who's gonna want to wait around for UBER every time someone wants to take a quick trip somewhere?

An eco-warrior disciple who practices what they preach, and don't have $200K for an autonomous car.

[Clocker]

An eco-warrior disciple who practices what they preach

Both of them? :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Who's gonna want to wait around for UBER every time someone wants to take a quick trip somewhere?

You won't want to dare to leave the house, obviously, so no need. It's just that kind of thinking that gets people killed every day.

[JustRalph]

A family will not need any car as long as UBER is around with their autonomous cars ... and there will be some battery powered so you can save on greenhouse gases (except what is made to make car, batteries, and method to charge car).

Uber is way too expensive. Lyft too.

I’ve tried to cut deals with them for my employees and they talk a big game until you get to the numbers.

I can lease a Corolla, pay the insurance and minor maintenance for less than they quote. With first 2 years Maint free its even a better deal

[davew]

Ok post something that shows any knowledge of how any system in a driver less car functions including some of the components. Make it quick so I know it came from your own knowledge and didn't Google something.

I like the GPS component, that can go rouge with solar flares, satellite blockage by trees or mountains (and everyone knows the maps of roads are awesome). Then there are the sensors that can get interfered with by mud or electronic interference. Then the computer and all electronics, that does not like water, and has connections that can become loose or short.

There are regular cars now that every once in awhile go rouge - according to the drivers that survived the crash. Brakes, accelerated by self, steering, .....

[JustRalph]

I think my new truck would have stopped. I’m guessing something malfunctioned or some sensor will be found to be bad.

I also think if a regular driver was in a regular car, that lady would still be dead

[Clocker]

I also think if a regular driver was in a regular car, that lady would still be dead

Most likely. Which goes to show that auto-driving has yet to show that it can perform better than a human in the real world, or prove that it can provide the huge benefits claimed for it.

[Inner Dirt]

There are regular cars now that every once in awhile go rouge - according to the drivers that survived the crash. Brakes, accelerated by self, steering, .....

Last summer my Chevy Tahoe decided to turn the heater on full blast while I was driving with the AC on. At the same time the module that controls the windows failed so I could not roll them down. The damn thing was trying to bake me to death.

[JerryBoyle]

Most likely. Which goes to show that auto-driving has yet to show that it can perform better than a human in the real world, or prove that it can provide the huge benefits claimed for it.

Are you deliberately being dense?

[Inner Dirt]

Then the computer and all electronics, that does not like water, and has connections that can become loose or short.
.....


I had a PC driven CNC Mill that was doing some profiling, just think an over grown router that cuts metal instead of wood or big drill press that the table moves side to side. I hear a strange noise and look over and see the table against the mechanical limits and the stepper motor still trying to move the table with the drive belt slipping with all the cogs chewed off.

A little investigation revealed the fan in the control cabinet failed causing the main processor to overheat. The processor started spitting out movement commands that were far cry from what it should have been reading from the program coding. The disaster occurred when it told the table to move over 5,000 feet when it should of been 5 inches. I have seen shorted out connections from moisture do a lot worse than that.

[Clocker]

Are you deliberately being dense?

What a clever response to dodge the issues. :rolleyes:

To repeat, I have seen no evidence that auto-driving cars are better and safer than human drivers. They are still aspiring to meet that standard. The purported huge benefits of such cars are highly questionable. As a trivial issue, how many people would opt to rent out their car when not using it? And why can't people do that now?

More seriously, unless you are proposing to make human over-ride of the auto-driving system impossible, you are not going to do much to solve the problems of bad drivers. What are the chances of that?

[JerryBoyle]

What a clever response to dodge the issues. :rolleyes:

To repeat, I have seen no evidence that auto-driving cars are better and safer than human drivers. They are still aspiring to meet that standard. The purported huge benefits of such cars are highly questionable. As a trivial issue, how many people would opt to rent out their car when not using it? And why can't people do that now?

More seriously, unless you are proposing to make human over-ride of the auto-driving system impossible, you are not going to do much to solve the problems of bad drivers. What are the chances of that?

You took ONE accident and said "goes to show they're not ready". That is being dense. You're asking for data yet using 1 example as a reason they're not ready. Why would I entertain you. Do a quick search and you can easily find the information you're after...

You may be right about the renting part. Maybe it will turn out that people won't want to rent their cars. Does that mean the other benefits don't exist?

[Clocker]

You took ONE accident and said "goes to show they're not ready". That is being dense. You're asking for data yet using 1 example as a reason they're not ready.

