Slashdot Mirror
Pittsburgh Is Falling Out of Love With Uber's Self-Driving Cars (engadget.com)
A worn-out welcome: The city rolled out the red carpet as a host to Uber's driverless car experiments, but nine months later its mayor and residents have built up a list of grievances with the public-private partnership. From a report: While our experience in one of the autonomous vehicles was thankfully pretty safe, it wasn't long before reports of accidents and wrong-way driving began to surface during the first month of the operation. Nine months later, the relationship continues to sour, according to a report in the New York Times. The things Uber promised in return for the city's support -- including free rides in driverless cars, backing the city's $50 million federal transportation grant and jobs for a neighborhood nearby Uber's testing track -- have not materialized. The situation was an issue during the mayoral primary, too, with critics calling out incumbent Bill Peduto for not getting these agreements in writing from the ride-sharing company.
A company who seems to actively seek out litigation, who's demonstrably not a team player, is not following through on their verbal commitments?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Driving my car is one of the only things I enjoy in life. Please don't take that away. My job is a nightmare, my wife is a witch and my kinds don't give me a second's peace. Literally the only time of the day I can get some peace and quiet is commuting to and from work.
Of course a self-driving car might allow for bringing masturbation time into the mix, so maybe I spoke a little too soon here.
In the relationship between Uber and all of the other entities working on self-driving technology, I'm sort of reminded of the fictional work The Cryoptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. In the 1990s part of the story Goto Dengo represents the bulk of the entities trying to develop self-driving cars on their own, while Mr. Wing's part is played by Uber, trying to take without knowing/developing on one's own.
Now, obviously the backstory is entirely different, so the analogy entirely breaks-down if one looks at how the two entities started. That early relationship is more like Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan with Uber playing the role of Harding.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I complained after an Uber driver made me late through his bad driving. Uber apologised that he failed to follow the optimal route offered by his GPS. They didn't seem to want to acknowledge my point that he went further than failing to follow his GPS, but went against three no entry signs and drive the wrong way up a single lane one way road.
How exactly does the free market decide that they don't want something that isn't available yet?
Actually, I'll answer that for you. By boycotting companies who are developing said thing, like happened with "smart" guns.
Now, I haven't seen any campaigns to boycott companies who are developing self-driving cars, because they are developing self-driving cars. So if you are going to claim that "the market has spoken", you're gonna have to show that these boycotts do exist. Or provide some other way for the market to speak on a thing that does not exist.
I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank and Chris Sacca got into it with Mark Cuban with some anti-Capitalist garbage about how it was government services and not businesses that really provide for people. What an altruist, right? Later in the episode, he let it slip that as soon as the technology allows, Uber's going to dump all their drivers for the automatons. Chris Sacca thinks he's got street creed as an anti-Capitalist, but he's nothing more than a straight, garden variety one-percenter asshole.
Whether people want them or not, at present (and for the forseeable future) fully autonomous vehicles are a fantasy. They can't deliver what doesn't exist. Conversely, Silicon Valley companies really need to stop pitching their imaginings as though they are accomplishments that have already been realized (i.e. Pitching vapor as inevitable). None of it moves anything forward, 'disruption' is a stupid phrase and an even worse guiding principle. Progress would be much more appropos, and is actually achievable.
We won't have self-driving/autonomous cars any time soon. The same applies to "AI". It is all smoke and mirrors, and we can do the easy stuff quickly, but the remaining 10% to get it to actually work will take much longer (or not possible at all).
The article is on newyorktimes why do we get routed through engadget?
We need more tiny violins! Stat!
Peduto is an all around putz who's trying to draw attention away from how lame a mayor he is into other arenas.
And in (slightly) Uber's defense, Pittsburgh is a hard city to nail a route through correctly even with GPS. There's areas where the GPS definition seems to have a hard time understanding where you are and where you should be. Getting Pittsburgh right would have been a feather in Uber's cap but it's a bad location for touching their toe to the water.
It is not so much of a falling out as someone else is paying the right people ... this gem from the article itself ..
