Uber ~ Automated Driving Death

[lilyoyo1]

52 minutes ago, Teken said:

Reviewing the link provided quickly it doesn't indicate what kind of environments these vehicles have driven on. I am interested the type of terrain, hours of use, and areas. I have to gather since this is in CA this is on buttery smooth roads, blue sky, and not a drop of rain.

Add in night time, rain, sleet, snow, road ruts, crazy human, etc.

I can say with a high level of confidence if Elon Musk taps upon me to provide help in this evolving technology his company will acquire more insight and knowledge for their systems. Having assisted GM & Ford at their *Winter Proving Grounds* I can tell you just a normal vehicles saw unforeseen mechanical and electrical issues when the mercury was -45'C.

Very interested to see a different angle or view of the video that resulted in this woman's death.  

Google does most of it's driving in the San Francisco area. As with many other California cities, that means a shit ton of traffic, people in general, pot holes, etc. San Fran is different than SoCal in that they do get rain and fog much more often

[Teken]

38 minutes ago, larryllix said:

That sound to me like lying to ouselves. We want a system allowed that allows us to be unavailable for quick respond,, while still professing to be available to respond. While we are looking for a place to put our forks into our food bowl/plate,we are not watching or focusing our attention on prediction of future road events.

In Ontario this as become a big issue (with new laws and enforcement)  with using cell phones, while driving. Recently a young woman was charged with "Distracted Driving", while texting, stopped a a red light at an intersection. It can be argued she wasn't driving, OTOH still in control of a running automobile???

 Until the next level is proven and in place, the human pilot should not be doing anythin else but driving with full attention. Allowing the human to be 99.9999% inattentive will never work, as it makes the human response time too long to be of value anyway. I don't know how we will get through this AI stage safely.

Spot On . . .

People are saying the intent of this technology for the most part (lazy) can simply get into a vehicle and let said vehicle shuttle them from A - B. Yet they expect that same lazy Human to be at the ready to intercede should there ever be a unknown condition?!?!

Clearly, this lady who is a smear on the ground is the perfect example of what a fail that is . . .

 

[Teken]

25 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

Google does most of it's driving in the San Francisco area. As with many other California cities, that means a shit ton of traffic, people in general, pot holes, etc. San Fran is different than SoCal in that they do get rain and fog much more often

Would love to see any kind of video showing the amount of traffic and road conditions.  

[apostolakisl]

53 minutes ago, Teken said:

Spot On . . .

People are saying the intent of this technology for the most part (lazy) can simply get into a vehicle and let said vehicle shuttle them from A - B. Yet they expect that same lazy Human to be at the ready to intercede should there ever be a unknown condition?!?!

Clearly, this lady who is a smear on the ground is the perfect example of what a fail that is . . .

 

What I think you fail to understand is that life is not safe.  Safe is the absence of risk and it simply doesn't exist.  Every minute of every day you accept risk, as we all do.  You see "new" risk as something different and put into a different category of all the other risk you take for granted.  Your approach here could just as easily be applied to the myriad of other technologies you use every day at the time those technologies were first introduced.  But you accept these technologies and their risks as baseline.  My guess is that you would have been against electricity when it first came out as well.  But we all know that while innocent people are killed by electricity every year, the lives saved and the good it has done the human race has vastly exceeded the down side.  But it isn't perfect, nothing is.

[Teken]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

What I think you fail to understand is that life is not safe.  Safe is the absence of risk and it simply doesn't exist.  Every minute of every day you accept risk, as we all do.  You see "new" risk as something different and put into a different category of all the other risk you take for granted.  Your approach here could just as easily be applied to the myriad of other technologies you use every day at the time those technologies were first introduced.  But you accept these technologies and their risks as baseline.  My guess is that you would have been against electricity when it first came out as well.  But we all know that while innocent people are killed by electricity every year, the lives saved and the good it has done the human race has vastly exceeded the down side.  But it isn't perfect, nothing is.

We all know life in the big picture has inherent risks. 

What you're implying is this new technology is at the same level as day to day risk(s) which its not. Let's all speak plainly here in that this technology has been driven by the lazy. In no way is this directed toward the handicapped, immobile, or those who are too old to drive.

This whole industry is driven by yuppy millennial's or those who still think they are 20 and believe its OK to walk on to a stage dressed like a complete imbecile. Shirt untucked, wearing sneakers, and baggy pants like they are 12.

