201–210 of 459 posts
My friend almost lost his life in SF a few years ago when a homeless person ran in front of him as he was riding his motorcycle. My friend hit the homeless person and went flying off his motorcycle and broke his arm and pelvis. The homeless person ran off (not literally but they couldn’t find him).
If we're not holding autonomous drivers to a higher standard than human drivers, I'm not convinced on the long term benefit of this technology.
If our we allow autonomous cars to be as reckless and dangerous as human drivers (which is already dangerous enough to make it one of the top killers in this country) then what is the point of AV's anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't kidding about it being standard operating procedure. Almost every time a pedestrian or cyclist is killed in New York City, the police come out and blame anyone but the driver. And then video will turn up afterwards showing that the driver was driving unsafely, and that the fatal accident could have been avoided. Still, no charges are filed. It's like they have an allergy to paperwork. I want to see video o…
When there's a crash, all information related to the crash should be public information: all raw telemetry information collect by the car, and the logic used to evaluate that telemetry. The idea any portion of this is proprietary is dangerous. If a police officer asks a human driver questions, and they refuse to answer, they can be compelled. If they are asked if they can think of anything else relevant that hasn't b…
That being said in the United States non-human persons such as corporations have no such rights.
There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…
Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled…
With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message…
There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…
More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And befor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a paved area in the median that seems pretty useless since there's no sidewalk or crosswalk that connects to the median at that point: https://goo.gl/maps/9WKX2DYEN862 If the Uber car was about to turn left at the upcoming intersection it might have been getting into the leftmost turning lane at the point of impact. The pedestrian would have been obscured by a slight curve in the road, vegetation, a road sign…
Yeah, I saw that too. It's such a weird construct since, as you say, there is no legal way for someone to follow the median paths and cross either of the streets. In fact, how are pedestrians supposed to get on the median in the first place (legally, I mean)? From the New Times: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/medical-cannabis-extract... > That spot is east of the second, western-side Mill Avenue bridge that is r…
There are even "no crossing" signs where the paths meet the road. Apparently you're supposed to go to the crosswalk, cross to the median, then navigate down a thin strip which contains a bush that you have to step over and a bunch of loose rocks that you could easily trip on. WTF.
It’s quite possible that a human driver going 38 wouldn’t have been able to stop in time. But could a human driver been going 25 because they saw someone acting erratically on the median?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they just track human driver habits then we're no more safer! What's the point left about self-driving cars then? Free up drivers of even more responsibility when they kill people?
> Free up drivers of even more responsibility when they kill people? That's a strange way to put it. Surely if someone is not driving their car, they can't be responsible if the car kills people (assuming of course the car was well-maintained and the model was legal). I don't see how that's a bad thing, since they have zero control over the situation. Do you mean that it could make car users feel less responsible for…
If that's the case then I'm not sure how it is a benefit to society.
There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…
Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled…