Author Topic: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF  (Read 5230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4002
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2022, 08:16:12 pm »
News from Missouri.  Will driverless taxis be liable for any STD one might contract while a passenger? 
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-car
OMG   :palm:
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, wraper

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2022, 09:30:00 pm »
If a human driver kills people, there is accountability. If SOFTWARE does so, it is waved away as "It was an unfortunate accident,
Nope. Turns out the manufacturer of the car is responsible in such cases by law.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline jbeng

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2022, 11:55:17 pm »
[ Specified attachment is not available ]
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 12:03:51 am by jbeng »
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" - David St. Hubbins
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2022, 01:17:55 am »
If a human driver kills people, there is accountability. If SOFTWARE does so, it is waved away as "It was an unfortunate accident,
Nope. Turns out the manufacturer of the car is responsible in such cases by law.

Where? I'm sure that's right in many places, it sounds reasonable, but it may not be the law everywhere.
 

Offline SiliconWizardTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2022, 02:36:58 am »
We had a number of threads about AI and liability, those points are definitely valid and we could already see this is a very polarizing topic.
Yes, AI in everything is a great way of abolishing the concept of liability.

But what got me even more concerned in this particular case is how authorities are dealing with this.
As I said above, it would appear that the "new normal" is to put the precautionary principle aside and approve things that aren't formally proven safe, just because there is now a sense of emergency that would justify it and that we are all supposed to embrace.
What kind of emergency do you refer to in regards to taxi service, or to generic autonomic passenger vehicle for that matter?  :-//

Don't ask me. I'm not the one who gets to decide. Ask regulators.
All I'm saying is that they seem to be acting as though it was urgent to deploy those taxi services, and thus seem to be taking some unusual shortcuts.
The underlying reasons, I do not know, although we could think of a few potential causes that would be likely to trigger political action.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2022, 04:34:10 am »
All I'm saying is that they seem to be acting as though it was urgent to deploy those taxi services, and thus seem to be taking some unusual shortcuts.
The underlying reasons, I do not know, although we could think of a few potential causes that would be likely to trigger political action.

Money 8)

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2022, 04:39:47 am »
News from Missouri.  Will driverless taxis be liable for any STD one might contract while a passenger? 
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-car
OMG   :palm:

What is wrong with people. Having consensual sex is your own responsibility. Contracting a disease from it is then a risk you can't blame on an insurance company.

Offline sleemanj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3051
  • Country: nz
  • Professional tightwad.
    • The electronics hobby components I sell.
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2022, 05:02:15 am »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-car

For people who didn't want to enable ads, woman has sex in the back of a car with some dude, catches an STD, files a claim with the company that insured the car, they refused the claim, and it went to an arbitration, where the woman was awarded 5.2 million dollars.

