Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Mired in the Fog of Lucidity |
Do UBER test cars have any additional safety features on them like blinking lights, etc to alert other drivers and pedestrians? Seems like a prudent thing to do to hedge bets while the bugs are worked out. Maybe have the cars painted blaze orange, too. | |||
|
The guy behind the guy |
you seem fairly certain you know the cause of this accident, do you? also, never been a passenger in a plane or car and tried to get some work done? I see. | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
They are all causalities of the technology. In a very antiseptic way, people will die whenever we enage in any activity that requires more than than getting out of bed. We accept those injuries and death as life, as bad as it may be. The technology will get better and problems minimized. Bad stuff will happen along the way but if that's the barometer, then nothing would have been invented. No one lives in bubble wrap. | |||
|
| It's not easy being me |
Almost every day I see pedestrians in mid-town Nashville cross in the middle of the street rather than in a crosswalk. _______________________________________ Flammable, Inflammable, or Nonflammable....... Hell, either it Flams or it doesn't!! (George Carlin) | |||
|
| Thank you Very little  |
So the premise is that people that are simply crossing a street should have the same risk level of death that those who purposely engage in high risk activities have for bodily injury and death expectations...... | |||
|
delicately calloused |
Has Hal opened the pod bay doors yet? You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Chip away the stone |
A couple of potential issues with that: 1. People might freak out upon seeing the bedazzled vehicle, and wreck because of their overreaction or failure to see other hazards. 2. It might be argued that the cars need to operate in completely normal driving conditions in order to be improved. As far as I know, no cars are allowed to operate without a human behind the wheel at this point. You would think/hope in a case like in this particular story, the human would have been especially aware that they needed to be alert and intervene when necessary. It's certainly possible they were, and that the accident simply wasn't avoidable. | |||
|
| Irksome Whirling Dervish |
Pick up your local paper or do a search of their archives and unquestionably you will find cases where people try to cross the street between cars or just don't want to use the crosswalk. It isn't the fault of the car or the driver but the pedestrian when they get hit. Same here. I'm not saying the Uber car gets a pass since we don't have all the facts but I'm not going to throttle back on moving the technology forward because of this death. Everything is a risk and we all walk out of our houses, weigh the risks of getting out in the world or going to work and since none of us are completely risk adverse, we go about our day with all the shit that can happen. If you cross the street outside of crosswalk or between cars bad shit has been known to happen to the ped and that might be what happened here. | |||
|
| Thank you Very little |
Isn't that impossible? We've been told that driverless vehicles will reduce if not eliminate these possibilities, that humans ARE the problem.  | |||
|
Coin Sniper |
This is not a valid argument. The individuals you noted we're willing participatants, and knew and accepted the risks. This pedestrian was simply a woman going about her day with no idea she was wandering into the path of a technology test. Furthermore, aircraft and helicopter tests are carried out in remote areas far from civilians. You don't test a brand-new aircraft prototype over an urban area for obvious reasons. In this case I bet the driver will be charged as they clearly didn't take evasive action quick enough. I saw a story on the news last night about Tesla drivers reading books, playing games, even doing paddicake with a passenger while the vehicle auto drives. Clearly not active and engaged to take over in the event of a problem. Pronoun: His Royal Highness and benevolent Majesty of all he surveys 343 - Never Forget Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive. | |||
|
| Thank you Very little |
Come on, you can't be serious, it' not a close comparison, that crossing a street has acceptable risk levels as that of a test pilot. | |||
|
| Chip away the stone |
Of course not. No matter how good the computer, or the human driver is, sometimes circumstances will arise where the laws of physics and the limits of the vehicles turning and braking systems make a collision unavoidable, such as when a person steps into the road from between parked cars and it's physically impossible to stop or swerve in time to avoid them. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
Call me a control freak.... but I have no desire for this technology. I want control over my own vehicle. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Irksome Whirling Dervish |
That would require a leap of law that isn't currently enforced anywhere and that new standard that you're proposing wouuld require the driver of a vehicle or an AI car to anticipate the criminal activites of someone and then to take preemptve action accordingly. You can hit them up for neglicence but when the precipitating fact is that someone illegaly crossed the street, which is a criminal activity in any city, it's hard to say the driver or AI car is at fault. That burden isn't placed on you now so why try to impose it on an AI car? Eventually I'm sure the AI car will eventually have that ability however today the law doens't support what you're suggesting because, quite frankly, it's an impossible standard to enforce. | |||
|
| Irksome Whirling Dervish |
If you as a pedestrian think it's a good idea to play Frogger then I guess we're always going to differ on who's at fault. When you engage in behavior whether it's a test pilot, flying as a passenger, crossing a street, eating too fast or anything else, there are consequences inherent in the act. | |||
|
| Member |
I have seen the Uber test cars around Tempe during the day. They were all grey full size Volvo SUV's with the lidar sensor basket on the roof and an Uber logo on the door. All the ones that I have seen have someone behind the wheel. I hope the details of this mess are quickly released. | |||
|
| Member |
Skynet just became self aware. __________________________ "Sooner or later, wherever people go, there's the law. And sooner or later, they find out that God's already been there." -- John Wayne as Chisum | |||
|
| Member |
IIRC The law here doesn't prevent pedestrians from crossing the street anywhere they please, out of a crosswalk... unless they are within a named distance away from one. Then it's mandatory. Can't remember the distance, ~couple hundred feet I believe. If it ain't woke... don't fix it. | |||
|
| Member |
Jaywalking does not authorize drivers to run down pedestrians. A driver can negligently hit a jaywalker and be fully liable for the consequences. If the self driving cars are not capable of avoiding pedestrians - wherever encountered - to the same extent as a reasonably skilled driver exercising ordinary care, then that is on the manufacturer, owner, and "back-up driver" of the vehicle. __________________________ "Sooner or later, wherever people go, there's the law. And sooner or later, they find out that God's already been there." -- John Wayne as Chisum | |||
|
| Leatherneck |
Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is safe. A computer can't avoid every accident. It does not contain magic powers that allow it to ignore the laws of physics and stop a car in zero feet. “Everybody wants a Sig in the sheets but a Glock on the streets.” -bionic218 04-02-2014 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024