They can press forward all they want, just not on public roads until they can demonstrate the cars don't suffer from night darkness or any other kind of flaw that makes them worse than a human.
So all Waymo needs to do is drive up and down an open highway in daylight with no intersections for a million miles and they'll get a golden pass to drive anywhere one day? That's not right. Eventually they'll have to demonstrate they can deal with anything a random environment can throw at them.
Clearly you have not read anything else other than the article from the day it happened. There are so many things we now know about the incident that so directly go against what you are saying I'm not even going to go into them.
You're defending the comparison that allowed these Uber cars on the road? Who is regulating what environments these cars are tested in once they are on the road?
Yet we don't really know for sure if anyone else is better than Uber, just that the flaw isn't showing up in testing. Whether that testing is designed to expose that flaw if it exists, we don't know.
Back to the fact that Uber doesn't legally get to kill people just because they are stupid. Just when I think the conversation is rising above, someone brings it back down; usually Anonymous Coward.
For the US, globalization allows all the low salaries and wages to creep through without none of the low prices. A worker has to compete with a $2 third world worker but they don't get a car for $2500 US like in third world countries. There's one problem.
Furthermore, what is not known is how much of these 40% is due to the automation and how much of it is due to the fact that people realized their $80K vehicle was not as capable as advertised and might drive under a trailer or into the side of a firetruck. I would be more alert too if my car could do that.
Considering the number of Tesla S's out there versus other vehicles, that's not going to trigger a significant drop in overall fatalities. It makes me wonder if anyone has tried this Phoenix/Uber scenerio with Autopilot.
Vehicle accidents kill 32,000 a year. There are 222 million drivers. Making a conservative assumption that 90% of the deaths are licensed drivers, you have a 0.013% chance of dying in a car accident. Those are pretty good odds, and a long way to go for self driving to make a dent in that. Drivers that remain alert, look ahead and use good practices such as slowing down to appropriate speeds for conditions decrease their odds even more.
Putting that into perspective, the CDC estimates that there are 45,000 deaths a year from *second hand* exposure to cigarette smoke. Maybe that is something we should tackle first, and then come back to self driving when the technology is fully baked.
Since the data will be in Uber's hands before it will be in the hands of the authorities, I'm not at all confident that the real story will ever come out. They will fabricate it the way that gets them off the easiest.
Slashdot Mirror
They can press forward all they want, just not on public roads until they can demonstrate the cars don't suffer from night darkness or any other kind of flaw that makes them worse than a human.
"Roommate must be blond, at least a B-cup and hot". Facebook please help me.
So all Waymo needs to do is drive up and down an open highway in daylight with no intersections for a million miles and they'll get a golden pass to drive anywhere one day? That's not right. Eventually they'll have to demonstrate they can deal with anything a random environment can throw at them.
Clearly you have not read anything else other than the article from the day it happened. There are so many things we now know about the incident that so directly go against what you are saying I'm not even going to go into them.
There are crazy speed limit changes in every city. Just one more thing self-driving cars will have to cope with.
You're defending the comparison that allowed these Uber cars on the road? Who is regulating what environments these cars are tested in once they are on the road?
It depends whether the family is able to sue for more than $100 million in damages, doesn't it? Hard to put a price on what a life is worth.
In the Uber video, I thought it was a lonely desert road. In the 'real' video, OH! There's an entire city there!
Yet we don't really know for sure if anyone else is better than Uber, just that the flaw isn't showing up in testing. Whether that testing is designed to expose that flaw if it exists, we don't know.
Back to the fact that Uber doesn't legally get to kill people just because they are stupid. Just when I think the conversation is rising above, someone brings it back down; usually Anonymous Coward.
For the US, globalization allows all the low salaries and wages to creep through without none of the low prices. A worker has to compete with a $2 third world worker but they don't get a car for $2500 US like in third world countries. There's one problem.
..unless AI can read the future.
Furthermore, what is not known is how much of these 40% is due to the automation and how much of it is due to the fact that people realized their $80K vehicle was not as capable as advertised and might drive under a trailer or into the side of a firetruck. I would be more alert too if my car could do that.
Considering the number of Tesla S's out there versus other vehicles, that's not going to trigger a significant drop in overall fatalities. It makes me wonder if anyone has tried this Phoenix/Uber scenerio with Autopilot.
Sure, anyone who has a solution that doesn't *itself kill people* then they should contribute.
If his cars are safe, he could give people the right idea by releasing all the data he has. Why keep it secret if you have nothing to hide?
The sensors are designed to be capable enough and throw errors if they malfunction
You're still using that line even after sensors have clearly failed and the driver was none the wiser.
There are plenty of testing facilities.
How about we tackle both things at once? What are we, Windows 3.1?
Because we have solutions to second hand smoke deaths that don't themselves kill people. We don't have that yet with self driving.
Correction: 41,000 per year die from second hand smoke exposure.
Vehicle accidents kill 32,000 a year. There are 222 million drivers. Making a conservative assumption that 90% of the deaths are licensed drivers, you have a 0.013% chance of dying in a car accident. Those are pretty good odds, and a long way to go for self driving to make a dent in that. Drivers that remain alert, look ahead and use good practices such as slowing down to appropriate speeds for conditions decrease their odds even more.
Putting that into perspective, the CDC estimates that there are 45,000 deaths a year from *second hand* exposure to cigarette smoke. Maybe that is something we should tackle first, and then come back to self driving when the technology is fully baked.
Mod this post up!!! - FIFY
It doesn't mean cars shouldn't have to do everything technically possible to minimize injuries and fatalities.
I don't typically run linux on systems with GPU acceleration.
Since the data will be in Uber's hands before it will be in the hands of the authorities, I'm not at all confident that the real story will ever come out. They will fabricate it the way that gets them off the easiest.