You made several sensible points on this topic. Why do you insist on ruining your credibility by being a stubborn ass over one loose and indefensible statement?
Please, let's see Exhibit B and C if you want to demonstrate that you're even more clueless. What are we at 700 words now? I really need more convincing that more people will die while using autopilot, despite the fact that I've already said they would. But hey, knock yourself out.
I really want to believe that you're just a defensive jackass and not an idiot, but you're making it hard.
Is it really too much to ask for you to read all the words in my post before responding?
Jeez, man. It took you yet another 500 words to hammer home a point that I already admitted to. What you haven't shown is anything to back up your original vacuous statement: "more people are going to die before autopilot features become truly safe."
Apparently you missed the second half of my post, you can't claim that there is insufficient data while making such confident predictions about the future. If autopilot is safer than human driving already then what is this nonsense about the number of lives that will be lost in making it 'truly' safe?
If you want to say that people will die using autopilot, sure, go ahead. If you want to say that autopilot will get better, that is also a safe prediction. What you said is vacuous at best, nonsense at worst.
What's missing from your analysis is any real data or balance. What matters is whether the combination of autopilot and driver (no matter what the level of attentiveness of the driver, or where he puts that attention) is safer than without the existence of autopilot.
One main reason people use cruise control is so they can pay less attention to the trivial parts of driving, e.g. keeping the throttle at the level to go exactly 65mph. Autopilot is/will be much the same. Some will abuse it, but others will allow it to take over more of the routine tasks (which now include scanning for emergency situations). There is no reason to think that it can't be statistically better than humans at this, even if it isn't today.
The data is insufficient to show that autopilot is safer than humans, but is sufficient to show that it is less safe than humans? Seems like a double standard.
Unless you want to pick an arbitrary target for 'truly safe', in which case sure, we can say 10s of thousands more will die, because that means nothing too.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The link you provide doesn't support anything you're saying and you clearly didn't even read the whole thing (if you are even able to) or you would have seen why. Did you just google "bus right of way law" and post the first dumb thing you found? Looks like it.
Peddle your idiotic ideas elsewhere, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from talking to you anymore (if there ever was).
Also, start training for new employment, because the only explanation for your irrational fears of AVs is you are worried they will put you out of a job.
As I said, you can manufacture scenarios and conditions where human drivers are better. However, if you have seen any of the videos of what autonomous cars "see" and how they are tracking and identifying dozens of relevant objects, far more than most humans can effectively process. Humans are successful because they are good at weeding out extraneous data MOST of the time, but the many millions of reported accidents per year show they make mistakes quite often.
Would you trust Tesla's autodrive to take you on a 10 mile highway run or a completely random driver? I think you know what my answer is.
AVs are not ready to take over all driving, but as to the question that I originally referred to, I think they are better than the average human at the straightforward task of identifying obstacles in real time and avoiding them and I think the data back me up on that.
Why are you trying so hard to avoid the question? We all agree that it is not a good idea, that was not the question. Is it safe?
You seem to continue to think so and you are quite out of touch with reality on this one. Why do you keep stressing the particular details of the accident as if you think that matters? All that matters is that this was a very dangerous (i.e. not SAFE) and irresponsible act that could reasonably be foreseen to cause an accident. That combined with an actual fatality is all that matters. We could argue over whether the actual fatality should matter, but our legal system seems to think so.
Do you also think it's safe to fire a gun at random in a room full of people? I probably only have a 1% chance of killing someone, so that makes it "safe" and reasonable to you? If it happens to hit and kill two people then that is even more unlikely so I am even less responsible, by your reckoning.
What matters in both these cases is that you are taking an action that could reasonably be expected to cause harm or death. It doesn't matter that death is not a certainty and you don't calculate the odds and say it only had a 1/10 chance of killing him so I am only 1/10th responsible. This is craziness.
