We've had "driving is a privilege not a right" for as long as we've had cars, and it's worked out pretty fine so far. You have to do a lot to lose your right to drive.
News: Random pedestrian selflessly gives life to forward science of autonomous cars.
- Thread starter Leonard D Neubache
- Start date
Aurini
Ostrich
SamuelBRoberts said:
Maybe it's time to revisit that.
Having a gun is a right - but if I walk around cocking it all the time because it makes me feel like a bad ass, I'll be arrested for brandishing and that right will be revoked.
The right to own a car is really the right of travel. You cannot walk between towns; nor can you ride a horse. Free movement requires a vehicle, and the convenience of a centrally-controlled autonomous rent-a-ride offers a way to undermine this freedom indirectly.
This wouldn't be the first time the Bugmen have restricted movement. During the Cold War, you had to have an Internal Visa with you to travel anywhere outside of your jurisdiction. The autonomous car could be used in a similar manner: prove that it's 'safer' through rigged statistics, then put a Carbon Tax on real vehicles because of bad science, and soon enough you have even more docile soyboys who jump onto the transit, pre-screen themselves at airports, and grow nervous whenever you discussion of rights starts to sound like lack of party loyalty.
And don't tell me this is the Slippery Slope fallacy: the past fifty years have been nothing but Slippery Slope reality!
Lampwick said:
Looks like a moron crossing a huge street in pitch back darkness (but could be the limitations of the camera).
I would've run her dumb ass over too.
Saw that video. If I were the driver, there was no way I could have avoided that collision. Even if I braked immediately the millisecond I saw the pedestrian, the braking distance would have been too long to stop in time.
I might have swerved, though. But that presents a whole new set of problems. Would I have hit oncoming traffic head-on or got myself into a ditch had I swerved?
In this case, the pedestrian was 100% at fault. And I say this as someone who is not sold on self-driving vehicles.
I might have swerved, though. But that presents a whole new set of problems. Would I have hit oncoming traffic head-on or got myself into a ditch had I swerved?
In this case, the pedestrian was 100% at fault. And I say this as someone who is not sold on self-driving vehicles.
Yes the pedestrian was foolish to be casually walking across the street like that.
But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.
In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk
But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.
In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk
BlueMark said:
It's hard to say what she was doing before then, though. Without access to the exact imagery we can't really tell.
Either way I hope Uber sues her estate for the cleaning costs of the front bumper.
If an automated car can barely 'see' any better than the average person; even less reason to have them.
You'd ordinarily expect an automated cars sensors to be able to handle a bit of darkness.
You'd ordinarily expect an automated cars sensors to be able to handle a bit of darkness.
Ice Man
Woodpecker
An interesting fact about the proliferation of uber etc is that such services have increased traffic and vehicles and pollution in cities.
One of the big claims of these "ridesharing" companies was that it would reduce vehicle congestion and pollution. Well that has been found to be not only bullshit, in fact they have increased the problem.
Studies* found that the people who use these service most are people who were previously taking the bus, train, walking, or riding a bike. Uber, Lyft etc have pulled millions of people off of public transport and non-motorized transport and put them each in (usually) their own vehicle. Turns out that given a choice between a piss smelling bus and quiet ride in a Prius, people go with the car. What a surprise!
They also found that not only are there millions more people now riding in cars who weren't before, those cars are sitting empty idling for long stretches waiting for the next passenger. So you have a multiple times effect on emissions than you would with someone driving their own car and parking it, let alone the effect of pulling millions off public transport and add those car trips to the "carbon footprint".
So, increased pollution, loss of riders on efficient public transport, increased traffic in cities.
The eco-terrorists are quiet on these facts. The question is, why?
Clearly the true purpose of "ride-sharing", and by extension the pushing of autonomous cars, is not to reduce traffic or pollution, since it has made both worse. So what is it? :dodgy:
*Sources:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/uber-lyft-drivers-are-making-city-traffic-worse-studies-find/
http://kdvr.com/2018/02/25/studies-suggest-uber-and-lyft-cause-traffic-congestion/
https://www.citylab.com/transportat...york-citys-unsustainable-traffic-woes/548798/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car-congestion-pricing-nyc.html[/SIZE]
One of the big claims of these "ridesharing" companies was that it would reduce vehicle congestion and pollution. Well that has been found to be not only bullshit, in fact they have increased the problem.
Studies* found that the people who use these service most are people who were previously taking the bus, train, walking, or riding a bike. Uber, Lyft etc have pulled millions of people off of public transport and non-motorized transport and put them each in (usually) their own vehicle. Turns out that given a choice between a piss smelling bus and quiet ride in a Prius, people go with the car. What a surprise!
