Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That sounds appealing to them, but it’s unrealistic.
There are certain things that trucks can’t do without a driver. Negotiating tight turns in city areas, adjusting driving speeds/distances for adverse weather conditions, sliding axle tandems, etc.
On top of that, there would be big liability issues(insurance costs).
Many trucking companies wouldn’t even be able to buy them due to the high cost and maintenance issues.
How is a robot truck any different than a partially robotic car which parks for you because the biological controller drivers may not have the skills to do it. With computing power ever expanding it is just a matter of time when the fiscal risk shifts from the robot using pathfinder to the Luddite who demands an ex convict who had a hard time finding other employment to control his truck and potential weapon.
I hope this is the beginning of the end for them, but I don't know. The proponents are very determined, and there is a lot of money to be made with them. But ultimately the liabilities might outweigh the potential profits.
Pedestrian walks in front of a moving car and gets herself killed,some are trying to make the case that it was the cars fault.
The point is that the Uber cars are not at a level of quality to be allowed out on public roads. It looks like one of the primary systems didn't work, which is quite a big deal and needs to be explained. Saying that the software is not completed and has limitations isn't an acceptable explanation, in my opinion.
I hope this is the beginning of the end for them, but I don't know. The proponents are very determined, and there is a lot of money to be made with them. But ultimately the liabilities might outweigh the potential profits.
You got it flipped ultimately the liability of depending upon an unreliable biological unit as the robots improve will force the people off of the roads. Just as other industries have run out of time so will the driver industry.
The robot won't get drunk. It won't text or decide today is the day to join the Jihad. Once we find out why the sensor and decision making package on this particular robot failed then the patch will be added to the entire fleet much more rapidly and certainly than forcing a day in driver school jail for a human traffic violation. And waiting for those small individual penalties to increase the overall safety record.
Cities will just have to find some other source of keeping their taxes lower.
I didn't realize how bad Uber's history is until this week. This is hardly the first problem.
This sort of development is extremely complicated. If not designed from the beginning with a solid foundation there may be no way to "patch" it into an acceptable product. I've seen this myself and know of other projects where it happened. It's like trying to fix a skyscraper that was built on a sandbar.
I didn't realize how bad Uber's history is until this week. This is hardly the first problem.
This sort of development is extremely complicated. If not designed from the beginning with a solid foundation there may be no way to "patch" it into an acceptable product. I've seen this myself and know of other projects too where it happened. It's like trying to fix a skyscraper that was built on a sandbar.
In that case to use an example from VCR's instead of using the Uber "betamax" the VHS equivalent system will become the standard, even if the other version had other advantages. We may not have reached the point of combat aviation where many think that the last fighter pilot has already been born to be replaced by a semi autonomous drone but the robot vehicles are coming. I speculate that besides a few collectors ans sports enthusiast I doubt that my grandchildren's generation will ever drive.
No, the case is that the car's sensors were supposed to detect obstacles in the road at the distance of the woman. Fault isn't the issue. If the car's sensors can't detect this stuff, then that is a safety issue. I know folks will chime in and say the cars are constantly learning.
The LIDAR was supposed to work up to one hundred feet and it didn't. There will always be random objects jumping into the road.
But no technology will ever work 100% of the time - that includes the human brain, which is just a system of electrical and chemical connections. I'm not saying we shouldn't learn from this accident. But there is no transportation option right now that prevents all fatalities.
You got it flipped ultimately the liability of depending upon an unreliable biological unit as the robots improve will force the people off of the roads. Just as other industries have run out of time so will the driver industry.
The robot won't get drunk. It won't text or decide today is the day to join the Jihad. Once we find out why the sensor and decision making package on this particular robot failed then the patch will be added to the entire fleet much more rapidly and certainly than forcing a day in driver school jail for a human traffic violation. And waiting for those small individual penalties to increase the overall safety record.
Cities will just have to find some other source of keeping their taxes lower.
There is a complicated psychological element to this though. In the future we probably will get to a point where driverless cars are safer than human drivers. However, if general public feels that 1 death caused by a driverless car is more tragic and outrageous than 1000 caused by human drivers, driverless cars may not become a reality.
No, the case is that the car's sensors were supposed to detect obstacles in the road at the distance of the woman. Fault isn't the issue. If the car's sensors can't detect this stuff, then that is a safety issue. I know folks will chime in and say the cars are constantly learning.
The LIDAR was supposed to work up to one hundred feet and it didn't. There will always be random objects jumping into the road.
And even if it did, that still won't necessarily save people from this degree of stupidity. Ok, just in case there were/are circumstances that make oblivity a better word than stupidity, we can use that. The result will be the same either way.
To be clear, I am NOT any kind of advocate for self-driving cars. I have at least as many reservations about them as most anyone else. However, this particular case is NOT the hill to die on. That woman died as a direct result of her own reckless action.
There is a complicated psychological element to this though. In the future we probably will get to a point where driverless cars are safer than human drivers. However, if general public feels that 1 death caused by a driverless car is more tragic and outrageous than 1000 caused by human drivers, driverless cars may not become a reality.
The general public will not have a say. A few personal injury lawyers and jury decisions against companies holding out and using unreliable people will turn the issue. Just as with many things the general public was just fine with but are no longer available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