... try to kick uber out instructions ;)
"Ford has reportedly invested $1 billion in a Pittsburgh-based self-driving car startup, which could meet more of the city's need for written agreements and data sharing"
I wonder if that came with
Your comment would carry a bit more "oomph" if fully autonomous cars had already hit the market and flopped, but they clearly haven't. Instead, what we have so far are half-implementations and "advanced cruise control", all of which have been headline features driving sales for the handful of cars that have them.
On the plus side, you're continuing the tradition of trolls who have denied the marketability of everything from PCs to the Internet to smartphones in the years immediately prior to their breakout success, despite the writing being on the wall to anyone paying attention.
Uber is turning into a very expensive joke. They can't even afford their business model. Google and Apple can afford to spend a few billion to build their own fucking towns, make people opt-in by moving there, and not have human driven cars at all. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't done this already. The problems with these auto-driven cars all seem to now be related to integrating with the existing traffic; the driving around part seems to be a done deal.
DOT will need to set standards for
* Map data formats
* smart traffic light systems
* road markings
* parking lot markings
* define who is liable
* rules to say that all logs / source codes must be given up in a court case or the manufacturer is 100% liable.
Rules for the systems.
* Minimum Free update times for software / maps at least 5-8+ years and by free that means with bigger hdd's / new cpus are needed then they must be installed free of change.
* free data (entertainment does not need to be part of this) with fringe roaming covered.
* no forced dealer service and no locking of 3rd party lights / batterys / oil changes / etc.
My concern is that they will be pushed on people by profit hungry companies before they really become viable. There will be a subset of people that wants to do self driving at any cost and simply won't care if they are inconveniencing others. This is why self driving car companies need to be penalized for breaking the rules of the road as a deterrent to selling these things until they are absolutely sure they are ready.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What? What difference does it make to get the agreements in writing? They will quibble, file law suits, they will demand to reopen and renegotiate. Anything singed by a city elected official holding a two year term is carved in stone, and they will go to hell and back to wrench every ounce of that written contract. Contracts written and signed by private parties with the government will be litigated, reneged, and reopened all the time. And when all else fails, they transfer all the assets to another corporation and declare bankruptcy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The situation was an issue during the mayoral primary, too, with critics calling out incumbent Bill Peduto for not getting these agreements in writing from the ride-sharing company.
There's an old saying: With a written agreement you have a prayer; with an oral agreement you have nothing but air.
If they are causing accidents then they are not ready to be tested on public roads, period. So they have flopped.
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 a lawyer, but if you're a city you should get these businesses to sign contracts that agree to terms. If in the end they refuse to fulfill the terms of the agreement, then suing for damages or settlement are in order.
If businesses want to make promises but not put them in a contract form, then you should ignore those statements as a lot of hot air and should not include them in your evaluation.
However, one high-profile pastor near Uber's test track said that he'd given Uber a list of potential candidates for jobs at the site, but was told to send them through the regular job portal.
I doubt there was anything in writing that stated they have to hire a certain number of local people, or provide them with some special path into the interview process. Uber would only have to point out that operating in that region is bound to lead to hiring qualified people in that region. Again we see failure from politicians who simply aren't as shrew as those working in the private sector.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Map makers want to have exclusivity on maps (copyright), so they'll continue to put weird data into the maps.
What we actually need is federally funded programs to make accurate maps, and use DOT registration and testing fees to help pay for it. Because ultimately it's the car industry that benefits from proper maps, and the public who benefits from cars that do not drive the wrong way down the street.
(yeah, I know this will make heads explode in the libertarian groupthink)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Better remove all those human drivers then because currently they're responsible for almost every accident.
A) Most humans would fail to meet the bar you just set.
B) Nothing you said relates to the topic I was addressing (whether the market has declared the tech a flop).
C) You're conflating the repeated failures of one particular company for the failures of the industry as a whole.
What I keep hearing from these examples involving Uber is that Uber should not be testing self-driving cars, since they are demonstrating a history of ignoring warning signs and causing dangerous situations, first in California (e.g. the red light running that got them kicked out of the state) and now in Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, Google, Tesla, and a host of other companies have been demonstrating automated driving records that already far exceed the safety expectations of human drivers, though they're being careful with the tests and the conditions under which they conduct them.
