Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

Uvaman2 said:
Either way, i have pretty much changed my view, these systems are not ready, and will not be for a while.
Click to expand...

The only conclusion you can draw is that Uber's system is a POS. This was widely presumed from all the scuttlebutt that had leaked out. This isn't even a difficult task. Volvo, like many other manufacturers and who's car this system was based off of, already has a system in production use that handles this case. As do almost all auto manufacturers with decent driver assist. As I said above, this is basically the demo case for driver assist technologies. This is not a reflection of AVs but a reflection of Uber.
 
thejokker said:
And you obviously have no idea how to present a persuasive argument. Your response indicates you are not a good judge of what is right or wrong...
Click to expand...

thejokker said:
And autonomous cars cannot communicate with human drivers...

In a world of human and autonomous cars it is probable autonomous cars efficiency will be reduced to the point autonomous cars will be less efficient than humans.Sorry but wrong... Allocating lanes to self-driving cars is the same as removing lanes for human drivers. This will increase gridlock. Assuming self-driving cars are more efficient, i.e. they can communicate and drive closer together therefore increasing the density of cars per square mile they will create obstacles for human drivers attempting to enter or exit off the freeway. Currently, because humans drive at different speeds and allow more or less distance between cars it is easy to transition from one lane to another exploiting those gaps.

Misuse of analogy. Persons who made a living driving horse powered vehicles were replaced by persons driving motorized vehicles. Putting people (particularly low skilled workers with less options) out of work will create social and political resistance. A person driving car or riding a horse can adapt to changing weather conditions that will confound an autonomous car. As you say people have a tremendous ability to adapt and hence their superiority to "programmed cars".

Ahh... the root of the failure of the argument for self-driving cars... Self-driving cars are an urban solution that ignores the suburban and rural experience. What works for urban dwellers does not for everybody else. Any long term solution will require compromise for all American's and compromising for self-driving cars eliminates any of the advantages for self-driving cars.

Sorry but I do not see it that way. Urban dwellers who do not like cars or driving are seeking to impose their values on everybody else with a system that will make only make things worse. The actually effect of self-driving cars will be like significantly increasing the number of cars driven by old people with bad eye-sight. First impressions are lasting. They will increase gridlock. Sensor malfunctions and software problems will cause accidents. They will be expensive and there will be attempts to discourage human drivers to maximize their efficiency which will create a divide along social economic class. They will put people out of work.

Again misuse of analogy. It's one thing to eliminate some jobs while creating other jobs. It's another thing to eliminate jobs without creating them someplace else. You have only considered the positive aspects of self-driving cars without considering the negatives. By failing to consider or anticipate negative consequences you face being blindsided by predictable unforeseen consequences.

Not only will we be concerned with mechanical breakdowns and inattentive drivers we will now have to be concerned with software crashes, sensor degradation and failure as well as the inevitable mechanical failures.

I was taught to better advance one's scientific theory one must be prepared to be ruthlessly critical of any weakness in that theory. One of the best ways to prove that theory is to objectively and comprehensibly attempt to disprove it. If one honestly fails to disprove that theory than one can have greater confidence in it's validity. I don't believe you have seriously considered the negative consequences and as such you are over-estimating the positive consequences. The benefits you are assigning will only be valid to a mature technology and this technology is in it's infancy. The horse-car analogy occurred during a period where life was qualitatively unrecognizable compared to today's modern environment.Agreed! :)
Click to expand...