You are misinformed. Computers are much better at many real world problems such as this today, whether it is tracking incoming missiles, bouncing balls or, of course, tracking multiple vehicles and roadway obstacles. This is not to say that these systems are better in every circumstance, but the number of cases where a human will detect and avoid such an obstacle and the AV car cannot are getting fewer every day. I look forward to seeing results of Tesla's auto drive (a simple system compared to full AV like Google) vs. real world drivers.
I expect that in the near future, tech museums and other installations will allow you to pit your skills against the computer in a simulator. This is what it will take to convince most people, although some like Jack Griffin, will just never give up their feeling of superiority.
You have changed this story so as to make it almost unrecognizable to the original that you were comparing to the Google AV accident. The car you are now describing was clearly reckless and breaking many laws and there is just no comparison anymore. It's now just a story about his terrible driving (and your bad driving).
As it stands it still sounds as if you were not as far to the right as you reasonable could, you were probably in the middle of the lane aligned with all the other traffic and therefore making it hard for anyone else to realize that you were going right. (If you were as far to the right of the roadway as possible then you should have mentioned that long ago.)
The main reason for this law (and good safety practice) is because it is quite legal for bicyclists (even stupid kids) to ride to the right of that line of cars EVEN on the shoulder. The law, which you seem to either disrespect or ignore, is to help prevent such traffic from getting crushed when you suddenly veer right from the middle of the lane without checking your side mirrors.
This applies only if the programmers knew that the work was substandard and likely to cause unnecessary accidents. The analogy would be closer to a manufacturer and factory workers knowingly building and installing faulty parts (e.g. airbags). There would be no criminal liability in either case if the workers did not know and could not be expected to know the faults.
Let me get this straight. Do you think that stopping your car in the middle of a multi-lane freeway where traffic is flowing at full speed is a safe thing to do? Because that sure seems to be what your statements imply.
I don't know of any reasonable person who would do such a thing except in an extreme emergency. Could they guess the exact type and speed of vehicle that will run into them? Probably not, but they will realize that they are probably in the most dangerous situation they have been for a very long time.
I will bet my house that 5>3. Now, if we are done with the nonsense of making up new propositions, let's get back to the original statement.
Are you willing to bet your house that in a simulator you will be able to detect all relevant vehicles and obstacles better than the current generation of Google AV cars? If you are then let's set that up, otherwise you are just talking nonsense.
In the meantime, look up the legend of John Henry.
This is nonsense. Neither the law nor any reasonable person would say that such a bus always has the right of way. But this absolutely does NOT mean that a reasonable person wouldn't still yield that right for self-preservation and an AV can certainly be programmed with the same logic. Just as it could yield at an intersection to ANY car that appeared to be not slowing down or running through.
What you are failing to factor in to your argument is math. Mostly logic and probability, but a little geometry too.
It is insane to say that you should always run into the car/person/animal,... rather than take evasive action, which is what you are saying. That may by the safest choic, but it is not always the safest choice. Further, of course, the government can and should make laws saying that people should make reasonable efforts to avoid accidents. The law should fault the person who runs into the car or child in front of them, rather than swerving slightly onto the shoulder on an otherwise completely open road. As discussed above, it may be difficult to convict someone of this, but the law should encourage them to do the safest thing which is NOT just plowing into the car in front of you ignoring everything else around.
This is why you (and everyone else) need to be replaced by an AV.
You make absolute statements about how crashes should not be avoided if there is even a chance of causing a different accident, whereas those you are arguing with are making the point that you should make the best decision at the time: sometimes that means taking a low risk on another accident just to avoid a high risk or certainty of an accident.
When given examples you quickly change your original answer that, of course, you wouldn't run over a kid, that would be crazy.
You are incapable of making such decisions even while sitting at your computer, so it is unlikely you will make good decisions in the split second before an accident. You would have slammed into the Google AV instead of going a foot over into oncoming traffic because that might have caused another accident. Ignoring of course that the certainty of slamming into the AV might cause it to careen onto the curb killing that child that you now seem to be concerned about.
Probably far more than that, actually. First, these operators were far more attentive and knowledgeable than the average expected lump behind the wheel and they were on the job, expected to take over (and likely losing their job if they were goofing around). Second, they would likely preemptively take the AVs out of autonomous mode in situations that they were unlikely to be able to handle well.
No one here is disputing that for many people EVs are currently not the best option. It may even be that for some people EVs will never be the better option. Go back and read what the OP was saying, that which you disagreed with. He was not saying that everyone should switch to EVs right here, right now. He was just saying that EVs were going to be the winning technology in the long run, so get used to them.
So, hold on to your CRT while it still makes sense to you. You will probably hold on to it even a few years after it stops making sense and everyone else has moved on to LCDs, but that is just human nature.
There is a big difference between "may not yield" and "appears to not be yielding". Nobody is saying that you should proceed blindly when an accident is imminent, but to take action whenever an accident is even possible leads to a degenerate and even more dangerous system. The classic case is the freeway onramp where the vehicle on the freeway is rapidly changing speeds to try to avoid the car entering the roadway (who instead of smoothly moving ahead or behind now has to quickly figure out what the other vehicle is trying to do).
Of course in the long run it matters to you whether your government is spending the money it collects wisely. However, if the cost to provide and maintain your water supply is $20/acre foot and they are charging you $20/af that is a fair fee. It is still NOT a tax if they decide to spend it on something else. When they come back in 20 years and say that they need to charge $50/af because they misspent the money then that extra $30 is a tax.
"Sees a potential accident coming" is such a broad statement that it is useless. Expecting a car to yield when it SHOULD yield and continuing on does not automatically make you at fault in an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you are still having difficulties, I've fixed your original statement for you:
"more people are going to die before any transportation technology becomes truly safe."
You made several sensible points on this topic. Why do you insist on ruining your credibility by being a stubborn ass over one loose and indefensible statement?
Please, let's see Exhibit B and C if you want to demonstrate that you're even more clueless. What are we at 700 words now? I really need more convincing that more people will die while using autopilot, despite the fact that I've already said they would. But hey, knock yourself out.
I really want to believe that you're just a defensive jackass and not an idiot, but you're making it hard.
Is it really too much to ask for you to read all the words in my post before responding?
Jeez, man. It took you yet another 500 words to hammer home a point that I already admitted to. What you haven't shown is anything to back up your original vacuous statement: "more people are going to die before autopilot features become truly safe."
Think more, write less.
Apparently you missed the second half of my post, you can't claim that there is insufficient data while making such confident predictions about the future. If autopilot is safer than human driving already then what is this nonsense about the number of lives that will be lost in making it 'truly' safe?
If you want to say that people will die using autopilot, sure, go ahead. If you want to say that autopilot will get better, that is also a safe prediction. What you said is vacuous at best, nonsense at worst.
What's missing from your analysis is any real data or balance. What matters is whether the combination of autopilot and driver (no matter what the level of attentiveness of the driver, or where he puts that attention) is safer than without the existence of autopilot.
One main reason people use cruise control is so they can pay less attention to the trivial parts of driving, e.g. keeping the throttle at the level to go exactly 65mph. Autopilot is/will be much the same. Some will abuse it, but others will allow it to take over more of the routine tasks (which now include scanning for emergency situations). There is no reason to think that it can't be statistically better than humans at this, even if it isn't today.
The data is insufficient to show that autopilot is safer than humans, but is sufficient to show that it is less safe than humans? Seems like a double standard.
Unless you want to pick an arbitrary target for 'truly safe', in which case sure, we can say 10s of thousands more will die, because that means nothing too.
Excellent point. If anyone who is not an idiot cares to get back to me I will address it.