You know that service called a Taxi, Bus, Train, Car Pooling, etc?????

This is what those services are intended and meant for not for some lazy person who thinks the best use of their time is to eat food, read a book, or pick their nose while in the DRIVERS SEAT!!!

Its called what again DRIVERS SEAT . . .      

Its not called the lazy seat, the inattentive seat, or the imbecile seat. That seat is reserved for the chair next to the ACTIVE DRIVER or behind the driver as a PASSENGER. Again, lets go back to my main question because there hasn't been a soul here or anywhere where I have asked and posed the same question.

Will you, or anyone else strap a infant child to said fully automated vehicle and let it transport that human from A to B??? That is the ultimate litmus test and until that day comes where tens of thousands of fools do so I will never agree this is a good idea. Because the infrastructure must be present, anything else is a band aid which is trying to compensate for things that simply can't be . . .

RE: Electricity -> You are completely wrong here with that assumption. If it was up to me I would be pushing for what Tesla envisioned and prove could be done via AC power. Along with all the other technology he developed before it was stolen and shelved by big corporate. 

[oberkc]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

What I think you fail to understand is that life is not safe.  Safe is the absence of risk and it simply doesn't exist.  Every minute of every day you accept risk, as we all do.  You see "new" risk as something different and put into a different category of all the other risk you take for granted.  Your approach here could just as easily be applied to the myriad of other technologies you use every day at the time those technologies were first introduced.  But you accept these technologies and their risks as baseline.  My guess is that you would have been against electricity when it first came out as well.  But we all know that while innocent people are killed by electricity every year, the lives saved and the good it has done the human race has vastly exceeded the down side.  But it isn't perfect, nothing is.

I tend to agree with this view of life.  There is risk getting out of bed everyday.  Also, there is a lot of risk driving with other humans in control.  

 I don’t claim to know what “people” are saying, but I suggest that the primary intent of the driverless car is improved safety (reduced risk) and has little to do with laziness.  Whether is is boredom on long drives, distractions, poor skills, or aging, it comes down to whether one believes that technology can reduce the risk of driving.  Based upon the drivers I see around here, and the increasing times I find myself being one of those drivers, I tend to believe that technology can greatly improve safety on the road.

[Teken]

2 minutes ago, oberkc said:

I tend to agree with this view of life.  There is risk getting out of bed everyday.  Also, there is a lot of risk driving with other humans in control.  

 I don’t claim to know what “people” are saying, but I suggest that the primary intent of the driverless car is improved safety (reduced risk) and has little to do with laziness.  Whether is is boredom on long drives, distractions, poor skills, or aging, it comes down to whether one believes that technology can reduce the risk of driving.  Based upon the drivers I see around here, and the increasing times I find myself being one of those drivers, I tend to believe that technology can greatly improve safety on the road.

So if and when this is proven by tens of millions and the numbers show it safe. Will you be in the back seat or the drivers seat??

[Goose66]

 

3 hours ago, larryllix said:

Until the next level is proven and in place, the human pilot should not be doing anythin else but driving with full attention. Allowing the human to be 99.9999% inattentive will never work, as it makes the human response time too long to be of value anyway. I don't know how we will get through this AI stage safely.

I think the point you are missing is that people aren't driving with full attention now. It's not the level 3 car that will allow me to eat the salad, it is the level 3 car that will make it safer when I am eating the salad. So adding in a level 3 car just makes this situation better, not worse.

[Goose66]

45 minutes ago, Teken said:

This is what those services are intended and meant for not for some lazy person who thinks the best use of their time is to eat food, read a book, or pick their nose while in the DRIVERS SEAT!!!

Its called what again DRIVERS SEAT . . .      

Its not called the lazy seat, the inattentive seat, or the imbecile seat. That seat is reserved for the chair next to the ACTIVE DRIVER or behind the driver as a PASSENGER. Again, lets go back to my main question because there hasn't been a soul here or anywhere where I have asked and posed the same question.

Will you, or anyone else strap a infant child to said fully automated vehicle and let it transport that human from A to B??? That is the ultimate litmus test and until that day comes where tens of thousands of fools do so I will never agree this is a good idea. Because the infrastructure must be present, anything else is a band aid which is trying to compensate for things that simply can't be . . .

That's some pretty sanctimonious BS your are putting out there, but know that we all recognize it as BS. I am sure there are plenty of times you've been in your car and haven't been 100% attentive, just like everyone else. Again, if the driver is 98% attentive, then having a car that is 98% effective just makes the whole thing safer, not less safe, unless having the car makes that driver a lot less attentive.

