Oh well, keep voting Republican, that'll help.Don’t be so sure of that:
http://cnnmon.ie/2DrKBQU
In short, tech companies are looking to slant the playing field against consumers. Don’t hear anyone protesting this.
Except that everyone is pretty much going to work at the same time. The traffic problem isn't when people aren't at work, it's when people are trying to get to work.One of the big benefits of self-driving cars is the ability to have car services drive you around like an Uber. A car would take you to work and then go off moving other people around rather than just being parked at your office. If every car was self-driving and doing this, it would cut down on the number of cars in a city significantly.
I'll accept this as long as we agree that "aren't always in the wrong" equals less that one percent of the time.It probably was her fault. Human drivers injure or kill jaywalkers all the time, because it isn't always easy to stop in time when someone dashes into traffic, especially at night. And if a car does stop without warning that could cause an accident with the cars behind it. Crosswalks exist for a reason.
Uber management are (or at least were) scum who deserve prison time for their law-breaking and abuse of their "contractors," but they aren't always in the wrong. Just most of the time.
Would you have massive swathes of people, effectively under house arrest, because they are "unwanted" in society, and are unable to take ANY transportation at all? Think of those scenes in Minority Report. We don't need that in a Free Society.
Edit: Freedom is more important than Safety. If 10,000 people die each year on the highways and roads due to human error, so that we may remain free, so be it!
As a mobile employee, I work out of my car. Having the car drive me around so I can work from my devices seems like a damn good thing.Except that everyone is pretty much going to work at the same time. The traffic problem isn't when people aren't at work, it's when people are trying to get to work.
I'm not saying it's going to eliminate traffic, but it should cut down on the number of cars parked on the street and encourage car pooling. Once cities ban human-driven vehicles, there shouldn't been as much of a need for stop lights. I heard one expert on NPR claim it would cut the number of vehicles in a city by 80%, which I think is absurd, but if it only prevents an increase in vehicles as cities grow, I think it will be a positive.Except that everyone is pretty much going to work at the same time. The traffic problem isn't when people aren't at work, it's when people are trying to get to work.
I'm not saying it's going to eliminate traffic, but it should cut down on the number of cars parked on the street and encourage car pooling. Once cities ban human-driven vehicles, there shouldn't been as much of a need for stop lights. I heard one expert on NPR claim it would cut the number of vehicles in a city by 80%, which I think is absurd, but if it only prevents an increase in vehicles as cities grow, I think it will be a positive.
I'm still skeptical of the technology, but I'm ready for it to be a reality.
As expected:
Chief of Police Sylvia Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday that video footage taken from cameras equipped to the autonomous Volvo SUV potentially shift the blame to the victim herself, 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, rather than the vehicle.
“It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir told the paper, adding that the incident occurred roughly 100 yards from a crosswalk. “It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated managed crosswalks are available,” she said.
http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
As a mobile employee, I work out of my car. Having the car drive me around so I can work from my devices seems like a damn good thing.
Not surprised, automated vehicles go through a ton of testing before being released on the road. Chances are the person did not follow the rule of not jaywalking and just ran out into incoming traffic, something we teach little kids not to do. Can't fix people not being safe themselves, this has nothing to do with a problem with automated cars.
What's frustrating is that this will probably trigger at least a mild backlash against self-driving vehicles, even though they should ultimately be safer than human-piloted cars.
Yes, something clearly went wrong, and yes, this is tragic and would ideally have been avoidable. But I'm worried this will lead to knee-jerk reactions in the public and legislatures rather than a careful, considered response that might lead to better regulation and cultural understanding.
I don't know what road parking is like where you live, but here in St. Louis they literally take up a lane on the road. The place where they park is marked as a lane and if there are no cars can be used as a lane, but it is also zoned for parking. It seems really stupid, but if those cars aren't parked, it frees up a lane. Even if they're on the roads, they are likely not all on that road at the same time, so the load is spread out.If the cars aren't parked on the street, then they are going to be driving around constantly. They will still be taking up roadspace, surely?
I was making the assumption that we were talking about electric cars, which as I understand them are less prone to mechanical failures. Additionally, they'd be able to ferry themselves to a garage for pickup.Plus more car use = wearing out faster = more car production = more environmental costs. I still don't get the argument that self-driving-cars means fewer cars. Why would that be the case? On the contrary, it means car use will increase as it won't be limited to those able or willing to drive themselves, and may indeed involve empty cars travelling to-and-fro to pick people up.
This is a problem I haven't heard a good solution for in cases where there are a lot of pedestrians. At those intersections you'd basically have to have a stop light or some analogue.And I don't quite get the point about stop-lights either. Without stop lights, how will any pedestrian cross the road? If the cars are programmed to always stop when any pedestrian is detected, then there will pretty soon be complaints from car users about peds constantly walking in front of them and making it hard for them to get anywhere. Next step will logically be stronger laws to ban pedestrians from the streets or an intentional weakening of the cars' willingness to stop rather than drive into things.
The whole thing just looks way more complex and fraught than the hype suggests. Though I admit I am exclusively thinking of crowded urban areas, not so much 'interstates' and rural highways (the non-urban world is a foreign country to me)
One perosn died from a self driving car. 1!
How many people die at the hands from other humans? ITS IN THE THOUSANDS.
1 vs Thousands.
And that will come, probably sooner than later. Technology like this advanced at a exponential rate. It will be only a few years before antonymous cars are considerably better drivers than even the best trained human drivers. They have a lot of advantages over humans after all. Better sensors, 360 awareness, no distractions, faster decision making, faster reactions.But to do that they'd have to advance to the point where it was not necessary to ever have a human driver take over.
Yeah, but the 'rules of not jaywalking' were invented by the car lobby itself as a way to shift responsibility onto its victims, so your argument is a mite circular.
And how many human driven cars are on the road for every self-driving car? 100,000 to 1?
The safety of this technology remains a question mark.
And how many human driven cars are on the road for every self-driving car? 100,000 to 1?
The safety of this technology remains a question mark.
Sure, and this is just the beginning. It'll only evolve and become more refined as development continues. This is the technology's most dangerous point, at introduction. Every successive year it'll surpass human safety by ever an increasing standard. Frankly, you've seen other drivers right? The bar is set pretty god damn low, all the AI has to do is not intentionally try to kill other people and it'd be a step up from human drivers.
There WILL be some stumbling as we take our first few steps. It is perfectly natural for there to be some danger and some failures now. But the destination at the end of this road is to save the lives of 40,000 people EVERY YEAR. And that's just in the United States.
Whatever we decide, the machines will be able to react much faster than any human would.How does a machine decide who to kill when there is no alternative? Should it be able to kill you instead of a child?
There's a lot of faith without a consideration of inherent problems.
Whatever we decide, the machines will be able to react much faster than any human would.
How does a machine decide who to kill when there is no alternative? Should it be able to kill you instead of a child?
What effective philosophy will your car have?
But to do that they'd have to advance to the point where it was not necessary to ever have a human driver take over