No, I have stated repeatedly in this thread that those claiming huge benefits have not demonstrated the existence of such, or even a good probability. My position is not derived from one accident, that accident was merely the stimulus for a wider discussion.

You claimed without proof that there will be huge benefits, and I have the burden to prove that there won't? :D

[Inner Dirt]

Who cares if it is only "one accident" ? I watched the video, the self driving car never attempted to stop. The problem with this "one accident" with this self driving car is the obvious fact there has been a lot of money and attention given per unit to these vehicles. From USA Today:

Even though they haven't been at fault, self-driving test cars are involved in crashes at five times the rate of conventional cars, a new study finds.

So it is pretty obvious self driving cars are not avoiding accidents that a human driver would avoid. That is fact while at the same time they are getting service, support and care they will not receive if they became common place. It also stands to reason when mass produced they will not be as well made and have lesser quality components than the handful of what amount to prototypes being used today. What happens when they are owned by the type of person who drives the brake shoes down to the rivets and then takes the car to a shop where they don't even know how to properly install tires?

[davew]

No, I have stated repeatedly in this thread that those claiming huge benefits have not demonstrated the existence of such, or even a good probability. My position is not derived from one accident, that accident was merely the stimulus for a wider discussion.

You claimed without proof that there will be huge benefits, and I have the burden to prove that there won't? :D

You must be too old to have been indoctrinated into the progressive cult during school.

You just have to believe that after 5-20 years of research, development and government grants that it will be great and better than anything ever.

[Tom]

What does fully tested mean to you?

Obviously, more than we have now.

[JerryBoyle]

Obviously, more than we have now.

Why how is that obvious? Serious question, what's an appropriate amount of testing. I'm not claiming cars are ready to be fully autonomous, but at what point would you (or other skeptics) consider them to be?

[JerryBoyle]

You must be too old to have been indoctrinated into the progressive cult during school.

You just have to believe that after 5-20 years of research, development and government grants that it will be great and better than anything ever.

I'm sorry your purpose in life is being displaced by technology

[Clocker]

You must be too old to have been indoctrinated into the progressive cult during school.



I'm also old enough to have learned in school that global warming and global cooling used to happen long before we had humans to blame it on.

[JerryBoyle]

No, I have stated repeatedly in this thread that those claiming huge benefits have not demonstrated the existence of such, or even a good probability. My position is not derived from one accident, that accident was merely the stimulus for a wider discussion.

You claimed without proof that there will be huge benefits, and I have the burden to prove that there won't? :D

You're really arguing that there aren't benefits to automation? Let me guess, you thought humans couldn't be beaten by a computer in chess or Go, a computer could never predict melanoma instance at an equal rate as a dermatologist, a computer couldn't handicap horse races better than a human, should I go on...

[JerryBoyle]

Who cares if it is only "one accident" ? I watched the video, the self driving car never attempted to stop. The problem with this "one accident" with this self driving car is the obvious fact there has been a lot of money and attention given per unit to these vehicles. From USA Today:

Even though they haven't been at fault, self-driving test cars are involved in crashes at five times the rate of conventional cars, a new study finds.

So it is pretty obvious self driving cars are not avoiding accidents that a human driver would avoid. That is fact while at the same time they are getting service, support and care they will not receive if they became common place. It also stands to reason when mass produced they will not be as well made and have lesser quality components than the handful of what amount to prototypes being used today. What happens when they are owned by the type of person who drives the brake shoes down to the rivets and then takes the car to a shop where they don't even know how to properly install tires?


Nothing about this article makes any of what you said obvious

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

Nice try

[JerryBoyle]

I'm also old enough to have learned in school that global warming and global cooling used to happen long before we had humans to blame it on.


Too bad your grandchildren will live in a world that you willingly f'd up because you were too hard headed to listen to people smarter than you. Start buying property in Georgia, it'll soon be beach side!

[JerryBoyle]

Here ya go: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-safe-are-self-driving-cars_us_5908ba48e4b03b105b44bc6b.

Let me guess, you don't buy it cuz it's not from Alex Jones or Breitbart

"If every teenage driver in Phoenix took Waymo instead, there would be as many as 12,000 fewer accidents per year."

"If all U.S. teen drivers traded car keys for the Waymo service, we could eliminate one million accidents and countless teen fatalities."

[jocko699]

Too bad your grandchildren will live in a world that you willingly f'd up because you were too hard headed to listen to people smarter than you. Start buying property in Georgia, it'll soon be beach side!