Also, your original question was strapping an infant in an airplane with no pilot (which I did answer, BTW), not strapping an infant in a FULLY AUTOMATED vehicle. When SAE level 5 -fully automated vehicles are available, then I will evaluate their safety records and make my decision of whether I would put my infant (grandchild?) in there, just as I now evaluate the safety of conventional cars before I strap my children in the back. So the answer to your NEW question is yes, I would put an infant in a level 5 fully automated car if it had a decent safety record.

[Teken]

1 minute ago, Goose66 said:

 

I think the point you are missing is that people aren't driving with full attention now. It's not the level 3 car that will allow me to eat the salad, it is the level 3 car that will make it safer when I am eating the salad. So adding in a level 3 car just makes this situation better, not worse.

I'm sorry but you need to be in the passenger or back seat. The fact you note either in jest or serious that eating salad while in the DRIVERS SEAT is remotely acceptable. Is exactly why I hold my view of the very same.

People want to be doing something other than DRIVING, hire a driver, take a cab, take a bus, train, tram, what ever . . .

Because this is exactly the kind of mentality that will get others killed. This whole society has changed for the worse and not for the better because our reliance on technology has skewed peoples brains and made them lazy. The first time I saw Ford / Honda offer the parallel parking gimmick I knew off the bat this was targeted at people who have no good reason to hold a drivers license.

Parallel parking is the most basic skill that a DRIVER must show they can perform and complete.

Unless you're handicapped in some manner I see some value but other than that that feature is marketed to people who have zero experience, willing to learn, and common sense. Again, not a single soul has replied back in the affirmative that they will place a infant child in said automated vehicle.

Why???

Because they believe the risks to them is acceptable but the risks to a infant child is not?!?!? 

[Teken]

1 minute ago, Goose66 said:

That's some pretty sanctimonious BS your are putting out there, but know that we all recognize it as BS. I am sure there are plenty of times you've been in your car and haven't been 100% attentive, just like everyone else. Again, if the driver is 98% attentive, then having a car that is 98% effective just makes the whole thing safer, not less safe, unless having the car makes that driver a lot less attentive.

Also, your original question was strapping an infant in an airplane with no pilot (which I did answer, BTW), not strapping an infant in a FULLY AUTOMATED vehicle. When SAE level 5 -fully automated vehicles are available, then I will evaluate their safety records and make my decision of whether I would put my infant (grandchild?) in there, just as I now evaluate the safety of conventional cars before I strap my children in the back. So the answer to your NEW question is yes, I would put an infant in a level 5 fully automated car if it had a decent safety record.

Lots of ifs and buts here . . .

That pretty much affirms what you state is B.S is clearly the case in your reply. Let's all be real here no one will place a infant child into any vehicle never mind a field proven and certified aircraft, ever . . .

As others have stated the *Risks* are too great and only people who lack experience and commons sense would do otherwise. Just because you can do a thing. Does not mean you should. People are talking about selling nuclear reactors to the general public because there is some kind of break through in the molten salts field.

Once again, just because you can do a thing. Does not mean you should.

The first time they let some imbecile install said nuclear reactor in his back yard ~ this world isn't worth saving. 

[apostolakisl]

55 minutes ago, Teken said:

We all know life in the big picture has inherent risks. 

What you're implying is this new technology is at the same level as day to day risk(s) which its not. Let's all speak plainly here in that this technology has been driven by the lazy. In no way is this directed toward the handicapped, immobile, or those who are too old to drive.

This whole industry is driven by yuppy millennial's or those who still think they are 20 and believe its OK to walk on to a stage dressed like a complete imbecile. Shirt untucked, wearing sneakers, and baggy pants like they are 12.

You know that service called a Taxi, Bus, Train, Car Pooling, etc?????

This is what those services are intended and meant for not for some lazy person who thinks the best use of their time is to eat food, read a book, or pick their nose while in the DRIVERS SEAT!!!

Its called what again DRIVERS SEAT . . .      

Its not called the lazy seat, the inattentive seat, or the imbecile seat. That seat is reserved for the chair next to the ACTIVE DRIVER or behind the driver as a PASSENGER. Again, lets go back to my main question because there hasn't been a soul here or anywhere where I have asked and posed the same question.

