How? Seriously? Cars are the world's greatest violent killer. War is responsible for about 3% of violent deaths, homicide about 11% and the products of the automobile industry; 24%.
Every day the products of that industry and their users violently kill 3500 people. Remember that when you're crying over the next tragic news event. What you do will kill more people this century than all the wars of the previous century managed.
If you have massive fast cars moving at speed by where there are people you will kill people. You can have as many sensors and laws as you like. People will die. When it's someone like you doing the killing as it is with the 3500 daily fatalities and 50,000 severe injuries you won't give a crap. It will be a tragic accident which could not possibly be avoided. You won't be able to imagine a way in which that life could have been saved apart from perhaps the moron who got killed should not have been walking around by a road. This case is something out of the ordinary so all of a sudden there is a story.
We've become accustomed to the speed cars go and have settled on it. It's not been decided upon by research or evidence it's what people will accept so they can have the cars they want. Our society lives in a fantasy world when it comes to cars. They poison everyone, they violently injure people, they wreck the planet and you don't care because you're in love with them. You're as much a True Believer in cars as people are in religion. I'm sure you're objecting to what I'm saying despite the evidence in the same way a religious nut cannot hear criticism of their beloved religion. But these are facts. The cars we accept as a society being used by people will kill in vast numbers. And we put having a bit of go in our cars above people's lives.
This rant is not aimed at any one individual by the way.
That view of stepping out from the shadows may be misleading. A human may have had better vision than the vision shown by the camera footage.
This could easily have been a non fatal accident. I doubt it could have been avoided entirely by a human driver but I also don't think the camera footage is clear enough to be sure of that.
This is a video about autonymous car safety and sensor tech etc, it is not about a car accident that happens a thousand times a day.
We expect better than humans when we take humans out of the loop. All this extra tech means that it should perform better than a human in the areas that the sensor excels against a human. e.g. at night with LIDAR.Even if accident rate is exactly the same, but we have gained ability to do other stuff while commuting, it is a win overall.
Doesn't matter if things are visually terrible. A smart and alert human being would slow down and be cautious in darken areas.
If you need guidance on self driving cars then look no further than what is required of commercial airlines.
"Uber Autonomous Car Fatality - How"
I answered it.
This I admit is a diversion from your video but I think what I am saying is entirely relevant
Doesn't matter if things are visually terrible. A smart and alert human being would slow down and be cautious in darken areas.That's a rather interesting statement. More holes than a cheese grater, but interesting (or should I say naive?).QuoteIf you need guidance on self driving cars then look no further than what is required of commercial airlines.Really? TCAS would go apeshit!!
Overall you misunderstood my post. I'm not for shutting down the tech. I laugh at anyone thinking this is the end of automated driving. However, I'm against shutting down the extra layer of protection called human action. A quick search on piloting will turn up pilots work in tandem with the autopilot. Tech is not there to make people lazy. As I said, only there to make things easier. There is a difference between those things. Also if you notice, planes try to have 2 or more things for a reason (ie. two engines, two pilots along with the autopilot, two sets of gauges, 2 radio sets, 2-3 hydraulic systems, 2-3 fuel lines with crossfeed valves, etc.). Its called being redundant. It works.
I have no proof in saying this exact part here but there is no doubt in my mind yet uber reps told the driver everything is fine. This car drives itself. Causes her to lower her guard. Pays attention to the phone. We all know the rest. If you're by yourself and need to sleep, drunk, or pay more attention to your phone, take a real taxi or bus please. Basically saying err on the side of caution. This is yet another case to build on this wise saying. Certainly won't be the last.
The car didn't even slow down.
This technology has much further to go before it is ready for prime time.
The car didn't even slow down.
Should it have? Should it brake every time there's an object in the other lane?This technology has much further to go before it is ready for prime time.
I disagree. The time to switch over is when cars are safer than humans, not when cars are 100% perfect (which they can never be).
The question to ask is therefore: Is it likely a human have done better in that situation? I say "no".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
The pedestrian should have walked to the intersection, even though it was 500' away.
I find myself wondering if there is enough parallel processing taking place for the car to react as fast as a human.
The car should have seen the pedestrian in the shadows.
The car should have calculated the path the pedestrian was taking.
The car should have slowed down.
The car should have seen the pedestrian in the shadows.
I'm sure it did see the pedestrian.
(and that a human driver wouldn't have)The car should have calculated the path the pedestrian was taking.
The car should have slowed down.
That part I'm not so sure about.
It's easy to say in when you only look at this one data point in isolation.
In general: Not so much. I bet you can find examples where this exact set of inputs is perfectly Ok (right up until it's too late).
eg. How do you propose cars should deal with wobbly motorcyclists in the other lane? Hitting the brakes every time they see one? That would be dangerous.
The car should have seen the pedestrian in the shadows.
I'm sure it did see the pedestrian.
(and that a human driver wouldn't have)
The car should have calculated the path the pedestrian was taking.
The car should have slowed down.
That part I'm not so sure about.
It's easy to say in when you only look at this one data point in isolation.
In general: Not so much. I bet you can find examples where this exact set of inputs is perfectly Ok (right up until it's too late).
eg. How do you propose cars should deal with motorcyclists in the other lane? Hitting the brakes every time they see one move slightly sideways? That would be dangerous.