Honestly don't care if I can convince you. Your argument is superficial and you're trying to apply your intuition to a problem that's already been solved. You clearly don't understand the complex dynamics of cars nor the capabilities of the software in autonomous vehicles and you very obviously don't have a scientific or engineering background. It's not my job to convince you of something that is easily discoverable. Others have given decent arguments and you just spew dumb arguments at them about things like how autonomous vehicles are only good for cities, which makes literally no fucking sense and your thing about drivers adapting to weather but AVs not being able to... wtf?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Powerage said:
Honestly don't care if I can convince you. Your argument is superficial and you're trying to apply your intuition to a problem that's already been solved. You clearly don't understand the complex dynamics of cars nor the capabilities of the software in autonomous vehicles and you very obviously don't have a scientific or engineering background. It's not my job to convince you of something that is easily discoverable. Others have given decent arguments and you just spew dumb arguments at them about things like how autonomous vehicles are only good for cities, which makes literally no fucking sense and your thing about drivers adapting to weather but AVs not being able to... wtf?
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't understand that I am not the only person reading this and by failing to support your "opinion" you are failing to convince anyone. People are not going to accept your religious conviction on the superiority of self-driving cars on faith. Despite you opinion to the contrary, a woman is dead, so the "problem" is far from solved. "Pretending" there are not serious short-comings in the technology suggests you may be lacking in a scientific and engineering background.

If you are going to participate in a discussion please have a little more to say than bla, bla, bla...
 
thejokker said:
Apparently you don't understand that I am not the only person reading this and by failing to support your "opinion" you are failing to convince anyone. People are not going to accept your religious conviction on the superiority of self-driving cars on faith. Despite you opinion to the contrary, a woman is dead, so the "problem" is far from solved. "Pretending" there are not serious short-comings in the technology suggests you may be lacking in a scientific and engineering background.

If you are going to participate in a discussion please have a little more to say than bla, bla, bla...
Click to expand...
It's irritating to hear an armchair engineer chime in about shit in arrogant and naive ways. You don't think the team of ~20 engineers working on this 40+ hours a week thought about having the car adapt to different weather conditions? I know this is just one of the dumb points you brought up, but I think it illustrates your lack of consideration of the reality of the engineering pretty well. This was a test car with a driver behind the wheel. I'm not claiming they didn't fuck up or that the technology is ready. I'm simply refuting your BS claims about the technology once it is at a deliverable state.
 
Powerage said:
It's irritating to hear an armchair engineer chime in about shit in arrogant and naive ways. You don't think the team of ~20 engineers working on this 40+ hours a week thought about having the car adapt to different weather conditions? I know this is just one of the dumb points you brought up, but I think it illustrates your lack of consideration of the reality of the engineering pretty well. This was a test car with a driver behind the wheel. I'm not claiming they didn't fuck up or that the technology is ready. I'm simply refuting your BS claims about the technology once it is at a deliverable state.
Click to expand...
Bla, bla, bla... We should all bow down to the engineering gods, bla, bla, bla... Not a persuasive argument...

Self Driving cars at this stage are an immature and primitive technology. The claims of a solution to urban gridlock remains theoretical and fails to address valid criticisms. The technology is decades away from being in a deliverable state...
 
thejokker said:
Software = buggy
Self Driving cars = software
Self Driving cars = buggy

Self driving cars remain decades away...
Click to expand...


No, they are already here and it's not going to go away anytime soon.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...shuttling-goods-arizona-no-drivers/397123002/
SAN FRANCISCO — Uber has been sending self-driving trucks on delivery runs across Arizona since November, the first step in what promises to be a freight transportation revolution that could radically reshape the jobs of long-haul truckers.

After testing its technology earlier in 2017, Uber began contracting with trucking companies to use its own autonomous Volvo big rigs to take over loads as they traverse the state, it disclosed.

In Uber's current program, a trucker meets the self-driving truck at the Arizona state border, which then takes the load across the state before handing it off to a second conventional trucker for the short-haul trip. During the autonomous trip, an Uber employee rides in the driver seat of the autonomous truck to monitor — but not to drive.
Click to expand...

Now I have to go correct a previous post.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Ok the attempted armed robber isn't good, but he served his time, should he not be allowed to get a job?
Click to expand...

It's bad enough trusting random people, but why would I want to put my trust in somebody that has a violent criminal past? Armed robbery is pretty violent. Those who commit violent crimes should not be placed in a position of public safety. It's an oxymoron. This wasn't tax evasion or forging government documents, it was ARMED ROBBERY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top