Slashdot Mirror
Uber Halts Self-Driving Car Tests in Arizona After Friday Night Collision (businessinsider.com)
"Given that the Uber vehicle has flipped onto its side it looks to be a high speed crash," writes TechCrunch, though Business Insider reports that no one was seriously injured. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
A self-driving Uber car was involved in an accident on Friday night in Tempe, Arizona, in one of the most serious incidents to date involving the growing fleet of autonomous vehicles being tested on U.S. roads... Uber has halted its self-driving-car pilot in Arizona and is investigating what caused the incident... A Tempe police spokesperson told Bloomberg that the Uber was not at fault in the accident and was hit by another car which failed to yield. Still, the collision will likely to turn up the temperature on the heated debate about the safety of self-driving cars.
Conversations would be different if the uber car was at fault but not all accidents can be avoided.
I am reminded that when cars were first invented, there were laws put in place mandating that someone walk ahead of any self-propelled vehicle waving a red flag, for fear of scaring horses and making people uncomfortable.
I'm sure that in one hundred years this sort of reaction - blaming the software for an inattentive driver failing to yield - will be seen in exactly the same way.
Don't be silly...Uber isn't raping anybody. Uber is just trying to innovate here.
Right now only the passenger can give the driver oral sex, but what if the driver wants to give the passenger oral sex too? Thus you need self driving capability. Just think about it: You no longer need to jack off before work, instead somebody else does it for you on the way to work while you check your email. This saves a lot of time off of your busy day by doing three things at once.
Isn't the gig economy wonderful?
The human made a mistake yes, but the self-driving car crashed into him. So now the question is whether a human would have done better in that situation.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That only matters once almost all the cars on the road are self driving. They will have to be 'compatible' with unpredictable human drivers for years and years before that happens, if ever.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The human made a mistake yes, but the self-driving car crashed into him. So now the question is whether a human would have done better in that situation.
It's a given there will be some instances where a human driver might have done better than a self driving auto. In the same vein, the possibility also exists that the human driver may have done worse in the identical situation.
If driver-less autos can perform appreciably better than humans do over a large enough sample size, they should then be considered a safe alternative... the only question is how much better they need to perform.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
They should not be making accidents out of situations that a human would have been able to handle. That is really all I care about. You comment makes sense until you think about what it will be like to lose someone in an accident caused purely by automation. You can't tell them "to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If driver-less autos can perform appreciably better than humans do over a large enough sample size, they should then be considered a safe alternative..
Appreciably safer than the average driver might not be safer than some drivers.
But. If we concede that any human life = any other human life, and the widespread use of driver-less vehicles saves X accidents and Y highway fatalities over the same number of driven miles, it has saved more accidents and human lives than it lost.
If we set the bar at ZERO accidents a human could've avoided, well, that is an impossibly high standard; and self-driving vehicles should be shelved right now.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Let me add this.. I understand that accidents will still happen, but those should be accidents that would have happened regardless. If they are truly to be as safe as people think they will be, then they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made. The bar has to be set higher than that.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made
For sure, they will mistakes, and they will make mistakes that some humans would not have made in the same situation. On the other hand, they'll avoid other mistakes that humans often make. The only thing that makes sense is to compare overall statistics, not zoom in on particular cases.
If you compare male and female drivers, or old and young drivers, I'm sure you'll also see different patterns of mistakes. That doesn't mean that one group should be allowed to drive, while the other group shouldn't.
Correct, but we're not stopping the average driver, so why should we stop a better-than-average one ?
Think about it this way. If someone cuts me off in traffic and I run into them because I'm not watching, wouldn't the accident technically be my fault? An accident is your fault unless you have done everything within your power to prevent the accident and it still occurred. Perhaps the AI was not programmed to deal with this situation, that would be the same as a human driver not watching the road because there would have been a disconnect between the sensors and the AI.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I concede that companies should not profit from products that might kill people. That is all that I concede.
You might as well just say that companies shouldn't be allowed to sell anything. Read the safety labels on anything you buy these days.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
You're talking about exchanging lives of people who would have died in a human accident for people who die in a self-driving one. That's not right either.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have automated cars, just that they should be far better before they are on public roads. If you want to make AI equal to a human, why are they on the road when they can't even pass a basic driving test?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, ublowjob.me
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Fuck you California, we are pioneers, we'll go to Arizona where they welcome pioneers!"
* THHHUNK! *
"Ahhh, arrow in my back, arrow in my back! Help!"
Table-ized A.I.
"stopping"? Who said anything about stopping anyone.
I've never had a product that could kill me if being used properly. My toaster won't kill me if used as intended. Even a chain saw won't harm anyone unless a human is negligent with it. The human cannot be negligent in a self driving car because they are not controlling the car as they are controlling a chain saw. This is probably why you can't go to home depot and buy a fully automated chain saw because the manufacturers know that it would just be a disaster.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If humans where good in avoiding accidents we had not so many accidents in the first place.
And "avoiding an accident" implies: there is an accident about to happen, and only by luck/precaution/whatever the other involved party can avoid it. When all cars are autonomous accidents are only thinkable in the most obscure situations, I can not even imagine one right now (obviously software/hardware failure is an option).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You can't conceive how an automated car could get in an accident? They can't even see properly at night yet!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Just like google glass people can't stand progress. I was wondering how long until people started intentionally crashing into auto cars.
You're ignoring the other side of the equation - what about the accidents that the autonomous cars don't get in that a human would have?
Wake me up when it happens.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Compatible", WTF? The human was at fault, the human was the incompatible piece in the situation. We can choose to go for "years and years" with this insane mixture and almost certainly will, but that doesn't change the fact that the human was at fault. Make that vehicle driverless and the accident never happened.
They see properly at night. ... the article btw is about "seeing better" not about "not seeing properly."
Just not the american fake news autonomous cars
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Given that the Uber vehicle has flipped onto its side it looks to be a high speed crash, which suggests a pretty serious incident..."
In one past life I learned accident investigation and in another extricated victims, both dead and alive, from vehicle collisions. I have to call malarkey on the "high-speed" claim.
Cars can tip over at very low speed. I've seen at least two such crashes within two blocks of my house. In one, a driver ran a stop sign and clipped a small SUV which tipped over onto the opposite sidewalk. The entire accident scene covered, perhaps, 30 feet edge to edge.
In the other, a driver drifted into the parking lane sideswiping a parked car such that the door-panels hooked which caused the car to rotate then roll.
The "high-speed" car in both cases was traveling 20-30mph.
Though the provided photo does not show a large surrounding area, neither car looks crushed - just some body-panel denting and debris is right next to the car vs. scattered down the roadway and "nobody was seriously injured."
Nothing about this suggests high-speed.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Well, now you're making a very different argument than the original "companies should not profit from products that might kill people." But I'll bite anyway. There are plenty of products that, though used correctly, can under some circumstances cause injury or death.
A very obvious one is medication. There are many medications that can have serious side effects, including death, when taken exactly as prescribed. We continue to use them because the benefits outweigh the risks.
You mentioned chainsaws. It is true that the majority of chainsaw accidents happen because of operator error. However, that doesn't mean that all of them do. The only way to completely eliminate the possibility of harm is to not use a chainsaw. But again, we continue to use them because the benefits are big enough.
There does need to be a standard for how safe autonomous vehicles need to be before we allow them on the roads. But setting that standard at "they need to never cause a death" is not only unrealistic, it is totally inconsistent with how our society deals with other potentially dangerous products.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I am reminded that when cars were first invented, there were laws put in place mandating that someone walk ahead of any self-propelled vehicle waving a red flag, for fear of scaring horses and making people uncomfortable.
Not automobiles as we know them.
Steam powered road tractors, mammoth agricultural tractors and heavy construction equipment. Ca. 1860-1896. Think township or county roads that were dirt or gravel tracks barely more than a single lane wide. Now do you know why you needed a flag man?
I'm not saying humans shouldn't be allowed to drive, just that they should be far better before they are allowed on public roads. If the same standard were to have been applied, driving would have never have happened.
Imagine if both cars had human drivers. D1 fails to yield and D2 is unable to avoid an accident. D1 is found to be at fault.
Would you honestly be saying that because there is a possible human D3 that could have avoided the accident that D2 is not ready to be on the road?
No just the automated car that will exist when all casrs are automated.
While a valid question, what is missing here is the big picture. How many mistakes does a human make on average, vs. how many mistakes an autonomous car makes. Think seatbelts, while everyone agrees they save lives, people don't refute that in some situations (e.g. car is submerged) they kill people. And yet, most people agree that seatbelts are good and it's better to use them.
Wake you up when the accident that doesn't happen happens.
The other car was a Tesla in autonomous mode whose driver was watching a Disney movie.
#DeleteChrome
Most people try to pin the blame for an accident on a single cause. Most liability laws are based on this same (erroneous) concept.