Are you having your mensies or always this cantankerous??

[davew]

I'm sorry your purpose in life is being displaced by technology

Are you one of those progressive bots who pushes progressive ideals to the masses?

[jocko699]

Too bad your grandchildren will live in a world that you willingly f'd up because you were too hard headed to listen to people smarter than you. Start buying property in Georgia, it'll soon be beach side!

Um, did you know Georgia has a coastline?

[JerryBoyle]

Are you one of those progressive bots who pushes progressive ideals to the masses?

What, no, I'm all for the 2nd amendment

[JerryBoyle]

Are you having your mensies or always this cantankerous??

Just don't like people letting emotion lead to suboptimal decision making that negatively impacts everyone else

[Clocker]

Too bad your grandchildren will live in a world that you willingly f'd up because you were too hard headed to listen to people smarter than you. Start buying property in Georgia, it'll soon be beach side!

I'll give you credit for consistency. Lots of snide little personal shots to avoid having to address the issues. You made the claim of huge benefits from self-driving cars. When asked what they are, you respond in vague generalities. When others assert that they are unproven, you try to put the burden of proof on other to prove that the benefits don't exist.

Have you ever considered, or do you already have, a career in politics?

[jocko699]

Just don't like people letting emotion lead to suboptimal decision making that negatively impacts everyone else

Isn't emotion part of all decision making whether consciously or not? Some people are effected differently than others.

[JerryBoyle]

I'll give you credit for consistency. Lots of snide little personal shots to avoid having to address the issues. You made the claim of huge benefits from self-driving cars. When asked what they are, you respond in vague generalities. When others assert that they are unproven, you try to put the burden of proof on other to prove that the benefits don't exist.

Have you ever considered, or do you already have, a career in politics?

I listed a few very concrete benefits. They're being proven. I will submit that it's hard to know if renting out your car will materialize as a true benefit. I agree that some won't want to. That said, ride sharing companies and trucking companies clearly see the potential benefits. Again, are you claiming there are not benefits to automation?

[JerryBoyle]

Isn't emotion part of all decision making whether consciously or not? Some people are effected differently than others.

Sure. But one can choose to not let it impact the final decision (at least consciously). For example, someone said earlier essentially, even if autonomous cars are safer in general (or will be), how would you personally feel if that woman was your relative? Personally, I'd obviously be upset, but it wouldn't blind me to the fact that in general, these cars are or will be safer. Hence, I wouldn't advocate for halting R&D and testing.

[JerryBoyle]

I'll give you credit for consistency. Lots of snide little personal shots to avoid having to address the issues. You made the claim of huge benefits from self-driving cars. When asked what they are, you respond in vague generalities. When others assert that they are unproven, you try to put the burden of proof on other to prove that the benefits don't exist.

Have you ever considered, or do you already have, a career in politics?

The snideness comes particularly for climate change because there are an overwhelming number of scientists who are publishing study after studying pointing to the fact that humans are contributing meaningfully to warmer temps. Yet, there are some who continue to deny it, mostly because it's inconvenient. We would have to make sacrifices to change the trajectory. All I'm left with is snide comments because clearly the data doesn't matter

[JerryBoyle]

I'll give you credit for consistency. Lots of snide little personal shots to avoid having to address the issues. You made the claim of huge benefits from self-driving cars. When asked what they are, you respond in vague generalities. When others assert that they are unproven, you try to put the burden of proof on other to prove that the benefits don't exist.

Have you ever considered, or do you already have, a career in politics?

Also, other than the renting, no one asserted that the benefits of autonomous driving are unproven. They were asserting that technology needed to allow autonomous driving is as of yet totally proven. I'd agree with that. There are still engineering issues to work out. No argument from me on that

[Inner Dirt]

Another gem from a website called Axios:

In context: It's important to keep in mind how long the cars are on the road. Waymo, for example, filed 13 accident reports in 2016, but its cars also drove 635,868 miles in autonomous mode during that period, or just about 1 for every 50,000 miles. To date, 36 companies have permits to test self-driving cars in California.

How many people get in a crash whether their fault or not every 50,000 miles? Also they were tested in California where as long as you stay out of the high elevations and the deserts it doesn't rain much, the air is dry and temperatures stay in a close range, all things that are a lot friendlier on system components than say if they were on the East Coast.

Where I live it will be single digits in the winter and then hit high 90's with 80% humidity in the summer. They also spread corrosive salt on the roads in the winter. All things that wreck havoc on the systems needed in a self driving car.

