- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Uber's autonomous car had 6 seconds to prevent fatal crash but failed to act
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:19 pm to GeauxTigerTM
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:19 pm to GeauxTigerTM
It’s not a sensationalized headline at all. It saw her 6 seconds before it hit her and registered her as an unknown object. Even though it saw something in the road it failed to slow down or take any other action. Uber disabled emergency breaking b/c they say it causes the car to drive erratically which clearly indicates the tech is not yet ready. B/c they obviously know it isn’t ready they had a human in there to take over. However, unlike pretty much every single company who is testing these kinds of cars they only put one person instead of two which guaranteed the person in the car there for emergency would be distracted as she also had to monitor the vehicle’s systems.
They knew the tech wasn’t ready for full autonomy, knew it needed a person to watch the road b/c the system might fail and had emergency breaking disabled b/c it causes erratic driving, but then required said person to look away from the road b/c they were too cheap to hire a second person to monitor the vehicle’s systems. They are clearly guilty of neglect in this case.
They knew the tech wasn’t ready for full autonomy, knew it needed a person to watch the road b/c the system might fail and had emergency breaking disabled b/c it causes erratic driving, but then required said person to look away from the road b/c they were too cheap to hire a second person to monitor the vehicle’s systems. They are clearly guilty of neglect in this case.
2
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:26 pm to Dr RC
quote:
They knew the tech wasn’t ready for full autonomy, knew it needed a person to watch the road b/c the system might fail and had emergency breaking disabled b/c it causes erratic driving, but then required said person to look away from the road b/c they were too cheap to hire a second person to monitor the vehicle’s systems. They are clearly guilty of neglect in this case.
and they damn well know it. they closed up autonmous testing in AZ and got the hell out of the state with their tail between their legs.
yet idiots on the OT still defend the car and uber
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:27 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Well, regardless, you are.
wanna compare technology knowledge?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING??
DO YOU KNOW WHO MY DAD IS??
STAY OFF MY LAWN
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:32 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
as soon as it's shown to be even a tiny bit safer it ought to be adopted in a sweeping fashion.
As long as I can still drive my car, and the auto-pilots are predictable and repeatable enough that I know what they're going to do, I'm fine with this.
But if 'adopted in sweeping fashion' means self-driving is bordering on mandatory I'm not alright with that. I consider myself (and I am) a far better and safer driver than 'average'. So I'll be damned if I get in a car that is going to drive only 'slightly better than average' from a safety perspective. Average =/ good.
If I ever get in a fiery flippy wreck it better be because a naked OT-9 was pogo-sticking on the side of the interstate and not because one of a billion sensors that a cost-reduction-crazy car manufacturer spits out happen to get glitchy.
This post was edited on 5/24/18 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:34 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
How much money will the victims family get?
All of it
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:36 pm to CAD703X
quote:
wanna compare technology knowledge?
Not really.
quote:
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING??
Don't even care.
quote:
DO YOU KNOW WHO MY DAD IS??
Really don't care.
quote:
STAY OFF MY LAWN
No problem, I can piss on it from over here.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:47 pm to CAD703X
quote:
you still blame the driver or uber for getting such stellar talent to blaze forth in their new robocars?
Um, the driver. I don't blame the technology/system when the human failsafe failed to do their job.
If Uber had a shitty hiring practice then yeah, they are to blame too.
Posted on 5/24/18 at 1:50 pm to Fe_Mike
quote:
I consider myself (and I am) a far better and safer driver than 'average'
Pretty much every single person you ask will say they are a better than average driver. It really is amazing.
Truth is that the vast majority are all average drivers.
This post was edited on 5/24/18 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 5/24/18 at 3:40 pm to Dr RC
quote:
They knew the tech wasn’t ready for full autonomy, knew it needed a person to watch the road b/c the system might fail and had emergency breaking disabled b/c it causes erratic driving, but then required said person to look away from the road b/c they were too cheap to hire a second person to monitor the vehicle’s systems. They are clearly guilty of neglect in this case.
Oh, I don't really disagree. The tech isn't there yet.
But...it absolutely WILL be, and really soon, don't you think?
The issue I have with stories like these are that they will only make people who think that a 100% success rate in terms of driverless cars is the only way they will consider this a safer alternative emboldened in their belief. If people would remove the emotion from this for a second and simply do the math, it's silly to fight this.
Now...does that mean all companies ought to be free from responsibility as the kinks get worked out? Hell no!
Posted on 5/24/18 at 3:53 pm to Fe_Mike
quote:
As long as I can still drive my car, and the auto-pilots are predictable and repeatable enough that I know what they're going to do, I'm fine with this.
But if 'adopted in sweeping fashion' means self-driving is bordering on mandatory I'm not alright with that. I consider myself (and I am) a far better and safer driver than 'average'. So I'll be damned if I get in a car that is going to drive only 'slightly better than average' from a safety perspective. Average =/ good.
If I ever get in a fiery flippy wreck it better be because a naked OT-9 was pogo-sticking on the side of the interstate and not because one of a billion sensors that a cost-reduction-crazy car manufacturer spits out happen to get glitchy.
Honestly, I think you'll see it be phased in as the tech gets better and better...allowing for people to opt in or out of various levels of control.
And like you, I'm a great driver...and I LOOOOOOOVE driving! Both vehicles we own are standards! But...I'm still just an ape and my reflexes, vision, decision making, etc will only function as well as it does.
At a time relatively soon I'd have to assume that my abilities, as good as I think they are (let's face it, even shitty drivers likely think they're NASCAR level) will be outpaced by the computer version. And at that point, when it is CLEAR that the driverless car is a far safer (if not a 100% foolproof) solution...is it not more dangerous to allow people to continue to drive on their own? You think your family would be mad if you got killed by a driverless car...but what if in the age of incredibly safe driverless cars you were run over by some guy who chose to drive his own car even those his odds of being in a wreck were far greater than had he turned it over to the machine?
FWIW, this is an issue I think about a lot as I have 2 boys relatively close to the age of driving. One will start driver's ed this year at 15 and the other is 11. They will be driving at an incredibly strange time. A huge percentage of their fellow drivers will give so little fricks about them that they will refuse to put their fricking phones down while they drive while at the same time driverless tech will still be a decade away or so. As much as I'd love for them to have the enjoyment I've had out of driving, as a person whose family has lost a TON due to an automobile accident, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't rooting for the driverless option to take over sooner rather than later to remove the likelihood they get killed behind the wheel by some idiot playing on their phone.
I really think we've crossed over as a society to where folks simply do not have the willpower or interest in simply driving and not playing with their devices. And there's no real way to police it. It will require people to be removed from the equation.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News