171–180 of 1001 posts
On purpose to protect something "more valuable," or on accident?
There's an old saying around gun owners: "There's no such thing as a firearms accident. Only negligence." I think the same thing applies to autonomous things.
FTA: "The Uber vehicle was reportedly driving early Monday when a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck. ... Tempe Police says the vehicle was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash and a vehicle operator was also behind the wheel." That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when some…
I agree completely. One thing that is important to me is that the whole self-driving field will learn from every mistake. In other words, every self-driving car should only make the same mistake once, whereas with humans, each human has to learn only from their own mistakes.
But let's extrapolate. Say one day there are 20 self driving car companies. Should they be required to share what they learn so the same mistakes aren't repeated by each company or does the competitive advantage outweigh the public benefit from this type of information sharing?
Not to dismiss the tragedy of this incident, but it should be expected that self-driving cars kill pedestrians -- just at a rate lower than what's expected from human drivers. Perhaps there's a better metric to look at, but I'd like to see number of deaths caused per miles driven. If Uber's self-driving cars are killing more pedestrians than a human driver would, we have a huge problem, but I'd be willing to bet they…
The second ever [1] fatal car crash involving a self-driving car. This is the first one where a third party is killed. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-dri...
FTA: "The Uber vehicle was reportedly driving early Monday when a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck. ... Tempe Police says the vehicle was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash and a vehicle operator was also behind the wheel." That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when some…
> That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as someone walking out into the road. Sounds like Uber's platform may not be up to that standard yet, which makes me wonder why they're on public roads. That's an invalid conclusion to draw from this accident. There were 34,439 fatal motor vehicle crashes in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ancient Romans would have the civil engineer stand under the bridge they'd just built while a Legion marched over it. That's why Roman structures are still around today!
Do you know if this is factual? I've read that it's only a myth.
The video mentions she was on a bike and shows a mangled bicycle. Also the line markings on the street indicate there is a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane. Definitely very bad. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4369934,-111.9429875,3a,75y,...
Not to be insensitive to the death. But, that bike lane design is just horrible. Are human drivers really known for respecting the "do not cross solid white line" rules? 9/10 drivers that realize at the last moment they need to turn right are going to quickly cross over this bike lane probably without much time to check their blind spot. If I was cycling on this path, I'd want to use the sidewalk and be extra cautiou…
The video mentions she was on a bike and shows a mangled bicycle. Also the line markings on the street indicate there is a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane. Definitely very bad. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4369934,-111.9429875,3a,75y,...
That bike lane is just a shoulder with bicycle symbols painted in it and it looks terrifying.
Situations no self-driving car can avoid: - philosophical dilemma - physics-constrained reaction times - actions that violate the rules of the system Solutions: - protected car lanes - protected bike lanes - protected pedestrian lanes Reasons why these solutions are not put in place: - cost Until humans determine that the cost of human life is higher than the cost of upgrading infrastructure, we should accept human d…
If by "protected passenger lane" you mean putting a Jersey barrier between the sidewalk and the road, no thanks. Maybe I'm a spoiled suburbanite, but I can't help but recall that, scant a century ago, pedestrians could walk along or on the streets wherever they pleased.
In order to allow transportation to co-exist with pedestrians without collisions, you need some kind of separation between the two. With subways, the protected lane is literally underground, but it does definitely have a protected lane. If you don't go under ground, you can go above ground, like several subways and metros do around the world.
If you don't do either of these, you have to make concessions on the ground level. My personal preference would be tall fences around the roadway, and pedestrian bridges that go over or under the roadway (but both have problems). Another would be to still have the fences, but automate some sliding barricades that would activate when traffic halted, which is somewhat like how train crossings work. We could also implement hybrid methods, like that at Shibuya crossing, for very congested intersections.
The people leading the development should demonstrate that they can stop for pedestrians by personally jumping out in front of them on a closed test road. If they're not able to demonstrate this, they shouldn't be putting them on public roads.