To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who…
That is utter bullshit that Uber said the victim was homeless. It was the police chief, Uber never mentioned it once and their response was completely appropriate.
It's fashionable to hate Uber now so people don't object to lies told against them.
The one thing I want from a self driving system is to not drive at full speed into an object straight ahead of me.
Knowing that the auto pilot system had problems on this stretch of road, I don’t know if it makes good sense to trust it, but this shows we have a ways to go on the most basic test.
Do you have anything to back this claim? It seems to not make sense.
For example: https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644 It's not exactly controversial to claim that lower income correlates to crime though.
There's lots of different kinds of crime, each very unique in its circumstances. Just try comparing the stats for securities fraud vs. drug possession, for example.
DUI is a tough one, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to get drunk, and people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to drive. Off the cuff, I might guess that the numbers would show DUI to be the most egalitarian crime, actually.
Why isn't the end of the barrier tapered instead of vertical e.g.: http://fortressfencing.com.au/pub/media/catalog/product/d/b/... (I know there was a previously destroyed crush zone, but still, better to be lifted and deflected than brought to a sudden stop.)
Answering my own question: "These crashes often led to vehicles flying at high speed into the very objects which guardrails or barriers were supposed to protect them from in the first place. To address the vaulting and rollover crashes, energy-absorbing terminals were developed."
It's widely known that RADAR systems are not able to detect stationary objects, only moving ones. Actually, they are are to detect them but just not where they come from, so a barrier in the middle of the road and a traffic sign on the side of the street, they would look like the same to the RADAR system. But to be honest, I am more worried with the markings of the road rather than the inability of the autopilot of n…
They're marked 'optional' on your diagram. Optional things can be excluded.
"Optional" doesn't mean "exclude it if you feel like it". It means "think about it and decide whether it's worth adding". They can be excluded if doing so doesn't present a danger (e.g. it's a small road).
From the one photograph we've seen of the slip road in question, I'd say the lack of chevrons poses quite a serious danger. It looks just like a normal lane. I've never noticed a slip road branch off like that in the UK, i.e. a big crash barrier up the middle but no chevrons.
(I'm not saying whoever designed this section of road is guilty of some sort of crime, or is somehow responsible for the crashes, I'm just saying it should have been designed better).
I hate how Tesla framed this as a statistics game. It's like an amazing heart doctor one day suddenly stabbing his patient in the heart with a scalpel, killing him, and then saying... well, sometimes I malfunction, but by and large I cure patients 10x more often than my colleagues. That isn't okay and it's important to talk about that strange behaviour to fix it.
Sure it’s strange behavior, but I’d still choose him over his colleagues.
In keeping with the "Autopilot" terminology, this was "Controlled Flight info Terrain". Tesla demonstrates their usual abuse of statistics. 1.25 fatalities per 100 million miles is the average across all types of terrain, conditions, and cars. The death rate in rural roads is much higher than in urban areas. The death rate on highways is much lower than average. The death rate with new cars is much lower than average…
Note: Tesla is comparing the fatality rate of autopilot-equipped cars with the average accident rate. They are NOT only counting miles where autopilot is used, they are counting all miles driven by their cars. It could be that Tesla drivers are inherently safer than the general population, or that the cars themselves are much safer. What they are not doing (at least with the data) is making a statistical claim about…
Exactly. Tesla drivers will be older, more affluent, and I bet, generally safer drivers. I'm sure an insurance company could easily debunk those statistics.
The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present…
I agree with your intention, though isn't it inevitable self driving cars will kill people even if they are 1000x safer than humans? If a CEO has many millions of cars running his software, their will always be a death. In that case, nobody would want to take on that responsibility so nobody would build self driving cars. Therefore humans will still drive cars and there will be 1000x more deaths, most preventable wit…
They don't need to be 1000x safer than humans. If they are 2x safer than humans, that is plenty for me to support using them. The issue is determining how safe they in fact are, to appropriately high confidence, before putting people at risk.
That is something that "tech" companies will in all likelihood never be able to do, since they seem uniquely designed to betray and lose the public's trust at the earliest opportunity.
"Tech" companies have become far too culturally accustomed to dishonest hype, "growth hacking", marketing BS, PR spin, etc. for their statements to be trusted, especially when there are life-and-death implications.
Firstly, wealthy drivers can afford to keep their cars in better shape and can afford better cars in the first place. Neither of these factors depend on self-driving technology. Secondly, Tesla themselves makes it clear that their self-driving can't be relied upon to driver the car unsupervised - the driver has to be paying attention at all times in case the Tesla self-driving code decides to do something catastrophi…
>Wealth correlates with health correlates with better reaction times & general fitness I agree with your general point, but you can't just join up 2 correlations like that, that isn't always going to work when there are other confounding factors (and there always are). Wealth also correlates with age which anticorrelates with reaction times and general fitness.
In case anyone's wondering, here's a simple example of 3 variables so that the first is positively correlated with the second, the second positively correlated with the third, but the first and the third have a negative correlation: simply take 3 independent standard normal variables, X, Y, Z, and define our 3 variables to be u=X+Y, v=Y+Z, w=Z-X. Then correl(u,v)=0.5, correl(v,w)=0.5 and correl(u,w)=-0.5.