What we know, says Tyson, is that automation has taken away many routine jobs.
That's a good thing. A very good thing. Nobody — no human — likes doing a routine job. We do them because we need the money, but if a machine can do it instead, humanity wins.
Well, except for the part of humanity that used to be able to support themselves and their families by doing the routine work that needed doing. They're fucked.
My wife's grandmother can' see a damned thing. For her, to be to ask a question and get an audible response is a real improvement to her quality of life.
Having seen actual video of the place this happened, I agree that no human could have missed her. I don't see how that supports your contention that you can't blame automation for it. Either the sensors failed to detect what a human driver easily could - ie that there was an obstacle in the road - or it failed to respond as any human driver would (by some combination of braking, changing lanes, and honking the horn). In either case, the automation failed to prevent an accident that a human driver would easily have avoided.
Level 3 is fine if there is plenty of warning to take over, say a minimum of 30 seconds.
Emergencies develop in a fraction of a second, not half a minute. If a human is needed, a human is needed NOW. But you are right that people can't realistically take over in such a small amount of time. That's why level 3 is not fine. There's really no reason why a car should need a human to take a car over in 30 seconds, so at that point, why even have that level of automation?
Secondly measured in terms of accidents and fatalities, autonomous cars have already caused less accidents per miles driven than your average human driver, so if that's your metric, the argument can be made that said bar has already been passed, although that obviously does not mean that the safety cannot and should not be further improved until the fatalities drop to zero.
Two points:
1) This comparison is of automated vehicles driving only in the safest conditions to humans driving in all conditions. That introduces a huge bias in favor of automated vehicles.
2) From your link:
Low exposure for self-driving vehicles (about 1.3 million miles in this study) increases the uncertainty in Self-Driving Car crash rates compared to the SHRP 2 NDS (over 34 million miles) and nearly 3 trillion vehicle miles driven nationally in 2013 (2,965,600,000,000)....
Current data suggest that self-driving cars may have low rates of more-severe crashes (Level 1 and Level 2 crashes) when compared to national rates or to rates from naturalistic data sets, but there is currently too much uncertainty in self-driving rates to draw this conclusion with strong confidence.[Emphasis mine]
This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It's an apple-seed-to-orange-tree comparison, and should be taken with a whole lot of salt.
Talk about a false equivalency. Yes using less is ideal. It doesn't follow that all sources of power are equally bad however. It's clear that fossil fuels are irredeemably polluting. When you need to use energy (and we all do) then you want to use the cleanest form of power generation available to you.
Wind & solar today still depend on fossil fuels in its life cycle.
Which is why the GP said:
When you need to use energy (and we all do) then you want to use the cleanest form of power generation available to you.
The fact that solar and wind still use some fossil fuels (as does nuclear) in their manufacture is a pretty crappy reason to not use them and instead rely solely on fossil fuels for energy production.
I think Trump is a buffoon and in the running for worst leader of a free country in modern times, but I think even Trump would have avoided that pedestrian. The Uber-released video is utter shit and makes the situation look MUCH darker than it really is.
No, the video is going the right direction. Both videos show the same overpass just before the collision site and the same 4-5 story building with a lit up sign near the top on the left side of the road. Looking at the location in Google Earth, there are no buildings on the other side of the road, nor is there any other overpass. Compare the point of the accident in the released video with 0:29 of the GP video - Same building, same street light, same everything - except level of ambient light and pedestrian crossing.
So very much this. If you are so easily distracted that you can't see an object *in the middle of the road* in time to avoid hitting it, you shouldn't be driving.
This is true. I don't think it applies to the current situation, though. It seems pretty clear that either the car had a failure of some sort (most likely) or it was traveling too fast for the conditions. A person who would have been unable to avoid hitting this pedestrian would definitely have to have been going faster than was safe for the conditions.
Yup - looking at the phone added to his reaction time. The light from the phone would desensitize his eyes, resulting in additional time needed for them to adjust, and shifting mental gears from reading/texting/looking at porn would add even more time.
Right of Way is only one factor among many in determining fault, which is itself not an all-or-nothing deal. Other factors: Was the vehicle exceeding the speed limit? (Yes) Was the vehicle traveling faster than conditions warrant? (Yes) Was the driver distracted or otherwise impaired? (Maybe, depending on definitions) Was all of the vehicle's equipment in proper working order? (Unclear, but if the video is an accurate representation, the headlights were not aimed correctly)
Yeah, the pedestrian shares fault for violating right of way. I don't think many people dispute that. BUT it seems pretty obvious now that the vehicle and/or safety driver bear responsibility as well.
That's where the force of law comes into play. States SHOULD be requiring data to be shared. You want to test on public roads? Your test data should be public. You want to advertise your product as safer than the alternative? Release the data you base that claim on so it can be verified independently and rigorously.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good thing. A very good thing. Nobody — no human — likes doing a routine job. We do them because we need the money, but if a machine can do it instead, humanity wins.
Well, except for the part of humanity that used to be able to support themselves and their families by doing the routine work that needed doing. They're fucked.
Not to mention that those 551,370 miles include all kinds of conditions, not just those conditions most easily navigated by automated vehicles.
My wife's grandmother can' see a damned thing. For her, to be to ask a question and get an audible response is a real improvement to her quality of life.
But I wouldn't want that shit in MY house.
You can't blame the automation for this.
