171–180 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This woman got dragged 20 feet and then the car rolled over her leg and stopped. The fire department had to come and remove the wheel of the car to get it off her leg. I don't know of a single person who would have done that.
if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Stopped the vehicle, instead of continuing to drag them?
This is just anecdote, but having taken trips in both Waymo and Cruise in SF, I feel very comfortable in Waymo: it drives carefully but confidently. It alerts me when cyclists are near when I'm getting out. It navigates coned-off work areas. Cruise required a lot of (remote) human intervention during my trips.
We were sold self-driving cars as safer than humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Americans were serious about reducing car deaths they'd ban gigantic pickups and SUVs with blind spots big enough to fit a Volkswagen. They'd ban cars from city centers and build bicycle highways. They'd invest in convenient rail infrastructure. Instead we've got "it's a car but you can doomscroll while on your 45 minute commute and we harvest your data to sell ads". This has nothing to do with public safety.
This is the same mistake gun control advocates who want to take away guns make. Yes, Americans want to reduce death. But they want freedom more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? (I'm not just asking this rhetorically, I'm really interested i…
> Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without break…
I'm not trying to make a statement or a point with the question. The original question is all that is part of the question. Please don't try to read more in than what is there.
> Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places.
For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous.
So, there must be a balance somewhere right?
if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities
But how would they make money off pedestrian infrastructure or old boring technology? If there's not an app for it, then no one's interested.
This is just anecdote, but having taken trips in both Waymo and Cruise in SF, I feel very comfortable in Waymo: it drives carefully but confidently. It alerts me when cyclists are near when I'm getting out. It navigates coned-off work areas. Cruise required a lot of (remote) human intervention during my trips.
We were sold self-driving cars as safer than humans.
> The [human-driven] Nissan Sentra then tragically struck and propelled the pedestrian into the path of the AV. The AV biased rightward before braking aggressively, but still made contact with the pedestrian. The AV detected a collision, bringing the vehicle to a stop; then attempted to pull over to avoid causing further road safety issues, pulling the individual forward approximately 20 feet. The driver of the Nissan Sentra fled the scene after the collision.
Link to Cruise review of incident: https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-th...
> This is called achieving a minimal risk condition so pulling over after a collision, which resulted in dragging the human 20 feet is an interpretation of this regulation. sounds like California and Federal AVs regulations are equally not safe for the public's operations which is a good enough reason to revoke permits too, until they fix this together with the private industry
Link to Cruise review of incident: https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-th...
Reading this, it rather seems like the AV wasn't at fault in the accident itself and handled itself well. However, after coming to a complete stop, while the pedestrian was still on the ground in front of it, it then started again and drove into the pedestrian and continued for another 20 feet pushing the pedestrian along (and presumably under) the car. They say it did this to leave the car in a safe place, but this…
1 - https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/woman-run-autono...