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.
I would of course be devastated. And it would be far worse if it was a stupid error. That is the same reaction I would have to them dying in any traffic accident. And again it would be worse ifthe accident had a stupid cause like DUI.
I led the development of office equipment for multiple decades. We took great pains to minimize the risk of killing a customer but it still could have happened. It did not though we took out a floor in a major office building and caused a few other significant fires. Any one of these could have killed someone. So any new development has some risks and automobiles are worse because of the physics involved.
I wasn't trying to put you on the spot - your post just exemplified something that happens when people talk about this subject (and many subjects), which is focus on the abstract and forget the personal.
I wasn't trying to put you on the spot - your post just exemplified something that happens when people talk about this subject (and many subjects), which is focus on the abstract and forget the personal.
And I am pointing out to you that any development of equipment used by humans has a risk of harming or killing the user. Fact of life. And those developments with large masses and high velocities have even greater risk.
So those who deal with such development strive to minimize the risk...but it will still exists. It is as well a trade-off. The device or process must still be usable and economic. And that is where it gets hard and takes skill.
So even after the buggy software correctly identified the bicycle in time to stop, it still made no attempt to do so. The driver ultimately had to take over and stop the car. Somebody please tell me again that self-driving cars are better than humans. I need a good laugh. NTSB_ Uber’s sensors worked; its software utterly failed in fatal crash _ Ars Technica
Thanks for the post. So according to that, the self-driving car was fine with crashing into another vehicle, as it supposed the pedestrian to be?
Wonder what was up with the pedestrian - in the crosswalk, jaywalking, on his cell?
I don't either. I think it's fantasy land vaporware that will never happen.
Here's the deal with self-driving vehicles the way I see it: you'd either need a hypothetical scenario where either everybody or nobody is using driverless technology to avoid the messy liability entanglements of whom is to blame when a collision occurs. With the trucks I think you would need to create whole separate rights-of-way for them to do their thing away from the motoring public, which would be so expensive that it would likely negate the cost savings of not having to just pay a driver to drive the truck on a public highway. The trucking companies do everything they can to shove the blame onto the driver when an at-fault accident occurs with one of their company rigs, but with a computer controlling the truck it's all on the company if something goes bad.
I don't either. I think it's fantasy land vaporware that will never happen.
Here's the deal with self-driving vehicles the way I see it: you'd either need a hypothetical scenario where either everybody or nobody is using driverless technology to avoid the messy liability entanglements of whom is to blame when a collision occurs. With the trucks I think you would need to create whole separate rights-of-way for them to do their thing away from the motoring public, which would be so expensive that it would likely negate the cost savings of not having to just pay a driver to drive the truck on a public highway. The trucking companies do everything they can to shove the blame onto the driver when an at-fault accident occurs with one of their company rigs, but with a computer controlling the truck it's all on the company if something goes bad.
Nope. The die is pretty much thrown at this point. There will be accidents between AVs and human driven vehicles. But the AVs will have a detailed record of what happened and will almost never be at fault.
I expect initial implementation will be long haul trucks or specialty vehicles with limited operational areas. But statistics will swiftly grow and the usage will expand. In the early 2020s they will become common.
Truck accidents are always on the owner. No way out with the human or the computer.
I don't either. I think it's fantasy land vaporware that will never happen.
Here's the deal with self-driving vehicles the way I see it: you'd either need a hypothetical scenario where either everybody or nobody is using driverless technology to avoid the messy liability entanglements of whom is to blame when a collision occurs. With the trucks I think you would need to create whole separate rights-of-way for them to do their thing away from the motoring public, which would be so expensive that it would likely negate the cost savings of not having to just pay a driver to drive the truck on a public highway. The trucking companies do everything they can to shove the blame onto the driver when an at-fault accident occurs with one of their company rigs, but with a computer controlling the truck it's all on the company if something goes bad.
Yeah, I agree. I know a few truck drivers, and not one of them is even the least bit worried about losing their job to driverless trucks. It's just not going to happen. No machine can do the job of a truck driver. Can you imagine a driverless gasoline tanker barreling down the road. Suddenly there is an obstacle in front of it that the software can't identify. So it responds the same way the Uber car did. Kaboom, and a hundred people are dead.
I would of course be devastated. And it would be far worse if it was a stupid error. That is the same reaction I would have to them dying in any traffic accident. And again it would be worse ifthe accident had a stupid cause like DUI.
I led the development of office equipment for multiple decades. We took great pains to minimize the risk of killing a customer but it still could have happened. It did not though we took out a floor in a major office building and caused a few other significant fires. Any one of these could have killed someone. So any new development has some risks and automobiles are worse because of the physics involved.
I think we should require each such vehicle to have insurance sufficient to pay at least $1,000,000 per victim. From an A-rated insurance company. When the vehicles are that safe I would be fine with them. Until then, no.
I think we should require each such vehicle to have insurance sufficient to pay at least $1,000,000 per victim. From an A-rated insurance company. When the vehicles are that safe I would be fine with them. Until then, no.
Doubt that would be a big deal. Any of the early uses will be of the sort that such coverage is normal.
I personally carry 3 million. Don't see why 1 million would bother anyone.
Yeah, I agree. I know a few truck drivers, and not one of them is even the least bit worried about losing their job to driverless trucks. It's just not going to happen. No machine can do the job of a truck driver. Can you imagine a driverless gasoline tanker barreling down the road. Suddenly there is an obstacle in front of it that the software can't identify. So it responds the same way the Uber car did. Kaboom, and a hundred people are dead.
I think a lot of people are just a tiny bit ignorant of what truck drivers actually do to make the whole deal happen. The part where you sit there and actually drive the truck is the easy part, and your gasoline tanker is a good example of a truck driving job that wont ever get done by a self-driving computer. At best I could see Walmart, UPS, or some other large shippers wasting a bunch of money on this to automate a few select point to point shipping lanes to prove that they can waste millions of dollars to put a few modestly paid truck drivers out of work. But then I don't know what you do when the truck needs fuel, gets stuck in the snow, needs the trailer doors opened at the destination, or "oh sorry, we need you to move from door 22 to door 23 please". Anybody who has done this for a living (me, for one) knows it's ridiculous for a million reasons. Uber cars that drive themselves are far more realistic when you really think about it.
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.