America is weird.
~~~
EEVBlog Members - get yourself 10% discount off all my electronic components for sale just use the Buy Direct links and use Coupon Code "eevblog" during checkout.  Shipping from New Zealand, international orders welcome :-)
 

Offline RoGeorge

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7012
  • Country: ro
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2022, 06:03:40 am »
"No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information....."

HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's classic 1968 film, "2001, A Space Odyssey"

That statement is correct in the universe of the film.

HAL did not make a mistake when it removed the life support from the sleeping astronauts. HAL did not make a mistake when it killed Frank and when it tried to kill David.

HAL's primary goal was to ensure the success of the mission to Jupiter. As part of its continuing operation and calculation, it made a determination that the fallibility of the humans put that mission in jeopardy. Thus the only logic action was to eliminate the human element.

That's yet another illustration over a much deeper fact, that there is no such thing as a standalone good/evil, or write/wrong.  These notions only makes sense in relation to a given goal.  If something suits the given goal, then it's good/write otherwise is evil/wrong.

Same with the HAL computer.  For the stated goal's perspective (of completing the mission) it was good to kill the crew, for the human goal's perspective (of staying alive) it was wrong.



Once we realize nothing can be classified as good or evil without firstly stating the goals' context in which we want to judge that, all the ethics debates became meaningless.  Ethics seems complicated only because we do not state clear enough what is the goal in the first place.

We each drag with us a big bag of goals and tacit assumptions, and we would expect/want everybody else to carry the same set of goals and principles as ours.  The set of goals from any two such bags is never the same.  They never perfectly overlap.  So we point fingers and say that's wrong, or evil, and get upset or angry about that, instead of thinking that's a different bag of goals.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 06:06:39 am by RoGeorge »
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s, pcprogrammer

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2022, 08:20:09 am »
Found this older video that near the end made me laugh :-DD



It is about AI taking over and we all need to behave because otherwise it will kill us all. The planet and nature would benefit from it greatly.

Offline Stray Electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2253
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2022, 03:03:41 pm »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-car

For people who didn't want to enable ads, woman has sex in the back of a car with some dude, catches an STD, files a claim with the company that insured the car, they refused the claim, and it went to an arbitration, where the woman was awarded 5.2 million dollars.

America is weird.

   That's only half of the story. The insurance company is the one that forced this to go to binding arbitration. Then when the arbitrator ruled against them, the insurance company took it to court and tried to get have the arbitrator's ruling overturned. The court rightfully ruled against the insurance company and pointed out that they were the ones that required the binding arbitration and they were the ones that choose the arbitrator. 

   Now, as usual, the idiot news media is completely distorting the facts and is proclaiming that the woman WON in court and implying that she won the original ruling in court. She didn't. She only "won" the appeal that was filed by the insurance company.

  As ridiculous as this case seems at first glance, I can understand the arbitrator's ruling.  Basically the facts are that the woman was knowingly infected with a STD by the insured in his car thus she was "injured" in his car. I'm surprised that the insurance policy didn't include some sort of exclusion for events such as this but it it didn't then the insurance company is liable according to the arbitrator.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 03:05:44 pm by Stray Electron »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2022, 08:29:30 pm »
News from Missouri.  Will driverless taxis be liable for any STD one might contract while a passenger? 
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-car
OMG   :palm:

What is wrong with people. Having consensual sex is your own responsibility. Contracting a disease from it is then a risk you can't blame on an insurance company.

A reasonable person would think so, however there exist a significant portion of the population for whom everything is someone else's fault, they expect somebody to look out for them and shield them from every conceivable danger. It's the reason there are so many stupid warning labels on everything.
 
The following users thanked this post: Stray Electron, pcprogrammer

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2022, 08:45:34 pm »
Idiots exist everywhere, but unique to the West are omnipresent greedy lawyers and their ability to win stupid lawsuits on the basis that allegedly everybody is equal and has a right to live despite any empirically evident lack of fitness.
 

Offline rdsi

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2022, 11:21:26 pm »
The legalities will get worked out and I’m sure the benefits will outway the current situation – people at the wheel.  Come’on, computers don’t get distracted, drink, get tired, talk on the phone or text.

I’m ready for the technology! Now I can do something constructive instead of driving.  Once the technology is fully adopted we probably won’t need traffic signs (stop signs) so we’ll save on energy & get to our destination faster.

So the Company starting service in SF is Waymo & they have already been operating in Phoenix & Chandler AZ. Just hail a car on your phone (Waymo One) & a fully autonomous car shows up – no driver.

After watching a YouTube I surprised how quick & articulate it was.



Can’t wait.
 

Offline sleemanj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3051
  • Country: nz
  • Professional tightwad.
    • The electronics hobby components I sell.
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2022, 02:06:07 am »
Heh, that video is from Dec 2020, but I note the route the vehicle took was...



all right-hand turns :-)


~~~
EEVBlog Members - get yourself 10% discount off all my electronic components for sale just use the Buy Direct links and use Coupon Code "eevblog" during checkout.  Shipping from New Zealand, international orders welcome :-)
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2022, 05:02:39 am »
The legalities will get worked out and I’m sure the benefits will outway the current situation – people at the wheel.  Come’on, computers don’t get distracted, drink, get tired, talk on the phone or text.

That is a valid point, but with the high frequency's computers run on nowadays glitches causing errors can happen. On the other hand power can run low, and they do talk on the phone sort of speak, because they communicate with other systems. Also needed when traffic signs like speed limits are no longer needed (see below) to inform the car what speed it may use. Can't trust on GPS and map information for this.

I’m ready for the technology! Now I can do something constructive instead of driving.  Once the technology is fully adopted we probably won’t need traffic signs (stop signs) so we’ll save on energy & get to our destination faster.

Yeah maybe, but that will take a long long time, before every one on the planet has given up their own non self driving cars, bicycles, etc. And then still what about people on foot, they still need the traffic lights to know they can safely cross the road. And where is the energy savings when all these cars are running computers that use up extra energy. But they could make savings by not using a traditional car any more. There is no need for a steering wheel and driver seat, so there can be a weight reduction.

Heh, that video is from Dec 2020, but I note the route the vehicle took was...



all right-hand turns :-)

And how is that about saving energy. Definitely not the shortest route to get from A to B.

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2022, 08:22:26 am »
Another interesting thing to consider. My wife brought this one to the table. What if a passenger has an medical emergency like a heart attack. Will the computer notice that and take the passenger to hospital.

I'm sure a human driver will detect this. If he responds correctly is a whole other ballgame :-DD

Another one from the wife, what if there are a lot of these kind of cars on the road and someone hacks them to create a big chaos. Disrupting society :palm:

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2022, 08:30:33 am »
Another interesting thing to consider. My wife brought this one to the table. What if a passenger has an medical emergency like a heart attack. Will the computer notice that and take the passenger to hospital.

In theory yes, as these vehicles have cabin cameras... but it would require some interesting neural network training to pick up e.g. a seizure vs just excited shouting on a phone, given only video data.
 
The following users thanked this post: pcprogrammer

Offline RoGeorge

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7012
  • Country: ro
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2022, 08:36:40 am »
what if there are a lot of these kind of cars on the road and someone hacks them to create a big chaos

What if a miniskirt is walking on the sideways, distracting all the male drivers?  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: pcprogrammer

Offline rdsi

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: us
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2022, 11:32:44 am »
All this flak seems reminiscent when the horseless carriage was introduced.  It’s gonna happen and things will change.