I have owned machinery for over 20 years that have many components that would be found in a self driving car. I lived in Southern California until 2010 then moved to Virginia. I have less machinery now and work a lot less hours yet my repair and maintenance cost are 5 times what they were on the other end. The simple cause is the increased humidity and temperature fluctuations wreaking havoc on the control systems.

[JerryBoyle]

Another gem from a website called Axios:

In context: It's important to keep in mind how long the cars are on the road. Waymo, for example, filed 13 accident reports in 2016, but its cars also drove 635,868 miles in autonomous mode during that period, or just about 1 for every 50,000 miles. To date, 36 companies have permits to test self-driving cars in California.

How many people get in a crash whether their fault or not every 50,000 miles? Also they were tested in California where as long as you stay out of the high elevations and the deserts it doesn't rain much, the air is dry and temperatures stay in a close range, all things that are a lot friendlier on system components than say if they were on the East Coast.

Where I live it will be single digits in the winter and then hit high 90's with 80% humidity in the summer. They also spread corrosive salt on the roads in the winter. All things that wreck havoc on the systems needed in a self driving car.

I have owned machinery for over 20 years that have many components that would be found in a self driving car. I lived in Southern California until 2010 then moved to Virginia. I have less machinery now and work a lot less hours yet my repair and maintenance cost are 5 times what they were on the other end. The simple cause is the increased humidity and temperature fluctuations wreaking havoc on the control systems.


Again, I agree, there are engineering challenges. I'm confident they'll be worked through to the point where I'd rather be in a car driven by a computer than a human

[JerryBoyle]

Another gem from a website called Axios:

In context: It's important to keep in mind how long the cars are on the road. Waymo, for example, filed 13 accident reports in 2016, but its cars also drove 635,868 miles in autonomous mode during that period, or just about 1 for every 50,000 miles. To date, 36 companies have permits to test self-driving cars in California.

How many people get in a crash whether their fault or not every 50,000 miles? Also they were tested in California where as long as you stay out of the high elevations and the deserts it doesn't rain much, the air is dry and temperatures stay in a close range, all things that are a lot friendlier on system components than say if they were on the East Coast.

Where I live it will be single digits in the winter and then hit high 90's with 80% humidity in the summer. They also spread corrosive salt on the roads in the winter. All things that wreck havoc on the systems needed in a self driving car.

I have owned machinery for over 20 years that have many components that would be found in a self driving car. I lived in Southern California until 2010 then moved to Virginia. I have less machinery now and work a lot less hours yet my repair and maintenance cost are 5 times what they were on the other end. The simple cause is the increased humidity and temperature fluctuations wreaking havoc on the control systems.


1 slow speed accident in 5 years (~50k miles) doesn't seem that outrageous to me. I certainly know people who get in small accidents in close to that rate

[jocko699]

The snideness comes particularly for climate change because there are an overwhelming number of scientists who are publishing study after studying pointing to the fact that humans are contributing meaningfully to warmer temps. Yet, there are some who continue to deny it, mostly because it's inconvenient. We would have to make sacrifices to change the trajectory. All I'm left with is snide comments because clearly the data doesn't matter

There is an entire thread on climate change if you feel the need to comment on that.

[Clocker]

there are an overwhelming number of scientists who are publishing study after studying pointing to the fact that humans are contributing meaningfully to warmer temps.

Science is not settled by majority rule.

[Clocker]

There is an entire thread on climate change if you feel the need to comment on that.

There is also a very long two-part thread on religion, which might be more appropriate for some concepts expressed here.

[JerryBoyle]

I'll leave climate change alone to not derail your driverless car kills one person in months article, apologies.

[Inner Dirt]

1 slow speed accident in 5 years (~50k miles) doesn't seem that outrageous to me. I certainly know people who get in small accidents in close to that rate


You find getting in a wreck every 50,000 miles acceptable? That is nuts. I just added it up the last 4 new cars I owned racked up approximately 700,000 miles. No idea how many miles I put on secondary vehicles. I was in two wrecks in that period, rear ended in traffic jams in So Cal. With your standards crashing 12 more times would have been ok.

Once again a crash every 50,000 miles when these cars are getting much better treatment then they will receive if they are common place and mass produced. That and I honestly think there will be deviates out there trying trying to cause them to crash just for kicks. The same type of people that spread computer viruses just for fun.

