Exactly, humans drive to prevent accidents, period. Autonomous cars cannot drive merely to prevent liability. It won't work. Human drivers are part of a social system where everyone is watching out and compensating for mistakes. Autonomous cars need to be a part of this system, which means they need to anticipate human mistakes.
Correct, it's bullshit to expect humans to suddenly be able to deal with a vehicle that slams on its brakes all the time. I don't care what the law is.
Humans have been driving for a long time, and have formed a system. Everyone checks everyone else, and has learned to anticipate the mistakes that other humans might make. Throw a robot into that system and it doesn't work. These robots drive nothing like humans, so every single human around him needs to re-learn how they drive. Most people hitting a robot car probably never even came into contact with them before.
Don't blame humans for not understanding a totally foreign introduction in a system that was working fine.
Because robot cars are unpredictable. A 16 year old just driving away with a new license is more predictable than they are. Humans are not accustomed to driving with robots.
Apologies, I got the math wrong; not sure what I was remembering. Here it is:
16 million reported accidents a year + 30% unreported = 20.8 million accidents a year
3.22 trillion miles driven in the US per year / 20.8 million accidents = 154.8K miles of safe driving per accident.
The study I found did an anonymous poll of drivers and found that 30% of accidents are unreported. There were 16 million reported accidents in the USA, which makes unreported accidents close to 20.8.
I disagree that they are 'just as unpredictable'. Humans drive completely differently than robots. Humans have some sense of the common mistakes that other humans make and can therefore anticipate them. Robots mistakes by comparison are essentially random.
I mean, people complain about being buttfucked by the American government and corporations all the time.... Then when it's time to put you foot down and demand something better, you do nothing. Well then enjoy your butt-fucking.
I'm not talking about women necessarily. Some people have an instinct to be parents, and unless you want to be running around after little ones at 65 there is a time limit on that. You are the one who should be careful.
Interesting that they could get.a patent for this. So all other automated cars for ever more will have an excuse not to signal, because Tesla owns the patent?
No, it won't. People following too close and/or not paying adequate attention will do that.
You have anticipated that people may collide by following too close, so Waymo isn't expected to? Do they want someone to rear end them?
No, it isn't. That is the responsibility of the person behind you.
Nope, as a driver you are responsible to know everything going on around you, otherwise we wouldn't need rear view mirrors.
I don't think fear is the wrong word. People should fear that the jackholes around them will hit them
Fine, all the reason for Waymo to eliminate every risk.
No, your case is that Waymo should do way better than human drivers, and it's a dumb one.
You think human drivers never look in their rear view mirror? They are supposed to. Every defensive driving course teaches that. It's a fairly low bar for safe driving. I realize that bad drivers don't, but Waymo shouldn't be modelling their driving after the worst humans.
It isn't, because they only have to take exactly the same precautions they have to take with human drivers.
Incorrect. Robots drive very differently than human drivers. 10 years of driving experience with human drivers is now insufficient. Otherwise this wouldn't have been an article in the first place.
What? Of course it is. It's a disruption of routine. So is simply shifting to a new software package.
When I said disruption I meant 'unplanned problem'. I suppose having to install the application and paying for the application could be considered a disruption as well but those can all be planned for, so not a disruption in the sense of getting into an accident.
No additional training is required. Drivers are already expected to drive defensively.
Driving defensively does not encompass any unpredictable thing a robot car might do. In this article, the woman was driving defensively and stopped in time, yet it is still a huge issue because the cars are acting unpredictably and that is stressful to drivers. Just because the person behind is maintaining correct space, it doesn't mean Waymo is justified in being unpredictable.
You could say you won't ever brake for people who stop unexpectedly, because what is crucial is that people drive with care for others.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. I am talking about preventing accidents whether I am legally responsible for them or not in the interest of keeping everyone on the road safe. You are talking about running into people purposely.
Many people here seem to think they don't have to be any better people than the law dictates. The law is a minimum bar for you to achieve as a person, but you should strive to be way better than that. The laws are rules for the court, not rules for life.
And in this case, the Waymo vehicle didn't cause an accident, nor in fact was there any accident at all. Which is exactly the same.
Eventually it will cause an accident. Waymo is being ignorant if they don't realize this and fix this now before the accident happens.
The Waymo car was doing that
No it didn't. Part of watching out for people is not slamming on your breaks when someone is behind you.
Driving is scary, and people should have a healthy fear of it.
Fear is the wrong word. People should respect it yes, which is my case, that Waymo is not showing respect for it.
Yes, just as they would adapt to other human drivers doing things they aren't supposed to, they should adapt to robot drivers doing the same.
That's just like saying a person who has used a typewriter their entire lives should know how to use a word processor.
Now you've added a straw man to your goalpost-moving exercise.
No I haven't. Waymo wants these cars on public roads, driving with humans (and therefore driving like a human) is part of that. They couldn't possibly be that naive about human psychology.
No, no you don't. User training is acceptable, and it is a disruption.