Excellent point. If anyone who is not an idiot cares to get back to me I will address this.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The link you provide doesn't support anything you're saying and you clearly didn't even read the whole thing (if you are even able to) or you would have seen why. Did you just google "bus right of way law" and post the first dumb thing you found? Looks like it.
Peddle your idiotic ideas elsewhere, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from talking to you anymore (if there ever was).
Also, start training for new employment, because the only explanation for your irrational fears of AVs is you are worried they will put you out of a job.
As I said, you can manufacture scenarios and conditions where human drivers are better. However, if you have seen any of the videos of what autonomous cars "see" and how they are tracking and identifying dozens of relevant objects, far more than most humans can effectively process. Humans are successful because they are good at weeding out extraneous data MOST of the time, but the many millions of reported accidents per year show they make mistakes quite often.
Would you trust Tesla's autodrive to take you on a 10 mile highway run or a completely random driver? I think you know what my answer is.
AVs are not ready to take over all driving, but as to the question that I originally referred to, I think they are better than the average human at the straightforward task of identifying obstacles in real time and avoiding them and I think the data back me up on that.
Why are you trying so hard to avoid the question? We all agree that it is not a good idea, that was not the question. Is it safe?
You seem to continue to think so and you are quite out of touch with reality on this one. Why do you keep stressing the particular details of the accident as if you think that matters? All that matters is that this was a very dangerous (i.e. not SAFE) and irresponsible act that could reasonably be foreseen to cause an accident. That combined with an actual fatality is all that matters. We could argue over whether the actual fatality should matter, but our legal system seems to think so.
Do you also think it's safe to fire a gun at random in a room full of people? I probably only have a 1% chance of killing someone, so that makes it "safe" and reasonable to you? If it happens to hit and kill two people then that is even more unlikely so I am even less responsible, by your reckoning.
What matters in both these cases is that you are taking an action that could reasonably be expected to cause harm or death. It doesn't matter that death is not a certainty and you don't calculate the odds and say it only had a 1/10 chance of killing him so I am only 1/10th responsible. This is craziness.
You are misinformed. Computers are much better at many real world problems such as this today, whether it is tracking incoming missiles, bouncing balls or, of course, tracking multiple vehicles and roadway obstacles. This is not to say that these systems are better in every circumstance, but the number of cases where a human will detect and avoid such an obstacle and the AV car cannot are getting fewer every day. I look forward to seeing results of Tesla's auto drive (a simple system compared to full AV like Google) vs. real world drivers.
I expect that in the near future, tech museums and other installations will allow you to pit your skills against the computer in a simulator. This is what it will take to convince most people, although some like Jack Griffin, will just never give up their feeling of superiority.
You have changed this story so as to make it almost unrecognizable to the original that you were comparing to the Google AV accident. The car you are now describing was clearly reckless and breaking many laws and there is just no comparison anymore. It's now just a story about his terrible driving (and your bad driving).
As it stands it still sounds as if you were not as far to the right as you reasonable could, you were probably in the middle of the lane aligned with all the other traffic and therefore making it hard for anyone else to realize that you were going right. (If you were as far to the right of the roadway as possible then you should have mentioned that long ago.)
The main reason for this law (and good safety practice) is because it is quite legal for bicyclists (even stupid kids) to ride to the right of that line of cars EVEN on the shoulder. The law, which you seem to either disrespect or ignore, is to help prevent such traffic from getting crushed when you suddenly veer right from the middle of the lane without checking your side mirrors.
This applies only if the programmers knew that the work was substandard and likely to cause unnecessary accidents. The analogy would be closer to a manufacturer and factory workers knowingly building and installing faulty parts (e.g. airbags). There would be no criminal liability in either case if the workers did not know and could not be expected to know the faults.
Let me get this straight. Do you think that stopping your car in the middle of a multi-lane freeway where traffic is flowing at full speed is a safe thing to do? Because that sure seems to be what your statements imply.
