Self driving cars on murderous rampage...

[Chizzang]

Sure

Hey, life changes. When a company like Google and Apple, and now actual car manufacturers begin putting a genuine effort into driverless cars, it'll be tough to stop its advancement. And all the statistics are beginning to pile up that these vehicles are insanely safer, more efficient, and increase our time availability (which will increase economic outputs). It's making it much harder to make a case against these vehicles.

And most people want it. From that standpoint, there's even a business case to be made.

Remember:
American Lawyers can f*ck anything up - ANYTHING..!!!

[Pwns]

Nice piece on the legal reasons why we won't be driving in the future: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/opinions/ ... =obnetwork

I personally can't wait 'til we're done with driving cars.

The stats are misleading. That depends on how you factor in when the driver needs to take over for the car.

Humans don't get to have something else take over the car when we fall asleep, have a heart attack, or something like that. But the computer can when the computer crashes or gets into a situation that it can't deal with.

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/google-aut ... ervention/

[89Hen]

Hey, life changes. When a company like Google and Apple, and now actual car manufacturers begin putting a genuine effort into driverless cars, it'll be tough to stop its advancement. And all the statistics are beginning to pile up that these vehicles are insanely safer, more efficient, and increase our time availability (which will increase economic outputs). It's making it much harder to make a case against these vehicles.

And most people want it. From that standpoint, there's even a business case to be made.

Remember:
American Lawyers can f*ck anything up - ANYTHING..!!!

[GannonFan]

Nice piece on the legal reasons why we won't be driving in the future: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/opinions/ ... =obnetwork

I personally can't wait 'til we're done with driving cars.

The stats are misleading. That depends on how you factor in when the driver needs to take over for the car.

Humans don't get to have something else take over the car when we fall asleep, have a heart attack, or something like that. But the computer can when the computer crashes or gets into a situation that it can't deal with.

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/google-aut ... ervention/

Well, the main reason for humans having to take over for the driverless cars are to deal with other humans in cars that aren't driverless. Once Skynet, I mean, Google, replaces all the cars on the road with driverless cars, there won't be a need to take over.

(*I use the Skynet reference sarcastically, I'm actually in favor of driverless cars).

[BDKJMU]

Nice piece on the legal reasons why we won't be driving in the future: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/opinions/ ... =obnetwork

I personally can't wait 'til we're done with driving cars.

The stats are misleading. That depends on how you factor in when the driver needs to take over for the car.

Humans don't get to have something else take over the car when we fall asleep, have a heart attack, or something like that. But the computer can when the computer crashes or gets into a situation that it can't deal with.

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/google-aut ... ervention/

Exactly. 1st there are the huge legal obstacles that have been discussed ad nauseum on here. Then there's the fact that after several decades of self driving cars being sold, even IF it gets to the point 100% of vehicles sold, whatever year that was you would still have self driving cars on the road for another 20-30 years (some people keep their cars for 20-30 years)..Won't happen in our lifetimes at least (100% non self driving).

[BDKJMU]

Sure

Hey, life changes. When a company like Google and Apple, and now actual car manufacturers begin putting a genuine effort into driverless cars, it'll be tough to stop its advancement. And all the statistics are beginning to pile up that these vehicles are insanely safer, more efficient, and increase our time availability (which will increase economic outputs). It's making it much harder to make a case against these vehicles.

And most people want it. From that standpoint, there's even a business case to be made.

Who are these "most people"? Liberal, skirt wearing types?

2 days ago:
"..a recent poll by the American Automobile Association finds that most Americans are leery of autonomous vehicles. The AAA polled 1,800 Americans about their attitudes toward self-driving cars and found that 75 percent are not yet ready to trust the driving to robots..."
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/whos- ... rs-75-perc


Aug 2015:
"The University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute released a new report examining drivers' attitudes toward different levels of automated driving. The survey of more than 500 licensed drivers, conducted by researchers Brandon Schoettle and Michel Sivak, showed that an overwhelming majority of motorists are unwilling to hand over their vehicle's controls altogether to a machine. Attitudes have changed little in the year since the institute last studied the topic."
https://www.cars.com/articles/poll-moto ... 681029207/

[BDKJMU]

Automatic Emergency Braking System Becomes Standard In 2022: Here's How The Technology Works
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... /81907516/

And to trucks/SUVs by 2025. If the car manufacturers didn't volunteer to this big nanny govt would have mandated it by 2025. A response to all the worsening of distracted drivers, due to talking/texting/surfing on their phones and touch screens the auto makers have put in their vehicles the last several years.

Besides adding a couple more k onto the already ridiculous costs of new vehicles, I can think of all kinds of scenarios that bring up potential problems (braking when you don't want it to brake), including ones that will cause accidents, esp in big city driving. Bottom line is I don't want to give up any basic driving control (steering, braking, acceleration) to a god damn computer.

[∞∞∞]

Thought this was cool and relevant:

If you’re planning to drive between the Netherlands and Germany tomorrow, just know that self-aware trucks will be out there.

Convoys of automated transport trucks will be plying the highways between Stuttgart and Rotterdam as part of the European Truck Platooning Challenge, an initiative created by the Netherlands to develop and showcase connected vehicle technology.

Platooning involves transports travelling in a tightly-packed column at a uniform speed in order to achieve better fuel efficiency and reduce roadway congestion. The installation of autonomous technology in transports means further efficiencies, with connected vehicles being able to coordinate speed, distance and braking more effectively than human drivers.