Airline accident investigations are really good at demonstrating how an entire chain of events led up to the accident. And that any single factor happening differently could've prevented the accident. e.g. The Concorde crash was caused by (1) debris on the runway from a faulty repair on a previous plane, (2) failure of the Concorde's tires when it struck the debris, (3) failure of the undercarriage to withstand tire debris striking it from a blowout at take-off speed, (4) the manufacturer not making any procedures or provisions to recover from a double engine failure on a single side because it was considered so unlikely. Any one of these things doesn't happen and the Concorde doesn't crash.
Safety systems layer multiple accident-avoidance measures on top of each other. This redundancy means that only when all of those measures fail is there an accident. Consequently, even if the self-driving car was not legally at fault, that it was involved in an accident still points to a possible problem. e.g. If I'm approaching an intersection and I have a green light, I don't just blindly pass through because the law says I have the right of way. I take a quick glance to the left and right to make sure nobody is going to run their red light, or that there aren't emergency vehicles approaching which might run the red light, or that there's nobody in the crosswalk parallel to me who might suddenly enter into my lane (cyclist falls over, dog or child runs out of crosswalk, etc).
So even if the autonomous car wasn't legally at fault, that's not the same thing as saying it did nothing wrong. There may still be lessons to learn, safety systems which were supposed to work but didn't, ways to improve the autonomous car to prevent similar accidents in the future.
But humans are allowed to drive so the point is moot.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What I am saying has nothing to do with how many mistakes humans make over all. Here is what I am trying to say, if automated cars are only as good as the average human, then how do you prevent them from being more risky for half the humans out there who are safer drivers? Furthermore, how will they be compensated when the automated car gets into an accident, knowing that they probably wouldn't have gotten into an accident without automation?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So you'd be OK with a company if it sells such products at cost or at a loss (say while they are still working out the software bugs that might kill people)? What does profit have to do with it?
If there was no profit, companies wouldn't feel a need to push this out before human capability and technology is ready. They would be willing to put money into making test sites where they can be tested safely. They would be embracing a set of government regulations that make this work between all vendors. As it turns out, Uber is just doing this so they don't have to pay drivers $3/hour.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Wake me up when automated cars can drive everywhere a human can and be safer than a human.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In most states, if the vehicle was moving and not legally stopped or parked, then it is partially at fault. In states without no fault insurance laws, no matter how negligent the other driver is, both vehicles will be blamed.
If there is room for improvement, then there is a flaw.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Autonomous vehicles will always have to deal with surprises. If not human drivers screwing up, kids and animals running into the road, falling trees, sinkholes, rockslides, flooding, etc.
Sure, but at the same time you'll be really relieved if you screw up and an autonomous vehicle acts with inhumanly fast reflexes and saves you and your passengers from a collision.
You can use many medications as directed and die. Doctors have been complaining about Tylonol usage being a leading cause of liver failure for years now. People die during routine dental operations. There is risk all around you. You can walk outside and get hit by a bus. A bus driver can fall asleep at the wheel and drive his bus into your living room. Right now. Life kills.
That's if you take more Tylenol than the bottle recommends. Dental operations don't count because we're talking about purchased products. You're maintaining that driving a bus into someone's living room is using the bus as directed?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Can't say I've screwed up that badly at any time in the last 15 years. Since I have been driving more cautiously with time, that isn't really a feature that I feel I will use.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
OMG.
Why is still happening? Why won't Uber stop raping their female employees?!?
They should let them write code for the self-driving cars instead. That way, just like in real life, female drivers would cause accidents but it's the male driver that has to swerve or veer to avoid a collision that would be at fault.
lucm, indeed.
Because there are medications out there that occasionally kill you even if you use them exactly as prescribed and they are prescribed exactly as recommended and approved. We use them because they don't kill that often. Even Ibuprofen can very rarely cause a life threatening reaction with lasting consequences.
I have heard of people injured by a chainsaw when they hit something embedded in a tree.
So you're incapable of screwing up? No chance a medical problem might surprise you? Simply can't happen?
I don't have a crystal ball obviously, but I have a far, far better driving record than Uber automated cars do.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Ok well I'm fine with automated driving so long as it is as reliable as a chainsaw.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
bird strike
The penalty for failure to yield suddenly went way up
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Since the Uber cars have not been at fault in an accident, the best you can hope for is an equally good record unless you can show that the Uber car should have been able to avoid the accident. I don't think there's enough information out there to even guess about that.
I agree that this was not the Uber car's fault (after all, that was the official finding). However, failure to avoid an accident never makes it your fault if it was the other driver that violated the rules of the road.
I said I have a better driving record, not that I get into less accidents. They run red lights frequently and have gone the wrong way down a one way road.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Automated cars just need to become as good as an average human who is paying attention, awake, and sober. That will make them better than 80% of the cars on the road. Good enough for mass use at that point.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If there was no profit, why would companies do this at all? If there is no ROI, then there is no I.
