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.
It's all relative to the camera's aperture and to the ISO (sensitivity of the image sensor). Depending on the camera and what settings you have, you can make it as dark or light as you want (relatively speaking and within the limits of the camera). Some cameras are way better at low light than others.
It's really hard to know which camera is "telling the truth" unless you drive that stretch and see it with your own eyes and not through a camera that is processing the image. Having driven through that spot many times (it's been awhile), the YouTube link you posted seemed a little brighter than I remember but it definitely wasn't as dark as the Uber video.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko
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.
The only way your logic works is if no human is allowed to control any vehicle on any road meaning total dependence on the technology. Only problem with that is how do you get there without risking lives while you gather and implement all of the possible scenarios to be accounted for?
I can live with human error. I do not however want to trust my life to an electronic gizmo that was built and programmed by an imperfect human and can and will fail and most probably at the worst possible time. Instead of adding all of this equipment looking outward how about turning or adding some of that equipment around to analyze the driver and make the vehicle respond accordingly. Then we get the best of both. The INFINITE flexibility and versatility of human intuition and reaction as well as technology to deal with external influences, which is already being implemented in our new vehicles today.
Sorry but I do not wish to live in the anti-humanist world you describe. I do agree however that the all-mighty dollar will win out in the end as it always does. We already know the upside for businesses that rely on vehicles. The wildcard will be how the liability expense plays out as you noted.
Point to ponder, 40K people die in car accidents every year in the USA and in all those accidents there was a driver behind the wheel .now we have one fatality in a driverless car.
One driverless car out of how many?
Oh yeah, very few
That will be true if the entities or people responsible for operating self-driving cars can't insulate themselves from liability, either through separate incorporation or otherwise. For example taxi fleets are notorious for a fleet controlling hundreds of cabs to be allowed to incorporate the cabs in two-car corporations, and being allowed to operate in that fashion.
That effectively limits an injured party to an action against two cabs of minimal value and insurance in a minimal amount.You unintentionally made my point. One I didn't even think of.
A jihadist or for that matter a mentally ill or vengeful person could program a driverless car to inflict mayhem.
An excellent point.
No one would have conceived of a foreign nation interfering in our elections until it happened in 2016. This isn't science fiction. Its a question of someone developing the expertise and than having the wherewithal to carry out such an attack. In large cities at rush hour, I can imagine just how many fatalities could result from something like this.
It needs to be studied. We need to know that safeguards are being built into the system.
This needs to occur long before there are thousands of autonomous cars on our roads.
It's all relative to the camera's aperture and to the ISO (sensitivity of the image sensor). Depending on the camera and what settings you have, you can make it as dark or light as you want (relatively speaking and within the limits of the camera). Some cameras are way better at low light than others.
It's really hard to know which camera is "telling the truth" unless you drive that stretch and see it with your own eyes and not through a camera that is processing the image. Having driven through that spot many times (it's been awhile), the YouTube link you posted seemed a little brighter than I remember but it definitely wasn't as dark as the Uber video.
All of the arguments based on the Uber video that said there were at best two seconds time to react, get tossed out the window if it was lit like the video I just posted.
Its not the beginning of the end. However, I do hope this experience and the others that will almost certainly occur slow this process down. I would hope for a period of at least twenty-five years before this technology is adopted on any universal scale. That will likely give us a chance to work out most of the bugs.
Well, no one--including me--is arguing for a 1000/1 ratio. However, I do think because this change is so revolutionary and so different that the ratio ought to be 3/1 or at least 2/1. Too many lives are going to be affected by driverless vehicles. We'll have to find a way to deal with all the unemployed truck and delivery drivers. We'll have to deal with the fact that large segments of the population will be useless in terms of doing any work that is actually required since computers and machines will be doing not only driving, but most of the labor in society.
Techno geeks just can't understand this type of reasoning. They want to rush head long into every new device and technology that is out there. We still deal routinely with problems like bank computers shutting down for short periods and getting extremely slow service when I call different vendors because "the computer is running slow today". Techno geeks don't seem to understand that these gadgets don't run as well as advertised and they don't understand the frustration many of us have because we can no longer do anything by hand. It all has to go through a computer system.
Technology is fine, but let it be good technology. Let it be thoroughly tested and let it be clearly, clearly shown to be better than what it is replacing. Let a consensus--not a mere majority--exist before it is implemented.
This probably got more media coverage than the 4000 pedestrians killed by human drivers last year collectively got. So I would say that right now the public is more bothered by 1 driverless car fatalities than thousands of human driver fatalities.
No one would have conceived of a foreign nation interfering in our elections until it happened in 2016. This isn't science fiction. Its a question of someone developing the expertise and than having the wherewithal to carry out such an attack. In large cities at rush hour, I can imagine just how many fatalities could result from something like this.
It needs to be studied. We need to know that safeguards are being built into the system.
This needs to occur long before there are thousands of autonomous cars on our roads.
Highly unlikely. It is not difficult to create software systems that cannot be externally accessed. There are in fact billions of microprocessors in the world that are not externally modifiable. This is a designers choice sort of thing. There is a wide set of trade offs between security and ease of maintenance. Eventually when we get into the systems providing traffic and incident support we could end up where these systems are messed with and monumental traffic jams occur...but the basic vehicle safety software can still be protected.
The big issue here is not the liability for the fatality. It is why the system missed the most obvious of targets. This is a catastrophic failure of such magnitude to cause big questions about the entire UBER program.
It is possible that a hostile power or individual could penetrate any system that is not carefully protected. This has been shown by the number of successful access to major data bases that should have been well secured. But it is also possible to make portions of individual systems so secure that penetration without physical access is impossible.
I would hold that UBER should be shut down until such times as the failure of their system is understood and corrected. I would also suggest that a deep audit of the system should occur as they have already demonstrated and ability to launch a dangerous system.
This probably got more media coverage than the 4000 pedestrians killed by human drivers last year collectively got. So I would say that right now the public is more bothered by 1 driverless car fatalities than thousands of human driver fatalities.
A completely FALSE equivalent given how many non robocars are on the road and miles driven per year vs how many robocars are.
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.
