161–166 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human can be held accountable. When another vehicle causes harm to a person, I want accountability. When things go wrong, and they will, who is being held liable. The answer cannot be no one.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like with most things autonomous cars my question would be what is the over/under on how autonomous cars compare to the human population because I see Human drivers blocking emergency vehicles all the time... So the question is not, imo, if autonomous cars will be perfect, all the time. But if they are better than human drivers.
How about instead of thinking about it from a statistical perspective we think of it from a liability one. A human driver has direct liability for the motor vehicle they operate. Meanwhile Cruise is a social construct literally designed to avoid liability. If a human kills someone accidentally they are almost certain to apologize and be obviously distraught. Cruise will deny everything, never apologize. While that is…
>human kills someone accidentally they are almost certain to apologize and be obviously distraught
you start out wanting to use reason, then quickly jump to an emotional argument. I really dont care if if they feel distraught or not, I really do not care if they apologize or not.
I care if they are likely to be a danger to others in the future, I care if there is a pattern of dangerous behavior, and I care that they (to the extent possible) make the victims hole.
None of which requires them to express remorse, or be "obviously distraught" nor should any that be different between human and automated drivers.
For example new laws in TN and TX will require someone that kills a person while driving drunk to pay child support if the victim has a child. That concept could also easily be adopted to automated driving.
We do not need special laws, special regulations, etc. Human drivers and automated drivers should be held to the same standard. the Same standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do think Cruise's responses to stuck cars needs work but problems with emergency vehicles and drivers happens all the time. I remember an ambulance was right behind me at an intersection. The right turning lane was free but it was right behind me. I got really uncomfortable because I had 0 idea what to do, if I was supposed to basically break the law and go into the intersection on red so that it could get by. Afte…
You did the wrong thing. You should have moved to right. It's not your responsibility to predict where the ambulance wants to go or do the wrong thing because everyone else is doing the wrong thing.
If I did that then the ambulance would have been totally blocked, unless _all_ the cars in front of me also did that (they didn't) or if they pulled into the intersection on red. If I did that, then I would have to pull into the intersection on red after moving to the right lane.
I have no idea if you're supposed to run a red light if an ambulance is behind you and I didn't want to take my chances.
What are the rules for that in Virginia, doing a quick google search I can't find them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Maybe traffic was moving so quickly that they'd have to accelerate hard and risk hurting the patient," This shouldn't be an issue - traffic is required to yield. "Regardless, Cruise's vehicle clearly was at fault for not getting out of the way." Yes, at fault for not getting out of the way. The article is a little misleading with it's insinuating that the patient death was somehow related.
> traffic is required to yield. And traffic is required to yield to me when I step into the road, but I still wouldn’t start crossing if I saw a car coming with no sign of stopping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do think Cruise's responses to stuck cars needs work but problems with emergency vehicles and drivers happens all the time. I remember an ambulance was right behind me at an intersection. The right turning lane was free but it was right behind me. I got really uncomfortable because I had 0 idea what to do, if I was supposed to basically break the law and go into the intersection on red so that it could get by. Afte…
Yeah, this is the thing that bothers me about people's response to robo-taxis. They're not compared to human drivers, who make mistakes all the time. They're compared to a theoretical ideal of perfection, and people get outraged when they inevitably fall short. The problems with the status quo are easy to overlook, just a normal part of life that everybody has come to accept -- but the problems with any attempted cha…
It's not good though, not at all... its just blown out of proportion, imo.
They really need a way for someone to remotely move it like 5 feet or something lol
I don't understand all the debate. The _law_ is that when an emergency vehicle is behind you, you pull over to the side and make as much room as you can in the center of the road. The vehicle did not move out of the way, the company should be penalized heavily, as would a human driver.
Sure. What's the penalty for a human driver in that situation? Is it having the SFFD lie to the press about the events and imply you caused somebody's death? If the story were "Cruise fined $5k for not yielding to an emergency vehicle quickly enough", I bet the tenor of the conversation would be totally different.