Why? As long as the car knows the limits of the abilities, it's a tier above human drivers. That's Volvo's goal: not to be able to work in every possible condition, but to pull safely off the road when it can't. That's enough to allow the human to stop paying attention.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Automated cars will improve over time. You'll go the other way. The crossover point is only a matter of time.
Also, you're a terrible driver - just suck at it totally. Well, that's a safe assumption, given you're a human who think's he's good at driving.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The problem here is that of course you only hear about that one incident where a human driver could have prevented an accident where the robot failed. You do not hear about the 100 incidents where the robot avoided an accident where the human may have not - which makes sense as nothing happened in the other 100 cases. In the same line, you don't hear about the thousands of flights that perform without a hitch every day, but whenever there is an accident with an airplane you hear about it.You probably hear more about air traffic deaths than road traffic deaths in the news over a year. Yet air traffic is much safer than road traffic per distance traveled, in part due to very well trained human operators and a high degree of automation to assist them with it, almost to the degree where all the human has left to do is telling the plane where to go.
It's not about breaking a few eggs to make an omelette. It's about breaking far less eggs to make the same omelette than we used to do.
No, there is no flaw.
Perhaps you might check the dictionary what a flaw is.
In case of autonomous cars, e.g. you could do it like a human does, drive slower. Surprisingly, that is exactly what an autonomous car is doing.
So, with better visuals, it would drive slightluy faster than it does without. The limit is likely the slippery of the road and not the vision. So, there is not much to improve ... and there is ni flaw.
The flaw are humans that don't slow down in bad weather conditions.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And to some degree, so are SDCs, so why are you arguing a moot point?
Self-driving cars have participated in 0 fatal car accidents so that day is already here.
At one point humans demonstrated that driving would benefit them. SDCs haven't demonstrated anything yet, and they shouldn't be demonstrating it on public roads where they can injure people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
0 fatal accidents in the highly controlled conditions that they drive in. It means nothing.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In fact now that I think about it, it is fairly concerning that they got into such an accident despite their restrictions.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're talking very low risk there. First of all, you can't include situations where the meds are being taken for a diease what would have killed anyway. So yes if SDCs get into an accident 0.000001% of a human that would be fine.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
But those were not the conditions you originally gave.
But you started comparing to *current performance*. So if we are talking current performance you have to take into account the fact that the conditions these cars drive in right now are highly restricted, so it is actually quite bad that they are getting into accidents at all.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Which does nothing to establish whether it is more or less safe than a human driver which is also very bad. Also, none of the other SDCs were the SDCs that had wrecks, so all of them have perfect driving records.
Well I know the Uber SDCs don't have perfect driving records. They were running a lot of red lights in California and remember that there are 2-3 humans in each one. There was recently an article on Slashdot that covered the fact that they have to take over very frequently. Google is probably better but recently one was in a right turn lane which was actually a parking lane. It had to vacate the lane because there was a sand bag on the road and it turned into a bus in the next lane. So I'm not sure where you are going with this whole perfect driving record thing. Do they even take them out when its raining?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The self-driving car was not at fault because the human driver was too self-absorbed thinking that they are all that and a bag o' chips and the rules of the road do not apply to them because they have been lead to believe that they are more important than everyone else in the world.
Don't believe me? Start observing how many people pull a full car-length PAST the stop line painted on the pavement BEFORE they even consider stopping. Lots of them would likely blow right through if they decided that opposing traffic was far enough from them and there wasn't a cop around.
We're not talking about comparing one driver to another. That doesn't matter, the insurance evens it out. We're talking about proving a new technology that may or may not be safe enough to be used on public roads right now.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The problem with acetaminophen is that the toxic dose is surprisingly close to the therapeutic dose -- much closer than other over the counter analgesics like aspirin or ibuprofen. This property is in fact leveraged in some prescription painkillers to discourage abuse - the opioid will be doped with a stupid amount of acetaminophen, way more than is necessary for pain relief, so that it will poison you before it gets you high. The problem is that someone doesn't know that and is taking a Vicodin for back pain may then take some NyQuil for an unrelated cold and wind up in the hospital with liver failure.
You apparently don't know how many people die from taking the medication the correct way. Which was the point in the GPs post, that you seem to not have understood.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
But taking a drug and not knowing what the active ingredients are is an example of negligence. You should always know exactly what you are taking. If you combine vicodin and nyquil and overdose, you are not going by the documented use of acetaminophen.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.