No human could have missed her.
Having seen actual video of the place this happened, I agree that no human could have missed her. I don't see how that supports your contention that you can't blame automation for it. Either the sensors failed to detect what a human driver easily could - ie that there was an obstacle in the road - or it failed to respond as any human driver would (by some combination of braking, changing lanes, and honking the horn). In either case, the automation failed to prevent an accident that a human driver would easily have avoided.
Level 3 is fine if there is plenty of warning to take over, say a minimum of 30 seconds.
Emergencies develop in a fraction of a second, not half a minute. If a human is needed, a human is needed NOW. But you are right that people can't realistically take over in such a small amount of time. That's why level 3 is not fine. There's really no reason why a car should need a human to take a car over in 30 seconds, so at that point, why even have that level of automation?
Secondly measured in terms of accidents and fatalities, autonomous cars have already caused less accidents per miles driven than your average human driver, so if that's your metric, the argument can be made that said bar has already been passed, although that obviously does not mean that the safety cannot and should not be further improved until the fatalities drop to zero.
Two points:
1) This comparison is of automated vehicles driving only in the safest conditions to humans driving in all conditions. That introduces a huge bias in favor of automated vehicles.
2) From your link:
Low exposure for self-driving vehicles (about 1.3 million miles in this study) increases the uncertainty in Self-Driving Car crash rates compared to the SHRP 2 NDS (over 34 million miles) and nearly 3 trillion vehicle miles driven nationally in 2013 (2,965,600,000,000). ...
Current data suggest that self-driving cars may have low rates of more-severe crashes (Level 1 and Level 2 crashes) when compared to national rates or to rates from naturalistic data sets, but there is currently too much uncertainty in self-driving rates to draw this conclusion with strong confidence.[Emphasis mine]
This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It's an apple-seed-to-orange-tree comparison, and should be taken with a whole lot of salt.
Talk about a false equivalency. Yes using less is ideal. It doesn't follow that all sources of power are equally bad however. It's clear that fossil fuels are irredeemably polluting. When you need to use energy (and we all do) then you want to use the cleanest form of power generation available to you.
Wind & solar today still depend on fossil fuels in its life cycle.
Which is why the GP said:
When you need to use energy (and we all do) then you want to use the cleanest form of power generation available to you.
The fact that solar and wind still use some fossil fuels (as does nuclear) in their manufacture is a pretty crappy reason to not use them and instead rely solely on fossil fuels for energy production.
This time, he invented the Brick.
LSD isn't exactly what I would call an escapist drug. If anything, some people probably could use LSD to face the truth about themselves.
Who's at fault when someone provokes a bear, and the bear attacks? And what value is provided by those provocations, anyway?
I must have missed the part where they put rockets on city streets where people not involved in the space program were put at risk.
Your premise is that a human can effectively take over in the middle of a fast moving emergency situation. This premise is what is false.
I think Trump is a buffoon and in the running for worst leader of a free country in modern times, but I think even Trump would have avoided that pedestrian. The Uber-released video is utter shit and makes the situation look MUCH darker than it really is.
Also, this article has screen grabs that show the same thing.
No, the video is going the right direction. Both videos show the same overpass just before the collision site and the same 4-5 story building with a lit up sign near the top on the left side of the road. Looking at the location in Google Earth, there are no buildings on the other side of the road, nor is there any other overpass. Compare the point of the accident in the released video with 0:29 of the GP video - Same building, same street light, same everything - except level of ambient light and pedestrian crossing.
Wow. Anyone saying it would have been impossible to avoid hitting her needs to watch your video.
Also, that makes me wonder if Uber might have tampered with the video to make it look darker than it actually was.
Only Uber knows, and we have yet to see if they're telling.
So very much this. If you are so easily distracted that you can't see an object *in the middle of the road* in time to avoid hitting it, you shouldn't be driving.
This is true. I don't think it applies to the current situation, though. It seems pretty clear that either the car had a failure of some sort (most likely) or it was traveling too fast for the conditions. A person who would have been unable to avoid hitting this pedestrian would definitely have to have been going faster than was safe for the conditions.
And if you hit something due to overdriving your headlights, then you are at fault for not driving in an appropriate manner for the conditions.
Just because they haven't made it to market yet doesn't mean they aren't rushing to get there.
Yup - looking at the phone added to his reaction time. The light from the phone would desensitize his eyes, resulting in additional time needed for them to adjust, and shifting mental gears from reading/texting/looking at porn would add even more time.
Right of Way is only one factor among many in determining fault, which is itself not an all-or-nothing deal. Other factors:
Was the vehicle exceeding the speed limit? (Yes)
Was the vehicle traveling faster than conditions warrant? (Yes)
Was the driver distracted or otherwise impaired? (Maybe, depending on definitions)
Was all of the vehicle's equipment in proper working order? (Unclear, but if the video is an accurate representation, the headlights were not aimed correctly)
Yeah, the pedestrian shares fault for violating right of way. I don't think many people dispute that. BUT it seems pretty obvious now that the vehicle and/or safety driver bear responsibility as well.
All the more galling: YOU get modded down as Flamebait, and the racist AC gets modded up.
That's where the force of law comes into play. States SHOULD be requiring data to be shared. You want to test on public roads? Your test data should be public. You want to advertise your product as safer than the alternative? Release the data you base that claim on so it can be verified independently and rigorously.