[JerryBoyle]

You find getting in a wreck every 50,000 miles acceptable? That is nuts. I just added it up the last 4 new cars I owned racked up approximately 700,000 miles. No idea how many miles I put on secondary vehicles. I was in two wrecks in that period, rear ended in traffic jams in So Cal. With your standards crashing 12 more times would have been ok.

Once again a crash every 50,000 miles when these cars are getting much better treatment then they will receive if they are common place and mass produced. That and I honestly think there will be deviates out there trying trying to cause them to crash just for kicks. The same type of people that spread computer viruses just for fun.

The crashes are small fender benders at slow speeds though. I don't think 1 fender bender every 5 years is acceptable, though I don't know how many fender benders the average driver gets in. Also, if it leads to fewer serious accidents, I'm willing to accept more fender benders.

Agreed that they will be targets for hacking or manipulation, and that serious time needs to be spent on securing the software/hardware

[JustRalph]

The plot thickens

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/23/deadly-uber-crash-arizona/

[Tom]

As do some brains here......

[Clocker]

The plot thickens

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/23/deadly-uber-crash-arizona/

Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in ArizonaThat is not self-driving.

But as I noted Wednesday, the driver was looking down at some sort of device for about 5 seconds immediately before the crash.Wow, I wonder what that could be. :rolleyes:

[baconswitchfarm]

Agreed that they will be targets for hacking or manipulation, and that serious time needs to be spent on securing the software/hardware


Just wait till you can load your self driver with explosives in North Carolina and send it to an address several states away. What a nice world its gonna be.:rip:

[NJ Stinks]

From The Guardian website tonight:
______________________________

Arizona suspends Uber’s self-driving car testing after fatality

Governor Doug Ducey tells Uber crash raises concerns about its ability to safely test technology

Associated Press

Tue 27 Mar 2018 03.33 BST

Arizona governor Doug Ducey suspended Uber’s self-driving vehicle testing on Monday following a pedestrian fatality in a Phoenix suburb last week.

Ducey told Uber’s chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi that video footage of the crash raised concerns about the company’s ability to safely test its technology in Arizona.

He said he expects public safety to be the top priority for those who operate self-driving cars. “The incident that took place on 18 March is an unquestionable failure to comply with this expectation,” Ducey said.

The move by the Republican governor marks a major step back from his embrace of self-driving vehicles. He previously welcomed Uber and other autonomous vehicle companies to use Arizona as a place for testing under few, if any, regulations.

More at the link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/arizona-suspends-ubers-self-driving-car-testing-after-fatality

[incoming]

Just wait till you can load your self driver with explosives in North Carolina and send it to an address several states away. What a nice world its gonna be.:rip:

Great Point!!! Maybe, it will hit a two or three foot pothole filled with water in route and detonate prematurely. :popcorn::popcorn:

[JustRalph]

Settled already?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17176176/uber-settlement-self-driving-car-crash

[Inner Dirt]

Settled already?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17176176/uber-settlement-self-driving-car-crash


Kind of shows how flawed they are. I would also venture an educated guess they paid a huge amount compared to what settlements in similar cases would be. They don't want all the flaws in the systems and their rush to get them out in public without proper testing exposed.

[_______]

Kind of shows how flawed they are. I would also venture an educated guess they paid a huge amount compared to what settlements in similar cases would be. They don't want all the flaws in the systems and their rush to get them out in public without proper testing exposed.

I’m not sure if the “they” in your indictment is Uber specifically or self driving systems in general.

If the former, I’m all in with you. Uber stole much of their tech from Waymo
(Google) and dumbed it down. The car that killed the pedestrian in Arizona had 1 LIDAR mounted on the roof. It was a high profile vehicle (Volvo SUV) which meant a whole lot more blind spots. Uber’s prior test vehicle was a Ford Fusion with 7 LIDAR units. I guarantee it would have seen the dumb ass ped walking in front of a car and avoided them.

The Fusion looked clunky with all the boxy add ons. The Volvo SUV still looked clunky. But it was sweet next to the Fusion. So they pushed and found the edge.

The idea that human decisions are inevitably superior to algorithms will die a slow but also inevitable death. If you cripple a self driving algo enough, it will kill. But that isn’t the algo’s fault. It followed the inputs provided.

The death occurred because Uber limited it’s vision. Try driving with blinder’s and see how many ped’s walking in front of your car you avoid.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If we can't see or drive well enough not to hit things then we are held accountable for the decision to drive. Are we going to see engineers and programmers and supervisors or whoever indicted for the kind of negligence you describe?