They only look corrupt because the regulations allow them to operate that way out of the shadows. Take away the regulations and you get companies like Uber. The positives are well worth the negatives in this case.
Sorry, I don't see replacement of the worst drivers as being a serious issue.
You just didn't read anything I wrote.
1) You won't get a replacement of the worst drivers because most of them won't be able to afford automation.
2) You will be creating accidents for the best drivers that they otherwise would not have had.
I can't see what part of your post indicates why it is OK that we cause accidents for the best drivers, OR what we do to get all drunks into cars that are luxury brand vehicles.
We have all kinds of automation now, and it is only in luxury cars because automakers use it to sell luxury cars. Automatic headlights, windshield wipers, etc. These have been around for 10 years or more, no filtering down to economy cars.. it's like the myth of the trickle down economy. Automated cars will be expensive, and unless the government helps people buy them, they won't have them.
We're never going to get to that day. Automation is never getting into economy cars. Maybe if the government invests in automated driving and subsidizes it, but not otherwise. I'm real tired of people using it as an excuse. We don't even test cures for diseases on humans before they are proven safe and those will definitely save lives. This is a first world fancy in the short to medium term, nothing else. Heck, get everyone to eat healthy and work out, that alone would save more lives then automated cars.
I don't want people on the road with me to have such a vehicle. It's not natural for people to pay attention to something they are not interacting with.
All I'm saying is, if Autopilot isn't as good as the best driver then some drivers will be put into accidents that they otherwise wouldn't have been. I don't agree that it should cause extra accidents for the best drivers, while 'protecting' the worst.
But if these very brief spans of inattention aren't getting you into accidents, why would you take a chance on Autopilot? At least you have control to slow down if you find you are being distracted, but with Autopilot you're just going to get in an accident and there is nothing you can do about it.
So you would rather Autopilot average them all off. At best, we will be saving the drunks at the cost of some good drivers. This, even if we ever reach full adoption for drunks which we never will.
There are very few accidents happening on clear highway where Autopilot actually operates. If there is an accident it is usually due to someone passing in the oncoming lane at the wrong time which, obviously no one is using Autopilot for.
That's interesting. So a system that takes the most potentially dangerous aspects out of driving needs to be coddled out to a clear highway with good lane markings before it will even activate, and requires you to always be prepared should shut off at the hint of something confusing. Yeah, that's some marketing twisting of words right there.
You can't convince me that Autopilot is simply better than every other human out there; we have now seen it make some dumb mistakes. While there is a chance that someone who is better then Autopilot could get into an accident with Autopilot, then Autopilot is creating an accident for that person. Therefore, Autopilot needs to be better then all humans before it can be said to be totally safe. If not totally safe, then it shouldn't be on the road.
Legalities of right of way don't matter in this discussion. The only way Autopilot didn't cause this accident is if the human driving manually would have gotten into the same accident.
Unless you're the type of person who would throw a full bottle of pills or a razor blade into a suicide watch ward, there is a line you understand not to cross. We're all idiots in some way, you can't just release a product and claim that you didn't know what would happen.
They should be able to use it, but if they are so confident in it they accept liability for all damages caused including for vehicular manslaughter if it kills someone.
So you would give someone who is suicidal the noose to hang himself with? You go around taking recovered alcoholics to bars? You're not responsible for any of these things right?
Slashdot Mirror
EVERY comment I have heard that lists the state of taxis makes some comment about the nationality of the driver. Every single one.
Arsonists are good for builders and terrible for homeowners. Should we stop prosecuting them?
They only look corrupt because the regulations allow them to operate that way out of the shadows. Take away the regulations and you get companies like Uber. The positives are well worth the negatives in this case.
Sorry, I don't see replacement of the worst drivers as being a serious issue.
You just didn't read anything I wrote.
1) You won't get a replacement of the worst drivers because most of them won't be able to afford automation.
2) You will be creating accidents for the best drivers that they otherwise would not have had.
I can't see what part of your post indicates why it is OK that we cause accidents for the best drivers, OR what we do to get all drunks into cars that are luxury brand vehicles.
We have all kinds of automation now, and it is only in luxury cars because automakers use it to sell luxury cars. Automatic headlights, windshield wipers, etc. These have been around for 10 years or more, no filtering down to economy cars.. it's like the myth of the trickle down economy. Automated cars will be expensive, and unless the government helps people buy them, they won't have them.
We're never going to get to that day. Automation is never getting into economy cars. Maybe if the government invests in automated driving and subsidizes it, but not otherwise. I'm real tired of people using it as an excuse. We don't even test cures for diseases on humans before they are proven safe and those will definitely save lives. This is a first world fancy in the short to medium term, nothing else. Heck, get everyone to eat healthy and work out, that alone would save more lives then automated cars.
I don't want people on the road with me to have such a vehicle. It's not natural for people to pay attention to something they are not interacting with.
It was turned off 0.001 seconds ago, which we all know is an eternity in computing speed.
All I'm saying is, if Autopilot isn't as good as the best driver then some drivers will be put into accidents that they otherwise wouldn't have been. I don't agree that it should cause extra accidents for the best drivers, while 'protecting' the worst.
It is probably more accurate to say TECHNOLOGY hinders anti-piracy efforts.
But if these very brief spans of inattention aren't getting you into accidents, why would you take a chance on Autopilot? At least you have control to slow down if you find you are being distracted, but with Autopilot you're just going to get in an accident and there is nothing you can do about it.
So you would rather Autopilot average them all off. At best, we will be saving the drunks at the cost of some good drivers. This, even if we ever reach full adoption for drunks which we never will.
I have to follow an artificially set speed limit everywhere I go because a lot of people can't be responsible about what speed they drive.
There are very few accidents happening on clear highway where Autopilot actually operates. If there is an accident it is usually due to someone passing in the oncoming lane at the wrong time which, obviously no one is using Autopilot for.
That's interesting. So a system that takes the most potentially dangerous aspects out of driving needs to be coddled out to a clear highway with good lane markings before it will even activate, and requires you to always be prepared should shut off at the hint of something confusing. Yeah, that's some marketing twisting of words right there.
You can't convince me that Autopilot is simply better than every other human out there; we have now seen it make some dumb mistakes. While there is a chance that someone who is better then Autopilot could get into an accident with Autopilot, then Autopilot is creating an accident for that person. Therefore, Autopilot needs to be better then all humans before it can be said to be totally safe. If not totally safe, then it shouldn't be on the road.
Does having the manual in the car when it is purchased lead to a legal proof that the manual has been read? Shouldn't they have had to sign the page?
The key word here is *recalled*. A product is causing injuries and deaths, so people are prevented from using it.
Legalities of right of way don't matter in this discussion. The only way Autopilot didn't cause this accident is if the human driving manually would have gotten into the same accident.
And they haven't publicized that! Makes you go hmmmm...
Unless you're the type of person who would throw a full bottle of pills or a razor blade into a suicide watch ward, there is a line you understand not to cross. We're all idiots in some way, you can't just release a product and claim that you didn't know what would happen.
They should be able to use it, but if they are so confident in it they accept liability for all damages caused including for vehicular manslaughter if it kills someone.
"CruzeMeCruzeYouNOW"
You shouldn't be tired behind the wheel. If you weren't tired, you shouldn't be driving if you can't pay attention. Most people out there can.
So you would give someone who is suicidal the noose to hang himself with? You go around taking recovered alcoholics to bars? You're not responsible for any of these things right?