Back on point: the full-fledged technology isn't yet ready for the market, which is why it isn't yet on the market, which is why it's plain silly to suggest that it's already flopped in the market, particularly so given the obvious demand for it, should it ever arrive.
So when will humans be allowed to drive?
Nope. That is like saying your automatic machine gun robot is perfectly safe, it's those pesky humans getting in the way that are the problem.
For those who commute daily. Self Driving Cars is something that would be helpful, once safety concerns are managed. While I think that most jobs can be done from home, however businesses don't seem to trust their employees. The self driving Car and add an hour of me time to my life, where I can read a book, watch a show, or just rest my eyes.
Vs. having to drive with the sun glaring in your eyes, having to pay attention to things trying to kill you every second.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's a damn scam! Is there anything this company does that is actually legal and legit? It wouldnt surprise me if the wrecks weren't into Lyft vehicles and deliberate.
Corporatism != Free Market
though they're being careful with the tests and the conditions under which they conduct them
Sure.. and even though they are testing in very controlled conditions, their drivers still need to take control frequently. All I am saying is, where is the government oversight to ensure to the public that we know where and how these are being tested? Why have companies not been forced to at least build a simulated town to test these in? If Google cars are not getting in accidents then fine, but they are still not being completely forthright about how safe they are. This is something that requires transparency.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Sticking just to long-term map data (because markings and temporary changes are going to be a ton of trouble on their own), they can just copy the model that the FAA uses for navigation data. Certify a number of map data suppliers and require the end users to have a certified data path to load the appropriate data from one of those suppliers at least every 28 days. Forget the freebies, you're never going to get that mandated (just look at what it's taking just to get "right to repair" bills considered). If the map data is out of date (more than 28 days old), the system is required to notify the operator. If the certified data chain is broken, the vehicle is no longer authorized for use on public roadways once the last certified set of data expires. At that point, it's the same case as expired registration, inspection, or insurance (where required). You may be able to require that any temporary changes for the intended area of operation be loaded on startup, but that could be on a separate data path, possibly in the form of a physical key that gets loaded immediately before use (I guess you could do wireless, but physical keys will be cool and retro by then). Whatever the implementation, you have at least three levels of map data once real-time sensor data is incorporated. All three will have different requirements.
You've come up with some ideas that are an aside from legitimate concerns for the self-driving aspect of the car.
Why should a road-proven autonomous system require new computing hardware? Why bigger hard drives?
Why free data? The car should be able to drive without a data connection. This is more in case of service loss outside of the boundaries of the car than anything else. It would be full-on stupid to suggest that Ford should be able to vouch for AT&T. And with this is another reason why no car should be 100% reliant on autopilot systems alone for a long time in coming. I'm not saying never but today certainly isn't the day.
If a dealer can hold you to OEM parts today then the idea that a car is self driving shouldn't have any weight on the matter.
Some people actually have to make physical items for their employment. Good luck on using that 20 ton drop forge press at your house or operating a major chemical processing plant. Or maintaining the infrastructure that "working from home" relies on.
Typical nerd who doesn't get that the shit gets done in the world by people getting up off their asses and actually DOING something beyond pressing keys on a keyboard.
To be fair to Uber, they did pick one of the worst case scenario cities to be testing their cars in.
If you ever driven through Pittsburgh it's a literal mouse maze of exits and one way streets coupled with narrow windy roads and traffic patterns that would make anyone short of a Pittsburgh native insane.
The fact that they aren't wrecking the cars daily is an achievement in itself.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
"Libertarian groupthink"? - I am not part of any group. What *I* think is that it is completely unnecessary, is a waste of money and as such is another power grab. Government is not needed to map areas and roads, this is done privately every day by phones, GPS navigators installed in vehicles, will be done with drones, with other personal devices. But as I said I am not part of any group, sure thing you will get your oppressive desire granted, governments do not need encouragement where it comes to such power grabs.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Why should a road-proven autonomous system require new computing hardware? Why bigger hard drives?
as you don't want the car manufacturers to say after 2-3 years your car is too old buy a new car or buy an $5000 computer update + labor at the dealer ship.
free data is need so that ford can't say you must use ATT data to be to use this car.