No, user training is not a disruption. User training doesn't cause mistakes to happen. User training is part of a successful transition. Besides, has Waymo offered to re-train all the currently licensed drivers of Arizona? I must have missed that news.
What's crucial is that the machines kill and injure less people than the humans they're replacing, not that they never ever do it.
By creating dangerous situations and not acknowledging them as a problem, they aren't even succeeding at that. I could say I won't ever close my front door because what is crucial is that people don't rob houses. But it doesn't absolve me of negligence, even though the thief will go to jail for it.
It goes both ways. It is also depressing to read people say they were justified in their actions because they were following the law. Most societies work much better and have members that are much happier if we go beyond the law and have some understanding and patience of the people around us.
People who maintain a proper amount of space still get stressed when the vehicle in front of them stops suddenly because it compromises their wish to maintain that space. You're blaming the victim here.
You get more data and do more testing by keeping the vehicles ON the road.
They need data to know that it is dangerous to stop suddenly in front of a person and generally not act human?
Most people make lots of mistakes all day, and other people simply account for them
Now you're moving the goalposts.
No I'm not. People make small mistakes and other drivers account for them, yes that is true. But most of the time they don't cause an accident. Humans that successful because no one wants to get in an accident and everyone watches out for everyone else. As a result, they drive 460,000 miles in the US between accidents. It may not be a perfect system, but it is a system that is working quite well as evidenced by the fact that people are generally not afraid of driving. Now these companies want to introduce robots into the system and expect humans to just adapt. No way, if these automated cars are truly as gifted as some people want to believe they are, they should integrate into the current solution seamlessly and not cause disruptions. If I am a contractor in charge of replacing an aging accounting system, I must provide a way for the company to transition from old system to new system with no disruptions. It is all the more crucial to have this attitude with machines that can kill and injure people.
My work flow is not narrow; I have to use multiple virtual desktops with multiple virtual machines, but no paperwork it is all electronic. I have a lot of complaints about my company but one thing I have always praised them about is that they aren't hung up on time at work, rather they focus on quality and quantity of work done. If a person has a doctors appointment they just go, no note required like child in grade-school.
It doesn't mean that what many people had feared isn't coming true; that these companies care not for the other drivers on the road and care too much about their profits.
I'd be interested in knowing how quickly your kids get better versus these Waymo cars. I'm assuming you expect them to stop making these mistakes some time in the next five years.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, humans drive to prevent accidents, period. Autonomous cars cannot drive merely to prevent liability. It won't work. Human drivers are part of a social system where everyone is watching out and compensating for mistakes. Autonomous cars need to be a part of this system, which means they need to anticipate human mistakes.
Correct, it's bullshit to expect humans to suddenly be able to deal with a vehicle that slams on its brakes all the time. I don't care what the law is.
The fact that autonomous cars are logical is the problem. 1 or 0, brake on or off. Humans aren't used to such extremes in driving.
Humans have been driving for a long time, and have formed a system. Everyone checks everyone else, and has learned to anticipate the mistakes that other humans might make. Throw a robot into that system and it doesn't work. These robots drive nothing like humans, so every single human around him needs to re-learn how they drive. Most people hitting a robot car probably never even came into contact with them before.
Don't blame humans for not understanding a totally foreign introduction in a system that was working fine.
Because robot cars are unpredictable. A 16 year old just driving away with a new license is more predictable than they are. Humans are not accustomed to driving with robots.
Apologies, I got the math wrong; not sure what I was remembering. Here it is: 16 million reported accidents a year + 30% unreported = 20.8 million accidents a year 3.22 trillion miles driven in the US per year / 20.8 million accidents = 154.8K miles of safe driving per accident.
The study I found did an anonymous poll of drivers and found that 30% of accidents are unreported. There were 16 million reported accidents in the USA, which makes unreported accidents close to 20.8.
I disagree that they are 'just as unpredictable'. Humans drive completely differently than robots. Humans have some sense of the common mistakes that other humans make and can therefore anticipate them. Robots mistakes by comparison are essentially random.
If they are truly not a good driver, you wouldn't be letting them on the road.
Nope. I found a study, 30% of accidents go unreported. Unreported accidents included.
Here we go with the 'people should be robots, not biological' Slashdot bullshit.
I mean, people complain about being buttfucked by the American government and corporations all the time.... Then when it's time to put you foot down and demand something better, you do nothing. Well then enjoy your butt-fucking.
I'm not talking about women necessarily. Some people have an instinct to be parents, and unless you want to be running around after little ones at 65 there is a time limit on that. You are the one who should be careful.
..says the person without a biological clock.
Interesting that they could get.a patent for this. So all other automated cars for ever more will have an excuse not to signal, because Tesla owns the patent?
So a person shouldn't care that their kids are starving while they are busy saying no? Good advice.
No, it won't. People following too close and/or not paying adequate attention will do that.
You have anticipated that people may collide by following too close, so Waymo isn't expected to? Do they want someone to rear end them?
No, it isn't. That is the responsibility of the person behind you.
Nope, as a driver you are responsible to know everything going on around you, otherwise we wouldn't need rear view mirrors.
