81–90 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only cheaper because it's operating at a loss. Taxis do not operate at a loss.
But why does it need to be? I would still take a Lyft/Uber because the service is better, even at the same price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree - Uber's definitely not going to fare well. Maybe Travis' thinking/realization was that Uber is just an app and maybe the major auto manufacturers will realize that and not want to pay the Uber Tax and just put their cars out on the road using their own in-house hailing app? Also prior to the accidents - it was great free media coverage for the future IPO when talking with investors and recruiting smart engin…
> their own in-housing hailing app This is very likely to be the plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish this was brought up in all of the many news articles that have covered this story so far, if not from the police themselves. Even an argument from common sense seems clear: the visual range of the video is barely much better than what you see when driving down a rural highway. But the AZ road cuts through a public park where concerts are held, including the Marquee Theatre at the nearby intersection. The media…
Somebody posted a video on youtube where they drove past the scene of the accident with a less crap camera, at the same time a day later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 a screenshot directly comparing the two images, appologies for the dumb meme crap https://i.imgur.com/eSre3hL.png There is absolutely no way the uber video is an accurate potrayl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would help if you actually state the country in question, so we can properly judge your statement's applicability. In the USA laws vary by state -- in California it is typically almost always incumbent on the driver to avoid pedestrians. I've also traveled to countries like Jordan where the driver is always at fault, and fatally striking a pedestrian would have lifelong consequences for a driver.
The country is Romania and the law is very precise: if the pedestrian is not on a crosswalkk, any accident is the fault of the pedestrian. Funny, I lived in Jordan as my parents were expats there. Never heard about a case where a pedestrian hit by a car outside of a city had any consequences for the driver.
Maybe you should reconsider the law.
This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it w…
Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.
Yes, I know hindsight is 20/20, but that's exactly why an incoming CEO is brought in. Everyone was saying autonomous vehicles was Uber's only possible future... he saw the internal reports, he knew his (or should have) talent (was it "techbros" or computer scientists?).
I feel this is the real inflection point for Uber.
This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it w…
This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting how so many techies initially had the knee-jerk reaction of "well, despite this accident, I bet these Uber autonomous cars are still safer than humans". It seems like all information available to us suggests the polar opposite.
After nearly getting hit by a car while on a crosswalk in broad daylight today, I don't think "polar opposite" is correct. I actually made eye contact with the driver, and expected her to slow down (I was right in the middle of the street). Instead she sped up to get through the crosswalk ahead of me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.
You don't think most humans would see someone crossing a flat straight road in an area with mediocre lighting? If that's true we should have thousands more deaths a year like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't those with greater power (the power to kill) be tasked with greater responsibility?
No. If you jump in front of a train, is the train driver's fault? Where is the pedestrian's responsibility?
A selfdriving car should be able to stop a lot faster than a train, and has instruments that is supposed to be able to see an obstacle even in bad light.