171–180 of 334 posts
Amen. Uber's fatal accident rate is now 50x that of sober human driver's. At their current rate of driving, they can't have a _lower_ rate until 2028! Inexcusable failure of their technology to prevent a human death in the most basic collision avoidance scenario.
Before the accident they were infinitely better than a sober human driver. Understand statistics before employing them please. We don't have enough data and a single data point doesn't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cruise control is different because you still have your hands on the wheel.
A fully autonomous car is different, too. The person at the wheel when that woman was killed was responsible for stepping on the brakes if necessary. And when I have cruise control on, I'm also responsible for stepping on the brakes if necessary.
Really, I think Uber should have used tech to make sure the driver is alert. And test whether the driver can stay alert in a simulator. It's too easy to blame the driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll have a go at seeing what we can conclude from the data. Others, check my thinking please . Now we have 1 death in 3m miles for Uber, versus 1.18 deaths in 100m miles for sober drivers. The expected rate for 100m miles for Uber is 33.333... But how confident can we be? To answer that let's compute a poisson confidence interval around that rate, as in https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/10926/how-to-calcu...…
Erm... I don’t think statistics work like this. You can‘t go and pick a confidence level that „confirms“ your desired outcome. People with more knowledge about statistics than me might be able to explain why.
But the poster did something different. He took it one level further and attempted to calculate this confidence number for different spans in which the actual "deaths per 100 million miles" number of Uber's current cars would fall into, given an ideal world (from a data perspective) in which they would have driven an infinite amount of miles. But he actually did it the other way round - he modified the confidence variable and calculated the spans, and then he adjusted the confidence until he arrived at a span that would put Uber's cars just on par with human driving in the best case.
The fact that a fatal incident happens that early (at 3 million, and not closer or past the 86 million that a statistical human drives on average until a fatal incident occurs) does not allow us to extrapolate a sound number per 100 million miles, but it tells us something about the probability by which the actual number of fatalities by 100 million miles that we'd get if Uber continued testing just like it did and racked up enough miles (and killed people) for a statistically sound calculation will fall into different margins. Sure, Uber could have been just very, very unlucky - but that's pretty unlikely, and the unlikeliness of Uber's bad luck (and conversely the likeliness of the fact that Uber's tech is just systematically deadly) is precisely what can be calculated with this single incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the significance of the person being homeless?
It's a descriptor, the same way "man" or "woman" is a descriptor. Descriptors help you picture a situation more clearly.
Amen. Uber's fatal accident rate is now 50x that of sober human driver's. At their current rate of driving, they can't have a _lower_ rate until 2028! Inexcusable failure of their technology to prevent a human death in the most basic collision avoidance scenario.
Before the accident they were infinitely better than a sober human driver. Understand statistics before employing them please. We don't have enough data and a single data point doesn't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber did not get unlucky -- they are simply an evil company. Their cars need human intervention every 13 miles as opposed to Google's every 5,600 miles -- they were not fit for the road but Uber let them out anyways. Uber should be shut down and the principals should get life without parole.
Fair judgment but where did you get those figures from?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-d...
Saying nothing about Google/Waymo, it appears they're allowed to continue? Their self-driving technology seems far more advanced, I think it would be unfair to punish all the players for the bad actions of a few. In particular, Uber seems to have been operating self-driving cars recklessly and in an attempt to "move fast and break things". When those things are people's lives, that's unacceptable. I'm all for interes…
There was a person at the wheel. That person wasn't paying full attention to the road. From the video of the crash, it looks like the woman at the wheel was looking at their phone. Why is no one acknowledging that this woman was responsible for taking over the wheel if necessary for any reason. When I have cruise control on, I take my feet off of the pedals and rest them on the floor. But if, say, a homeless person w…
Saying nothing about Google/Waymo, it appears they're allowed to continue? Their self-driving technology seems far more advanced, I think it would be unfair to punish all the players for the bad actions of a few. In particular, Uber seems to have been operating self-driving cars recklessly and in an attempt to "move fast and break things". When those things are people's lives, that's unacceptable. I'm all for interes…
There was a person at the wheel. That person wasn't paying full attention to the road. From the video of the crash, it looks like the woman at the wheel was looking at their phone. Why is no one acknowledging that this woman was responsible for taking over the wheel if necessary for any reason. When I have cruise control on, I take my feet off of the pedals and rest them on the floor. But if, say, a homeless person w…
The claim that the ""driver"" was texting suggests that they are at fault, but the whole "safety driver" concept is flawed; the less the driver has to intervene and take control, the less likely they are to remain alert and willing to jump in and take control. You almost need a "fault injection" system that gives back control once every 5-10 minutes just to keep them awake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I drove down a main road here in Chandler, Arizona yesterday and saw three in five minutes. Based on all my experiences on the road with them in the last few months I’d say the chances of them having an incident similar to Uber are much less.
I actually trust the waymo cars more than regular ones now when I'm on my bicycle or motorcycle. Granted they are absurdly "cautious drivers" and can be mildly annoying to be stuck behind in a car.
Saying nothing about Google/Waymo, it appears they're allowed to continue? Their self-driving technology seems far more advanced, I think it would be unfair to punish all the players for the bad actions of a few. In particular, Uber seems to have been operating self-driving cars recklessly and in an attempt to "move fast and break things". When those things are people's lives, that's unacceptable. I'm all for interes…
There was a person at the wheel. That person wasn't paying full attention to the road. From the video of the crash, it looks like the woman at the wheel was looking at their phone. Why is no one acknowledging that this woman was responsible for taking over the wheel if necessary for any reason. When I have cruise control on, I take my feet off of the pedals and rest them on the floor. But if, say, a homeless person w…
Here's an article that shows the sort of thing she would be looking at, an animation of road conditions: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driverless-car-interior-...
If you actually examine her behavior, in the space of ten seconds, she manages to:
* Look down at the tablet and watch the animation
* Look up at the road
* Scan the lane to the left (she was in the right lane)
* Look forward again
* Look down at the tablet again
* Look up again just as the accident occurs
She is systematically scanning her environment and appears to be alert and engaged.
The problem is that there is only one test driver, who has to divide her attention between the tablet and the road. Often two drivers are used, and then one watches the tablet and the other watches the road.
I think it is unfair to accuse her of inattention when she appears to be doing the job exactly as it is designed.
The reason everyone says "she was looking at her phone!" is because they don't understand the setup of how Uber's self-driving car works. They are only familiar with being bored and looking at their phone while driving. They think the test driver's job is to just stare out of the window all day, which is not correct.