Hmm…
+
Yes, that could work!
1 Like
Will I?
There is much more money in a “as a service” model.
4 Likes
NEWS UPDATE
SF Chron is reporting:
- Pedestrian stepped out from the median, some distance from a crosswalk, into moving 35+ mph traffic
- Bike was carrying a load of bags
- Accident likely to be found no fault of driver
From viewing the videos, “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,” (Tempe police chief) Moir said. The police have not released the videos.
7 Likes
As long as I document my processes (ISO 26262) and follow industry standard guidelines (MISRA) then any faults are above my paygrade as individual contributor. The responsibility rests with the people at the top, not us engineers on the bottom. As long as those of us on the bottom are following the standards and not hiding reports.
We’re not required to make a perfect system that never fails. But we should aim for very high reliability. I think we can be satisified if we make software that is more reliable then your mechnical brakes.
2 Likes
if someone is trying to cross, the cars are required to yield. Even if it’s jaywalking you are required to make the best effort you can. Pedestrains should get jaywalking tickets, in my area (Santa Clara) they are about $320, so a pretty big deal. But you won’t see jaywalking tickets being handed out in SF, which is a shame because a few people are killed every year just by the public busses (MUNI) running them over.
1 Like
Sounds fair. But those standards are not applied to self driving cars, to my knowledge.
1 Like
As a tourist in Rome, I was told that the way to cross roads was to make eye contact with an on coming driver and stepping confidently off the curb in to their path. Neither of these things came naturally too me.
1 Like
If it’s anything like a plane’s autopilot there’s no switch to pull. Hit the brakes, steer the wheel, or push on the accelerator and the input from the driver will have the precedence on whatever the car computer is planning to do. Usually followed by a warning signal notifying that the autopilot has disengaged.
Yes, I found that took a bit of getting used to - but it did work amazingly well. They certainly weren’t going to stop!
1 Like
I was told it works because no Roman wants to have to tackle the mountain paperwork resulting from running someone over.
3 Likes
I feel like I definitely missed something upthread. Who said Uber planned to privatize public roads and ban privately owned vehicles? Who said private citizens won’t also be able to buy autonomous vehicles? Where is this idea from, because I’ve never seen or heard it before and I can’t imagine a scenario where it becomes law?
6 Likes
Move those goal posts!
The discussion is whether we’ll even allow driverless cars on the road.
2 Likes
AFAICT, you are the only one who brought up privatizing public assets as a threat, I didn’t move anything. I agree that there should be real public debate on whether, and under what conditions, we should allow driverless cars on the road. I think the natural Schelling point to start that discussion from is somewhere between “when they are demonstrably better than what we require from human drivers to get and keep a license” and “when they are demonstrably better than a majority of human drivers.” I might even accept “when they are better than the best human drivers.” What would your proposal be, and why?
4 Likes
Update: the pedestrian was a homeless woman pushing a bicycle, which she used to carry her stuff.
8 Likes
It’s literally not yet decided if they’ll be allowed on the road. And lobbyists are trying to lower standards.
Uber Driverless-Vehicle Accident Complicates Push to Ease Rules
Bill in Congress that would speed the cars’ development is likely to face more hurdles
By John D. McKinnon
March 20, 2018 11:20 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—This week’s pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car is likely to complicate efforts in Congress to speed the vehicles’ development by wiping away state safety regulations.
The House last fall passed legislation that would pre-empt regulations that some states have sought to impose on the driverless-car industry recently. The bill would also exempt driverless cars from many federal safety-equipment standards, to accommodate new designs. Instead, the bill would have regulators rely on safety certifications…
3 Likes
A CBC news report of this last night added an interesting detail: investigators can’t find any sign that the vehicle slowed down. Like it literally didn’t even observe that an object was moving out in front of it on the street.
4 Likes
Isn’t this where LIDAR is supposed to “see” anything moving into the path of the vehicle?
4 Likes
And no snowstorm - the weather in Arizona and Mountain View doesn’t comport with the rest of the country.
3 Likes
Thanks, I agree that that is not a direction that makes any sense to move in. If driverless cars aren’t more safe, there’s no reason to allow them on the roads.
1 Like
Yeah, but a big part of that is the fact that most autonomous cars aren’t being operated on city streets quite yet, for exactly the reason above. City streets are the classic last-mile problem, which is why dudes like Musk want to dig under them and create auto-only zones. Take this vision of the future by CGP Grey, approximately the 4:15 mark:
Pretty compelling, right? But something’s missing from that city traffic utopia: people. Simple, ambulating people. That horrific bridge collapse at FIU was an example of trying to engineer the people out of traffic, as a response to a traffic death that happened a couple years prior. City streets are host to a variety of power trains, from elderly people who can’t drive any more, to skateboards, mopeds, light trucks, garbage trucks, busses, etc. And the weakest power trains are often connected to the most vulnerable people, self-driving cars are simply not ready for the expectations being put upon them quite yet.
2 Likes