I don't think fear is the wrong word. People should fear that the jackholes around them will hit them
Fine, all the reason for Waymo to eliminate every risk.
No, your case is that Waymo should do way better than human drivers, and it's a dumb one.
You think human drivers never look in their rear view mirror? They are supposed to. Every defensive driving course teaches that. It's a fairly low bar for safe driving. I realize that bad drivers don't, but Waymo shouldn't be modelling their driving after the worst humans.
It isn't, because they only have to take exactly the same precautions they have to take with human drivers.
Incorrect. Robots drive very differently than human drivers. 10 years of driving experience with human drivers is now insufficient. Otherwise this wouldn't have been an article in the first place.
What? Of course it is. It's a disruption of routine. So is simply shifting to a new software package.
When I said disruption I meant 'unplanned problem'. I suppose having to install the application and paying for the application could be considered a disruption as well but those can all be planned for, so not a disruption in the sense of getting into an accident.
No additional training is required. Drivers are already expected to drive defensively.
Driving defensively does not encompass any unpredictable thing a robot car might do. In this article, the woman was driving defensively and stopped in time, yet it is still a huge issue because the cars are acting unpredictably and that is stressful to drivers. Just because the person behind is maintaining correct space, it doesn't mean Waymo is justified in being unpredictable.
You could say you won't ever brake for people who stop unexpectedly, because what is crucial is that people drive with care for others.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. I am talking about preventing accidents whether I am legally responsible for them or not in the interest of keeping everyone on the road safe. You are talking about running into people purposely.
Many people here seem to think they don't have to be any better people than the law dictates. The law is a minimum bar for you to achieve as a person, but you should strive to be way better than that. The laws are rules for the court, not rules for life.
And in this case, the Waymo vehicle didn't cause an accident, nor in fact was there any accident at all. Which is exactly the same.
Eventually it will cause an accident. Waymo is being ignorant if they don't realize this and fix this now before the accident happens.
The Waymo car was doing that
No it didn't. Part of watching out for people is not slamming on your breaks when someone is behind you.
Driving is scary, and people should have a healthy fear of it.
Fear is the wrong word. People should respect it yes, which is my case, that Waymo is not showing respect for it.
Yes, just as they would adapt to other human drivers doing things they aren't supposed to, they should adapt to robot drivers doing the same.
That's just like saying a person who has used a typewriter their entire lives should know how to use a word processor.
Now you've added a straw man to your goalpost-moving exercise.
No I haven't. Waymo wants these cars on public roads, driving with humans (and therefore driving like a human) is part of that. They couldn't possibly be that naive about human psychology.
No, no you don't. User training is acceptable, and it is a disruption.
No, user training is not a disruption. User training doesn't cause mistakes to happen. User training is part of a successful transition. Besides, has Waymo offered to re-train all the currently licensed drivers of Arizona? I must have missed that news.
What's crucial is that the machines kill and injure less people than the humans they're replacing, not that they never ever do it.
By creating dangerous situations and not acknowledging them as a problem, they aren't even succeeding at that. I could say I won't ever close my front door because what is crucial is that people don't rob houses. But it doesn't absolve me of negligence, even though the thief will go to jail for it.
It goes both ways. It is also depressing to read people say they were justified in their actions because they were following the law. Most societies work much better and have members that are much happier if we go beyond the law and have some understanding and patience of the people around us.
People who maintain a proper amount of space still get stressed when the vehicle in front of them stops suddenly because it compromises their wish to maintain that space. You're blaming the victim here.
That's not totally correct. They don't make the same type of mistakes as student drivers.
You get more data and do more testing by keeping the vehicles ON the road.
They need data to know that it is dangerous to stop suddenly in front of a person and generally not act human?
Most people make lots of mistakes all day, and other people simply account for them
Now you're moving the goalposts.
No I'm not. People make small mistakes and other drivers account for them, yes that is true. But most of the time they don't cause an accident. Humans that successful because no one wants to get in an accident and everyone watches out for everyone else. As a result, they drive 460,000 miles in the US between accidents. It may not be a perfect system, but it is a system that is working quite well as evidenced by the fact that people are generally not afraid of driving. Now these companies want to introduce robots into the system and expect humans to just adapt. No way, if these automated cars are truly as gifted as some people want to believe they are, they should integrate into the current solution seamlessly and not cause disruptions. If I am a contractor in charge of replacing an aging accounting system, I must provide a way for the company to transition from old system to new system with no disruptions. It is all the more crucial to have this attitude with machines that can kill and injure people.
My work flow is not narrow; I have to use multiple virtual desktops with multiple virtual machines, but no paperwork it is all electronic. I have a lot of complaints about my company but one thing I have always praised them about is that they aren't hung up on time at work, rather they focus on quality and quantity of work done. If a person has a doctors appointment they just go, no note required like child in grade-school.
It doesn't mean that what many people had feared isn't coming true; that these companies care not for the other drivers on the road and care too much about their profits.
I'd be interested in knowing how quickly your kids get better versus these Waymo cars. I'm assuming you expect them to stop making these mistakes some time in the next five years.