Will you, or anyone else strap a infant child to said fully automated vehicle and let it transport that human from A to B??? That is the ultimate litmus test and until that day comes where tens of thousands of fools do so I will never agree this is a good idea. Because the infrastructure must be present, anything else is a band aid which is trying to compensate for things that simply can't be . . .

RE: Electricity -> You are completely wrong here with that assumption. If it was up to me I would be pushing for what Tesla envisioned and prove could be done via AC power. Along with all the other technology he developed before it was stolen and shelved by big corporate. 

Your making the statement here that humans are better drivers than the automated systems and will always be better.  No doubt this is incorrect.  The current technology may or may not be better.  The jury is still out.  But I promise you, this technology will be far safer than the status quo, if not now, very soon.  The world will be a better place for it.

I'm not sure where "lazy" comes into this.  As humans, we have limited time on this planet.  Sitting behind the wheel of a car isn't exactly the highlight of my life.  This is time that could be used so much more productively.  God only knows how many millions of hours of productivity are lost because we are trapped driving our cars.  If it were just "too lazy to drive", well that problem was solved a long time ago.  Hire a car.  And with Uber et al, it couldn't be any easier or more affordable as is.  But what a waste of a human mind, driving a car for a living.

[Goose66]

Man, I am surprised you even go out of your house at all! 

[Bumbershoot]

As an ageing person "out west", I have hopes that this technology will aid in the maintenance of independent lifestyles for us older folks (Uber isn't available out in the sticks).  All the older people I've known have struggled with their ability to drive, some unsuccessfully, and sadly, access to a vehicle isn't really optional out here.  I've got an old uncle still roaring around the desert in his huge Cadillac, hoping that the defibrillator in his chest doesn't kick off just as he rounds a corner.  He earnestly works at driving, but he scares me.  In his case, I don't see how some automation wouldn't help.

[Teken]

1 minute ago, apostolakisl said:

Your making the statement here that humans are better drivers than the automated systems and will always be better.  No doubt this is incorrect.  The current technology may or may not be better.  The jury is still out.  But I promise you, this technology will be far safer than the status quo, if not now, very soon.  The world will be a better place for it.

I'm not sure where "lazy" comes into this.  As humans, we have limited time on this planet.  Sitting behind the wheel of a car isn't exactly the highlight of my life.  This is time that could be used so much more productively.  God only knows how many millions of hours of productivity are lost because we are trapped driving our cars.  If it were just "too lazy to drive", well that problem was solved a long time ago.  Hire a car.  And with Uber et al, it couldn't be any easier or more affordable as is.  But what a waste of a human mind, driving a car for a living.

No, I have never stated *Human* is better simply that driving requires a human person who is focused at the task at hand. It doesn't matter what label, phrase, name people want to give this whole automated driving.

This concept is purely for the lazy . . .

 

[Teken]

1 hour ago, Goose66 said:

Man, I surprised you even go out of your house at all! 

LOL . . .

This time last month that would have been debatable as the mercury with the windchill exceeded -55'C! 

[apostolakisl]

1 hour ago, Teken said:

Lots of ifs and buts here . . .

That pretty much affirms what you state is B.S is clearly the case in your reply. Let's all be real here no one will place a infant child into any vehicle never mind a field proven and certified aircraft, ever . . .

As others have stated the *Risks* are too great and only people who lack experience and commons sense would do otherwise. Just because you can do a thing. Does not mean you should. People are talking about selling nuclear reactors to the general public because there is some kind of break through in the molten salts field.

Once again, just because you can do a thing. Does not mean you should.

The first time they let some imbecile install said nuclear reactor in his back yard ~ this world isn't worth saving. 

This is an invalid analogy to say the least.  I wouldn't leave an infant alone.  . . . Period.  Nor would anyone who doesn't want the state to take custody.  Not in a car, not in a house, not in a . . . sounds like Dr. Seuss.

Myself, I very much look forward to sitting in the back seat.  Or even in a car with no steering wheel at all.  

[Teken]

1 hour ago, Bumbershoot said:

As an ageing person "out west", I have hopes that this technology will aid in the maintenance of independent lifestyles for us older folks (Uber isn't available out in the sticks).  All the older people I've known have struggled with their ability to drive, some unsuccessfully, and sadly, access to a vehicle isn't really optional out here.  I've got an old uncle still roaring around the desert in his huge Cadillac, hoping that the defibrillator in his chest doesn't kick off just as he rounds a corner.  He earnestly works at driving, but he scares me.  In his case, I don't see how some automation wouldn't help.