I don't know of any reasonable person who would do such a thing except in an extreme emergency. Could they guess the exact type and speed of vehicle that will run into them? Probably not, but they will realize that they are probably in the most dangerous situation they have been for a very long time.
I will bet my house that 5>3. Now, if we are done with the nonsense of making up new propositions, let's get back to the original statement.
Are you willing to bet your house that in a simulator you will be able to detect all relevant vehicles and obstacles better than the current generation of Google AV cars? If you are then let's set that up, otherwise you are just talking nonsense.
In the meantime, look up the legend of John Henry.
This is nonsense. Neither the law nor any reasonable person would say that such a bus always has the right of way. But this absolutely does NOT mean that a reasonable person wouldn't still yield that right for self-preservation and an AV can certainly be programmed with the same logic. Just as it could yield at an intersection to ANY car that appeared to be not slowing down or running through.
What you are failing to factor in to your argument is math. Mostly logic and probability, but a little geometry too.
... rather than take evasive action, which is what you are saying. That may by the safest choic, but it is not always the safest choice. Further, of course, the government can and should make laws saying that people should make reasonable efforts to avoid accidents. The law should fault the person who runs into the car or child in front of them, rather than swerving slightly onto the shoulder on an otherwise completely open road. As discussed above, it may be difficult to convict someone of this, but the law should encourage them to do the safest thing which is NOT just plowing into the car in front of you ignoring everything else around.
It is insane to say that you should always run into the car/person/animal,
This is why you (and everyone else) need to be replaced by an AV.
You make absolute statements about how crashes should not be avoided if there is even a chance of causing a different accident, whereas those you are arguing with are making the point that you should make the best decision at the time: sometimes that means taking a low risk on another accident just to avoid a high risk or certainty of an accident.
When given examples you quickly change your original answer that, of course, you wouldn't run over a kid, that would be crazy.
You are incapable of making such decisions even while sitting at your computer, so it is unlikely you will make good decisions in the split second before an accident. You would have slammed into the Google AV instead of going a foot over into oncoming traffic because that might have caused another accident. Ignoring of course that the certainty of slamming into the AV might cause it to careen onto the curb killing that child that you now seem to be concerned about.
Probably far more than that, actually. First, these operators were far more attentive and knowledgeable than the average expected lump behind the wheel and they were on the job, expected to take over (and likely losing their job if they were goofing around). Second, they would likely preemptively take the AVs out of autonomous mode in situations that they were unlikely to be able to handle well.
No one here is disputing that for many people EVs are currently not the best option. It may even be that for some people EVs will never be the better option. Go back and read what the OP was saying, that which you disagreed with. He was not saying that everyone should switch to EVs right here, right now. He was just saying that EVs were going to be the winning technology in the long run, so get used to them.
So, hold on to your CRT while it still makes sense to you. You will probably hold on to it even a few years after it stops making sense and everyone else has moved on to LCDs, but that is just human nature.
There is a big difference between "may not yield" and "appears to not be yielding". Nobody is saying that you should proceed blindly when an accident is imminent, but to take action whenever an accident is even possible leads to a degenerate and even more dangerous system. The classic case is the freeway onramp where the vehicle on the freeway is rapidly changing speeds to try to avoid the car entering the roadway (who instead of smoothly moving ahead or behind now has to quickly figure out what the other vehicle is trying to do).
Of course in the long run it matters to you whether your government is spending the money it collects wisely. However, if the cost to provide and maintain your water supply is $20/acre foot and they are charging you $20/af that is a fair fee. It is still NOT a tax if they decide to spend it on something else. When they come back in 20 years and say that they need to charge $50/af because they misspent the money then that extra $30 is a tax.
"Sees a potential accident coming" is such a broad statement that it is useless. Expecting a car to yield when it SHOULD yield and continuing on does not automatically make you at fault in an accident.
The obvious answer is that it didn't see the sandbag there until it had moved over.