You don't want lack of map updates to lead to a crash with lot's of finger pointing on who is at fault.
LOL
But seriously, you don't find it troubling that we depend on maps containing work arounds that are done in order to copyright maps by inserting fictional data. This is done because maps of reality are facts and not creative works, but the maps you are using in your phone, GPS, etc are not strictly a map of reality but a fictions place created for the sake of copyright enforcement.
There are lots of ways to fix this. Industry leaders could combine their resources to make public maps and use trademark law to enforce the advertisement of those maps. That's not a terribly strong defense for a business's interests, but it is possible to pull off. Another option is to continue using government resources to create public domain maps of reality, but like I said this is unpopular with the libertarian groupthink. But they aren't really in charge of much and aren't likely to get into power, so we don't have to take libertarian concerns too seriously.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Nope. That is like saying your automatic machine gun robot is perfectly safe, it's those pesky humans getting in the way that are the problem.
Nope, completely bad analogy.
1) Automatic gun robots are designed to harm humanses
2) Self-driving cars really would work a lot better if there were no human-controlled vehicles on the road.
They could communicate with each other and with traffic control devices, and accidents would be greatly reduced.
"How exactly does the free market decide that they don't want something that isn't available yet?"
The free-market doesn't decide, it's a hyperbolic and ideologically motivated expression used to refer to commercial exchanges.
though they're being careful with the tests and the conditions under which they conduct them
Sure.. and even though they are testing in very controlled conditions, their drivers still need to take control frequently. All I am saying is, where is the government oversight to ensure to the public that we know where and how these are being tested? Why have companies not been forced to at least build a simulated town to test these in? If Google cars are not getting in accidents then fine, but they are still not being completely forthright about how safe they are. This is something that requires transparency.
Government Oversight ...?
Transparency..?
Safety??
Comrade, THE MARKET is all we need, not onerous government regulations and safety standards.
When I was growing up, a parent's arm across your chest was the only protection from accidents you needed when riding in a car.
as you don't want the car manufacturers to say after 2-3 years your car is too old buy a new car or buy an $5000 computer update + labor at the dealer ship.
Actually, it will probably be the government saying this in the form of new regulations. So you want the government to force manufacturers to pay to keep their products in compliance with whatever regulations are passed in the future? I'm sure that will go over well...
free data is need so that ford can't say you must use ATT data to be to use this car.
You're specifying an implementation by requiring free data. More specifically, you're assuming an implementation and basing a requirement on that. Don't do that. Figure out why you might want free data and base the requirement on that. That's how it works in the real world. And remember, constant cellular data connectivity is an unrealistic assumption in the first place.
You don't want lack of map updates to lead to a crash with lot's of finger pointing on who is at fault.
The algorithm developer is at fault if the map data was not properly interpreted. The operator is at fault if the map data is not in compliance with the relevant regulations. The map data provider is at fault if the map data was not accurate. The entity in charge of the roadway is at fault if the map data providers were not notified of a change to the roadway in accordance with applicable laws. This is not hard to figure out. You define all of the roles and responsibilities up front and specify levels of accuracy, integrity, and reliability.
State or govt regulation? Blasphemy. But but but free market forces and all that jazz. /s
xD
even though they are testing in very controlled conditions, their drivers still need to take control frequently.
You've got your statement backwards: the reason they take control frequently is because they are only testing in controlled conditions.
The world isn't uniformly filled with controlled conditions, so they take control anytime they enter conditions the system isn't yet designed or authorized to operate in (e.g. inclement weather, construction zone, power outage, unmapped shortcut, etc.). Each time they do, the current regulations in California dictate that it counts towards the same statistic that measures the number of times they take control to avoid an accident, even though the latter is vastly different and little more than a rounding error compared to the former. And that's where this reporting about them needing to "take control frequently" is coming from.
Most of these cars (Uber excepted) are already to the point where it's exceedingly uncommon for them to take control to avoid an accident, which is why the companies have been lobbying California to allow them to break the numbers apart (while still reporting both) so that they can provide the public with better granularity and a clearer understanding of their safety record. It's likely California will allow them to do so, since it's clearly in the best interests of the public.