As I noted early on given the proper infrastructure and safety checks in place such a service / product has a place. There are countless people who have mobility issues and having the ability to travel to and from with out others helps them stay independent. But, this isn't what others are talking about these are people fully able and capable of driving yet they believe its OK to do something other than drive.

You know what that is??

Its called a passenger not driver . . .

 

[apostolakisl]

2 minutes ago, Teken said:

No, I have never stated *Human* is better simply that driving requires a human person who is focused at the task at hand. It doesn't matter what label, phrase, name people want to give this whole automated driving.

This concept is purely for the lazy . . .

 

Well, yes you did.  Driving would only require a human if a machine can't equal or surpass a human.  When the best human loses in a head-to-head, well then the human should be replaced.

If I'm betting on who is going to win at Jeapordy, and Watson is one of the contestants, I'm getting on Watson's team.

[Teken]

2 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

This is an invalid analogy to say the least.  I wouldn't leave an infant alone.  . . . Period.  Nor would anyone who doesn't want the state to take custody.  Not in a car, not in a house, not in a . . . sounds like Dr. Seuss.

Myself, I very much look forward to sitting in the back seat.  Or even in a car with no steering wheel at all.  

One can use what ever age they wish from 12 and below.

The answer would still be zero because deep down inside people can *Reason* the risks for themselves. But, when rubber meets the ground and you simply change one simple parameter of something that has more value like a child.

That funny thing called common sense kicks in . .  

[Teken]

13 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

Well, yes you did.  Driving would only require a human if a machine can't equal or surpass a human.  When the best human loses in a head-to-head, well then the human should be replaced.

If I'm betting on who is going to win at Jeapordy, and Watson is one of the contestants, I'm getting on Watson's team.

Now, that really isn't a fair comparisons is it?? One is simply based on the ability to recall information how could a human beat a machine that has been programmed with the worlds knowledge??

If there has ever been a clear Apple vs Orange example yours is it . . .  

[lilyoyo1]

4 hours ago, Teken said:

Would love to see any kind of video showing the amount of traffic and road conditions.  

https://youtu.be/bp9KBrH8H04

[apostolakisl]

30 minutes ago, Teken said:

Now, that really isn't a fair comparisons is it?? One is simply based on the ability to recall information how could a human beat a machine that has been programmed with the worlds knowledge??

If there has ever been a clear Apple vs Orange example yours is it . . .  

Oh dear.

Look, the thing is, the computer is going to whoop that pants off you and any other driver the world has ever known.  To deny the technology is to deny that a computer could ever win a trivia game like Jeapordy. . . as I'm sure a whole bunch of people were doing the day before Watson whooped those poor humans.  This is the Paul Bunyon story here and you're weilding the axe.  Paul Bunyon was a very proud woodsman.  The proud driver's of the world will being putting down their axes soon, my guess, 20 years from now all cars will be auto-pilot.  And I promise you, there will be a lot fewer auto related accidents/injuries in the world.

[apostolakisl]

42 minutes ago, Teken said:

One can use what ever age they wish from 12 and below.

The answer would still be zero because deep down inside people can *Reason* the risks for themselves. But, when rubber meets the ground and you simply change one simple parameter of something that has more value like a child.

That funny thing called common sense kicks in . .  

Yes, I would certainly let my 12 year old take an auto pilot car assuming I would let myself be in that same car.  I let my kids walk to school, ride their bikes, and so on.  The car would actually be far far far more secure.  I would know exactly where they were and I am quite certain have video monitoring if I so chose.  I don't get those features when my kid rides her bike to her friends house.  And I have no doubt that their rate of injury would be far lower than that of riding their bike and walking on a street with humans driving cars by.

[oberkc]

3 hours ago, Teken said:

So if and when this is proven by tens of millions and the numbers show it safe. Will you be in the back seat or the drivers seat??

I am hoping, ultimately, that there is no drivers seat needed.  I am currently comfortable in the passenger seat when I have a certain level of confidence in the driver (whether man, woman, or machine).

And, by the way, I suspect I know the answer to your question about how many will be putting their child onto one of these.  The answer is the same as those willing to put their "infant" in a car seat on a manned taxi, and the same as those willing to put their infant on an aircraft (manned or otherwise).  That is, zero.  I suspect, however, that the rationale has little to do with the perceived safety, but rather giving up control and this silly tendency for parents to be overly protective of their babies.  Go figure.