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!
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.
Now try to remember this whenever you hear a politician try to blow smoke up your a$$.
Rewatch Milton Friedman videos and see why gov't promises of utopia end up poorly. See Venezuela as one of the latest examples.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
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.
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.
Pretty much.
I had an Uber driver leave as I was reaching for the door handle. The time limit for idling-for-customer had been exceeded. OK, true, but my GF was talking to him for the prior three minutes. And the ride we wanted to take was a lo-o-o-ong one. He figured that he would just collect his $10 'no-show' fee, and find another ride in a minute or two. I requested a Lyft, and that person got the long fare. RE the 'no-show' fee: I sorted it all out via email w/Uber, and the driver did not receive the $10 in free money.
Another time, I was in a Lyft. The driver and I were talking about how Uber doesn't do sufficient background checks, and will basically take anyone on as a driver. I noticed a car driving erratically nearby, noted it, and my Lyft driver wisely passed him to get away. Within 100 feet, at a standard-traffic-flow stop-light, the Uber driver rear-ended my Lyft-driver's car. Yes, literally! No injuries, so we went on our way, but what a serendipitous demonstration of how bad Uber drivers can be – just when the topic comes up...
Also, their CEO is a combative dickhead.
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
I'll start taking AI seriously if/when I encounter an automated phone answering system that functions half as well as a high-school dropout receptionist nursing a hangover.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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.
/facepalm
You do not 'wisely' pass erratic drivers to get away from them. You stay behind them.
See your story as an example of why you should not do this.
Many accidents are avoidable. Even tho the Lyft driver was not at fault, the Lyft driver could have avoided the accident entirely.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
With a company like Uber, that's not enough. You need to have money put in escrow.
Uber will likely stiff you on the contract as well.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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