In the meantime, however, naysayers have cited the inflated number without context in order to imply there's a problem, when that really isn't the case at all.
Oh, and regarding regulation, self-driving cars can't operate in states unless they're licensed, meaning that states are more or less opt-in for self-driving cars. In the states that have opted-in, such as California, they mostly do exercise an appropriate level of government oversight. For instance, California kicked Uber's self-driving cars out of the state for operating without a license, require that self-driving cars pass certain safety thresholds (including simulations) before being allowed on the road, and mandate that the companies involved publicly disclose various statistics regarding the safety of their vehicles.
If your state allows self-driving cars but isn't doing that, it's inevitable that some bad actors (e.g. Uber) will abuse that situation to their advantage, but they aren't indicative of the industry as a whole. The appropriate fix is to take the issue up with your state.
Again, however, all of this is separate from the topic of whether or not the market has decided against self-driving cars, which it clearly hasn't.
Most jobs can be done from home? What planet do you live on? Go outside and look at the real world. Go to other cities and states. Travel a bit. LEARN something.
Wait, does anybody actually believe that in cars that charge by distance this was anything but a randomized-chance based algorithm meant to maximize profits by "accidentally the long way" in a certain number of clients and/or routes?
There's already a federally funded database for such data, TIGER.
https://www.census.gov/geo/map...
Early versions of Google Maps (after leaving NavTEQ and TeleAtlas), used the TIGER database and had weird problems where their own office (Irvine, CA) address was actually showed it being on the wrong block. TIGER address is what suppose to be not what it's actually is once the local government gets done with an area. A better funded TIGER would go greatly into pushing innovation in this space. GIS data is being silo into competing camps: NavTEQ (German automakers), TeleAtlas (TomTom), Google, and Apple.
Waiting until someone realizes they don't have to be a suicide bomber to still deliver a car full of explosives some where. Then we see how bad Uber or any of the others wish to push self driving cars.
Gee, I didn't know Musk had been launching rockets that long.
Here's a hint, junior[1], if you are going to make a case for the superiority of private industry, don't mention examples that rely heavily on government-created infrastructure. It kind of undercuts your point.
[1] Anyone who is so aggressively dumbass libertarian as you is either a teen who just read Atlas Shrugged, or stuck in the mental age of one.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
The free market has decided that it doesn't want self-driving cars.
"I don't like the idea of self-driving cars and I need to exaggerate and lie to make a point"
Do something useful for a change, like developing better ways to stop worms and ransomware.
"Hey, all you guys working on self-driving cars. Yeah, radar guy, mapping guy, all of you. You're anti-malware software peeps now. Tough shit. Shut the fuck up."
One question: are you 12?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Whether people want them or not, at present (and for the forseeable future) fully autonomous vehicles are a fantasy.
What about fax machines? Do you believe in them? Any other already-existing technology you prefer to deny the existence of? I used a toaster this morning, so you really can't have that.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Here is a hint for you, use whatever is available at the time.
GPS is available so use it, whether or not GPS is available without government intervention. Without government destroying lives and wealth on wars (wars being large part of the reason for GPS deployment) the private industry would just as well provide GPS or similar solutions at the pace of private industry untouched by government caused conflicts and destruction.
By the way positioning systems can be built without space based GPS altogether, junior.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Driving my car is one of the only things I enjoy in life. Please don't take that away. My job is a nightmare, my wife is a witch and my kinds don't give me a second's peace. Literally the only time of the day I can get some peace and quiet is commuting to and from work. Of course a self-driving car might allow for bringing masturbation time into the mix, so maybe I spoke a little too soon here.
Kind of sounds like you need to make some changes in your life...
A) That's clearly not the case - there are ~160 million drivers in the US, and ~6 million crashes. Even assuming each of those accidents was caused by two people, and that no one had more than one accident, you're looking at less than 10% of drivers causing crashes. That is not by any stretch of the imagination "most humans".
And if the moon were made of green cheese...
Like I said, go back to your basement and ask Mum for a biscuit. There's a good boy.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
That's per year. The average driver goes about fifteen years between crashes, so most of us will be involved in an accident at some point.