They also found that not only are there millions more people now riding in cars who weren't before, those cars are sitting empty idling for long stretches waiting for the next passenger. So you have a multiple times effect on emissions than you would with someone driving their own car and parking it, let alone the effect of pulling millions off public transport and add those car trips to the "carbon footprint".
So, increased pollution, loss of riders on efficient public transport, increased traffic in cities.
The eco-terrorists are quiet on these facts. The question is, why?
Clearly the true purpose of "ride-sharing", and by extension the pushing of autonomous cars, is not to reduce traffic or pollution, since it has made both worse. So what is it? :dodgy:
*Sources:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/uber-lyft-drivers-are-making-city-traffic-worse-studies-find/
http://kdvr.com/2018/02/25/studies-suggest-uber-and-lyft-cause-traffic-congestion/
https://www.citylab.com/transportat...york-citys-unsustainable-traffic-woes/548798/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car-congestion-pricing-nyc.html[/SIZE]
Ice Man said:
To make a bunch of money, of course.
Ice Man
Woodpecker
SamuelBRoberts said:
Indeed it is.
But I'm talking about enviro-mental cases and the "muh climate change" groups, not the companies themselves. These groups never give companies a pass on pollution issues like they have with Uber and Lyft, so clearly there is a broader agenda which others have touched upon.
Ice Man said:
They aren't. Sierra Club's been bitching about it for a while now, right?
porscheguy
Ostrich
Am I the only one who noticed that the tranny was distracted for much of the time? This is the real problem with automated cars. Operator complacency. How does the operator stay engaged with what’s going on, while sitting and twiddling his thumbs?
BlueMark said:
Yes, I think you're right. The video may in fact be misleading due to the limitations of the camera. Uber could be in deep shit here, as well as the driver. An engineer who advises Google on self-driving cars wrote that the car's LIDAR and other systems should have detected the woman crossing and stopped:
http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber
Aurini said:
Aurini hits the nails in the head.
Google the massive bunch of bullshit that is Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Guess what, they love driverless cars: https://www.madd.org/blog/press-release/madd-statement-gms-new-safety-report-self-driving-cars/
Anyone who wants a dose of "driving is a priveledge" here's what you do:
1) get 5000 dollars
2) fly to Hawaii
3) get rip shit wasted
4) go through a DUI checkpoint
5) buy your way out of said DUI through the courts
Take look at what a bunch of bullshit the system is. It will blow your mind. If you can't afford the right lawyer, lose your lisence for however long some fat Samoan woman hopped up on mountain dew feels like. Its all a sham and they all know it.
Aloha!
Ice Man said:
:mindblown:
Fascinating info, I had no idea about this. Thanks for posting it!
In hindsight, it totally makes sense and I can confirm it with my own lifestyle - before Uber appeared I've used a cab maybe twice in my entire life, and maybe a friend or family member's car once a month. Nowadays I routinely make use of Uber once or twice a week!
Lampwick said:
The pedestrian woman was sure foolish to cross street at night at slow speed without light reflecting gear and she was not even looking sideways.
But look at that driver - a double chin, unrecognizable gender slob with face buried in his phone till the last moment. This is to what autonomous cars and overabundance of automation in general will devolve humans.
Concerning the idea that a car could/should have reacted faster due to having infrared sensors - apparently it didn't work. Also until the car also has biologically harmful x-ray sensors it won't be able to detect people coming behind objects as well so it isn't fool proof either. Also could infrared sensor be tricked by various hot objects, like lamps or fires?
I imagine an autonomous car would get confused and would leave you to burn should you ever require to escape a burning forest:
BlueMark said:
Average reaction time for humans is 3 seconds. He only had 2 seconds and that assumes a good driver who swerves.
But if you plopp even not a fat tranny in front of a self-driving car, then you will have 99%+ of folk barely watch what is going on in the road. The tranny was texting or watching xir's phone most of the time, but in this case I can hardly blame him. Before xir would make a move, then it was already too late.
Still - the case remains, that the sensors should not have been affected by it. If I had their vision, then I would have seen the woman a long time before. What probably confused the computere was that the person was still on the other side of the road and I guess the programming did not count that as an inconvenience.
Of course any human would react to that if he saw it.
I might add that I do believe that self-driving cars will be safer and much better in the future. I only distrust our unethical shitheads to be he masters of that system. That is why I think that it will be abused tremendously - not that not a good idea.
This case - I blame the machine because it should have seen the woman coming, though many humans would have driven over her as well. The programming should include foreign people or objects coming from the other lane as well. If a kid on an open road drives across to the other side, then most humans would react long in advance with full visibility. You cannot have the machine ignore that kid and only attempt to stop when the child crosses your lane.
On second thought - I did not see the machine attempt to break. The reaction time of the car should have been under one second. My guess is that the sensors did not even notice the person - even with full visibility the car would have driven over the woman when 99% of humans would have managed to stop.