Three autonomous Mercedes-Benz Actros will be taking part in the cross-border challenge, participating with five other European truck manufacturers. The trucks will use the automaker’s Highway Pilot Connect system to guide them in their journey. That technology, demonstrated publicly for the first time two weeks ago, is an upgraded version of the existing Highway Pilot system used by transports.

A side aim of the platooning challenge is to spur the creation of cross-border regulations allowing automated convoys on European Union highways.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/0 ... re-1318618

Just another step forward to self-autonomous transport systems...

[Grizalltheway]

Bump for 89.

In January, General Motors announced a $500 million partnership with ride-sharing service Lyft. Many wondered what the pairing might do for both companies and when it would begin bearing fruit.

We got some answers in March, when GM announced that it would loan GM vehicles to Lyft drivers at a discount -- in some cases, for free. Now comes a rumor that the two companies will create a test fleet of autonomous taxis that could begin picking up passengers within a year.

The fleet will consist entirely of Chevrolet Bolt electric cars. They'll employ self-driving software developed by Cruise Automation, which GM hopes to acquire in the near future.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/11 ... picks=true

[89Hen]

Bump for 89.

In January, General Motors announced a $500 million partnership with ride-sharing service Lyft. Many wondered what the pairing might do for both companies and when it would begin bearing fruit.

We got some answers in March, when GM announced that it would loan GM vehicles to Lyft drivers at a discount -- in some cases, for free. Now comes a rumor that the two companies will create a test fleet of autonomous taxis that could begin picking up passengers within a year.

The fleet will consist entirely of Chevrolet Bolt electric cars. They'll employ self-driving software developed by Cruise Automation, which GM hopes to acquire in the near future.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/11 ... picks=true

Bump when it happens.

[BDKJMU]

Tesla on autopilot kills driver..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/self-driving ... 42937.html

[CID1990]

Tesla on autopilot kills driver..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/self-driving ... 42937.html

thats pure Clitzoris bait right there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

"Southfield art gallery owner survives Tesla crash

A Southfield art gallery owner told police his 2016 Tesla Model X was in Autopilot mode when it crashed and rolled over on the Pennsylvania Turnpike last week. The crash came just one day after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a report on a fatal crash in May involving a Tesla that was in self-driving mode.

Albert Scaglione and his artist son-in-law, Tim Yanke, both survived Friday's crash near the Bedford exit, about 107 miles east of Pittsburgh.

The Free Press was not able to reach Scaglione, owner of Park West Gallery, or Yanke, but Dale Vukovich of the Pennsylvania State Police, who responded to the crash, said Scaglione told him that he had activated the Autopilot feature......"
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2 ... /86712884/

[93henfan]

[89Hen]

Shocking

[89Hen]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/tech ... ality.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A woman in Tempe, Ariz., has died after being hit by a self-driving car operated by Uber, in what appears to be the first known death of a pedestrian struck by an autonomous vehicle on a public road.

The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman, who was crossing the street outside of a crosswalk, the Tempe police said in a statement. The episode happened on Sunday around 10 p.m. The woman was not publicly identified.

[Pwns]

I read in another article that the woman was on a bycicle. Funny, because I remember reading recently that these cars have trouble identifying bicycles.

The trouble is that "use common sense" isn't valid computer code.

[Gil Dobie]

I read in another article that the woman was on a bycicle. Funny, because I remember reading recently that these cars have trouble identifying bicycles.

The trouble is that "use common sense" isn't valid computer code.

Riding a bicycle at 10pm, that's another thread in itself.

[∞∞∞]

RIP to the victim.

It was bound to happen though; I still trust an autonomous future more than physical drivers once the technology is developed.

[Chizzang]

Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs...


(Too soon..?)

I bet we find out there's more to this than "Insane computer program kills innocent bystander"
My guess is she wasn't paying attention and moving quickly in the dark not properly lighted

The last accident involving an Uber Automated vehicle was not the automated vehicles fault
it was the Human Driver at error... What a shock

[dbackjon]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Phoenix THIS MONTH...

Arizona official: 10 pedestrian deaths in week show a 'major crisis'

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...r ... 422808002/


Note - none of these involved self-driving cars. Self driving cars wouldn't have jumped a curb and killed three, etc.

As for the jaywalker killed at 11PM at night, be aware of your surroundings. Doubtful a human driver could have stopped, either.

[bandl]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/tech ... ality.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A woman in Tempe, Ariz., has died after being hit by a self-driving car operated by Uber, in what appears to be the first known death of a pedestrian struck by an autonomous vehicle on a public road.

The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman, who was crossing the street outside of a crosswalk, the Tempe police said in a statement. The episode happened on Sunday around 10 p.m. The woman was not publicly identified.

This is one reason why I can't wait for this technology to become more prevalent...so I can blame an accident on my car!

[89Hen]

I think a few of you guys are under the impression that I think they aren't safer. That's never been the case or the point. My contention is that once you have car company or Google being a part of the blame, the attorneys will be lining up around the block at these families homes licking their chops. Look at how people go crazy over recall items already.

100 people a day could die in pedestrian accidents without anyone really paying attention, but if one dies because of a recall item, it's front page national news.

[Chizzang]

Remember:
American Lawyers can f*ck anything up - ANYTHING..!!!

Let me quote myself... ^

[BDKJMU]

Yep. Everytime you have one of these accidents.
-Uber gonna be sued.
-Car manufacturer gonna be sued.
-Hardware developers gonna be sued.
-Software developers gonna be sued.
-Camera makers gonna be sued
-State reg aency that approved the 'driverless' gonna be sued..-
-'Driver' might even be sued..

They all better have a hell of a team of lawyers..