What you & I think might be the best route is not always true.  UPS found that if their drivers never turn left (almost) they save time & fuel.  Also, the autonomous vehicle can pick-up traffic reports and adjust their routes accordingly.  Lot’s improvements.

Anyway, right now there’s nothing better than a good application to push technology. This one is improving AI, computing power, sensor technology and others by orders of magnitudes.  Who would of thought that a 77 GHz phased array radar would become a consumer thing on cars… There are even microwave sensors at 60 GHz that can pickup your heartbeat, respiration & determine the number of people in an area!

I think this is great for both humans & the economy!
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2022, 01:37:00 pm »
Yeah, I'm agreed with that.  The average car spends ca. 95% of its time parked up.  And it costs, what, $25k from new to buy?   That's a huge amount of capital to invest in that 5% convenience.  If you can offer an Uber-like service at 20 cent per mile, I suspect a lot of people will bite your hand off.

Automated cars solve a lot of the issues that driver operated cars have.  And you can begin to optimise what a car *is*.  If it's just 'you' going to work, then a one or two seater "smart car" could pick you up.   You could packetise bus services more efficiently;  now it's practical to have a four-seat bus that serves an otherwise unprofitable route.   You can go out drinking and have your car drive you back home.   No need to own a 7 seat family SUV because once in a blue moon you have to pick up the kids and their friends from school.

Whilst they do pose risks, the average car driver has an accident more often than once in a decade, and there were 42,000 fatalities in the US due to car accidents alone.  If autonomous vehicles achieve twice the safety record of ordinary drivers, who are distracted by their phone, sometimes drunk and always human, then it will be worth it IMO.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2022, 03:23:10 pm »
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea, just questioning the technology.

Comparing between human drivers and automated drivers, one can question if the computer is capable of anticipating on other road users. How many of us have avoided accidents just by paying special attention to some of the other drivers on the road.

Your estimate of 20 cents per mile is rather low I think. Even though there is no driver, the owner of the car still want's return on his investment, but sure for a lot of people it might be a perfect fit. And like you say they can scale the cars and deploy according to demand, which can save on energy consumption. On the other hand if we had to use such a service to do our shopping, the car would have to come to our remote location first, then drive us to the shops and back to our home and then on wards to where ever, it consumes more energy then us having our own car and drive back and forth once a week. (Yes we try to minimize our shopping to only once a week. Good for our wallet and the environment.)

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2022, 03:35:24 pm »
Quote
Your estimate of 20 cents per mile is rather low I think. Even though there is no driver, the owner of the car still want's return on his investment, but sure for a lot of people it might be a perfect fit. And like you say they can scale the cars and deploy according to demand, which can save on energy consumption. On the other hand if we had to use such a service to do our shopping, the car would have to come to our remote location first, then drive us to the shops and back to our home and then on wards to where ever, it consumes more energy then us having our own car and drive back and forth once a week. (Yes we try to minimize our shopping to only once a week. Good for our wallet and the environment.)

This is why the scale of the service is really important.  For a commute, a one-person microvehicle could easily use only 5~8kWh/100km and maybe fit just a 15-20kWh battery on board.  (It would, of course, be electric.  I don't see any reason these should be powered by fuel.)  With downtime every few customers for recharging or battery swaps, that vehicle can be utilised something like 16 hours a day, handling commuters in the morning, business travellers in the afternoon and return trips towards the evening.  Even if it costs $50k to buy, if it lasts 10 years and does an average of 20mi/h in its service time, then it only cost 5c per mile, so the rest is just down to how much energy and maintenance it requires.

For your shopping example I see it going one of two ways.  You would probably only need a one/two person vehicle to go to the shop, and a larger vehicle to go back.  A supermarket could convert most of its parking lot into a dropoff/pickup area with vehicles waiting to return customers home.  If the service is sized right then there's always a use for that return trip.   Alternatively, the delivery vehicle could just take your goods home a few hours after you paid for them.  That's much more efficient because the chances are, the route can be arranged to maximise efficiency with other customers served as well.  Since a considerable amount of space would be freed not having to accommodate every customer's parking need for the hour they are there, the store could expand to fill the space, or other businesses could be co-located on site.

The whole idea is that you don't need the vehicle to be the same size all the time - it would adapt to your specific needs.

In this hypothetical world I still think private cars will be a 'thing', but they will be less common.  Whether you will be allowed to drive as a human though is another matter which I'm sure will create plenty of debate.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2022, 03:38:35 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2022, 03:44:02 pm »
In this hypothetical world I still think private cars will be a 'thing', but they will be less common.  Whether you will be allowed to drive as a human though is another matter which I'm sure will create plenty of debate.

You are right that it will create a lot of debate. Just look at the 7 pages of arguing about mandatory USB-C port and charging adapters enforced by the EU. :-DD

Might be in the same corner as gun ownership.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2022, 03:45:41 pm by pcprogrammer »
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2022, 03:50:03 pm »
Since a considerable amount of space would be freed not having to accommodate every customer's parking need for the hour they are there, the store could expand to fill the space, or other businesses could be co-located on site.

A better idea is to return it to nature. Plant some trees on it.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf