191–200 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, in terms of "conditions", it doesn't really get much better than Arizona. That's why most cars drive there. By most metrics, it's actually easier there than in California.
Well, except for the other drivers on the road. Horribly horrible drivers here.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-state-has-the-wor...
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.
I also think most current human drivers would also expect to spend significant time in jail for causing death by driving so careless they didn't even try to brake when confronted by an pedestrian in the roadway (even if she shouldn't have been there and an accident may not have been entirely avoidable) I'm fine with Uber's executives and programmers accepting the same level of culpability as an alternative to meeting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The video has poor dynamic range and is likely highly misleading. If the safety driver were paying attention it's quite likely they could have avoided it (although I imagine disengagement would negatively affect reaction time).
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…
But that was before I saw this thread and realized it wasn't even dark. If it couldn't even see a human in that lighting to even slow I don't know why this shouldn't be considered murder by negligence (whatever the legal term is) at every level from uber, engineers, the driver. And why the police chief is not being asked to explain his comment and defense of 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.
Yes that is the way it works in the US, but as a practical matter most people start speeding up as soon as the higher speed limit sign comes into view. And of course conversely they don't start slowing down until they pass the sign posting the slower limit.
I was going to post that! What are “reasonable” rules for autonomous vehicles? Should they stick to the limit literally, so only start accelerating after the increased limit sign? (There will need to be warning signs when a speed limit reduction is ahead to give the vehicle time to comply.) Would a vehicle speeding up before the sign indicate a failure or error in the system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think most current human drivers would also expect to spend significant time in jail for causing death by driving so careless they didn't even try to brake when confronted by an pedestrian in the roadway (even if she shouldn't have been there and an accident may not have been entirely avoidable) I'm fine with Uber's executives and programmers accepting the same level of culpability as an alternative to meeting…
Why do they call it accidents when it is usually negligence? This is nothing new.
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.
That video is hardly representative, you don't need street lights to see people at night. Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. The 'driver' was not paying attention and the software failed. An attentive human driver acting alone would have easily stopped.
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 is essentially equivalent of a driving test but would be a controlled environment that simulates real cities. So, which is it? A controlled environment, or a real city? I think it is a bit naive to expect /every/ edge-case to be worked out prior to even a testing permit being given out. If you could pass a test that faithfully simulates ALL the intricacies of driving in a real city, you're well past testing ph…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the…
Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that how speed limits work in the US? It’s my understanding (elsewhere) that the limit is in enforcement after you past the sign, not at some unspecified distance before it, or when you see it. The sign itself is the only transition point between limits.
Yes that is the way it works in the US, but as a practical matter most people start speeding up as soon as the higher speed limit sign comes into view. And of course conversely they don't start slowing down until they pass the sign posting the slower limit.
I’d expect a self driving car to be more aware of the rules and drive according to the law.