3 ms·

What are you basing this on? According to the DoT, they "took detailed measures to reduce any risks associated with the self-driving delivery project including

by travisp 10y ago

What are you basing this on? According to the DoT, they "took detailed measures to reduce any risks associated with the self-driving delivery project including testing validation, ride alongs and escorting the delivery" (source: https://www.trucks.com/2016/10/25/ubers-otto-hauls-budweiser-beer-across-colorado-first-commercial-use-self-driving-truck/ https://www.trucks.com/2016/10/25/ubers-otto-hauls-budweiser... )

vannevar 10y ago
The article clearly states that no one was in a position to take over if the system failed. They were testing on public roads, and if something had gone wrong, we're talking about a loaded 18-wheeler: having escort vehicles would do nothing to mitigate a serious accident. Other people were on the road as well, none of whom volunteered to be part of the experiment. Short of closing the highway, there was no safe way of doing this. We're not talking about a mature technology here. We have no idea what the real, operational failure rate is. It was an irresponsible decision to put people's lives at risk for a corporate publicity stunt. FTA: "I think real implementation of technology like this is still five years off." Then so should this kind of experiment on public roads. As a side note, I appreciate that you took the time to articulate your argument, rather than mindlessly downvoting. It makes the site much better when there's actual discussion.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  FUD. At some point in development you do a public road test. What evidence that it wasn't time for that? Just ranting.
  - vannevar 10y ago
    Sure. Close down the road, get a bunch of professional drivers to simulate traffic (including poor driving), and have it at for a few hundreds of thousands of miles. Let's be clear, this was not a "road test". This was a publicity stunt. And I don't have a problem with you ranting, at least you made an effort to share your view.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      They (Uber) already had trials in Pittsburgh. Presumably after the closed-track trials. This sound like a careful progression of testing and trials to me. And every "Technology Demo" is of course a publicity stunt by definition.
      - vannevar 10y ago
        I think you're badly underestimating the amount and nature of the data required. Think about space travel: after 60 years, the catastrophic failure rate is still about 1 in 200. This is due in part to the very low volume of flights over the decades. The Shuttle underwent what passed for extensive testing before its first "operational" flight, but was retired before it accumulated even as many hours as the average test flight program for a commercial airliner. Before we run vehicles as potentially destructive as a fully loaded 18-wheeler autonomously on public roads, we should log tens of thousands of test hours under simulated real-world traffic conditions. That's expensive, hence Uber's willingness to roll the dice with other people's lives. The burden is not on the public to show that an autonomous truck is unsafe; the burden is on the promoters to show that it is safe. That burden is not even close to being met, as the article acknowledges when they say the technology won't be ready for another 5 years. This was a stunt to help Uber maintain its valuation, and the DoT should've been looking out more for the public.

by travisp 10y ago

vannevar 10y ago

The article clearly states that no one was in a position to take over if the system failed. They were testing on public roads, and if something had gone wrong, we're talking about a loaded 18-wheeler: having escort vehicles would do nothing to mitigate a serious accident. Other people were on the road as well, none of whom volunteered to be part of the experiment. Short of closing the highway, there was no safe way of doing this. We're not talking about a mature technology here. We have no idea what the real, operational failure rate is. It was an irresponsible decision to put people's lives at risk for a corporate publicity stunt. FTA: "I think real implementation of technology like this is still five years off." Then so should this kind of experiment on public roads. As a side note, I appreciate that you took the time to articulate your argument, rather than mindlessly downvoting. It makes the site much better when there's actual discussion.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
FUD. At some point in development you do a public road test. What evidence that it wasn't time for that? Just ranting.
- vannevar 10y ago
  Sure. Close down the road, get a bunch of professional drivers to simulate traffic (including poor driving), and have it at for a few hundreds of thousands of miles. Let's be clear, this was not a "road test". This was a publicity stunt. And I don't have a problem with you ranting, at least you made an effort to share your view.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    They (Uber) already had trials in Pittsburgh. Presumably after the closed-track trials. This sound like a careful progression of testing and trials to me. And every "Technology Demo" is of course a publicity stunt by definition.
    - vannevar 10y ago
      I think you're badly underestimating the amount and nature of the data required. Think about space travel: after 60 years, the catastrophic failure rate is still about 1 in 200. This is due in part to the very low volume of flights over the decades. The Shuttle underwent what passed for extensive testing before its first "operational" flight, but was retired before it accumulated even as many hours as the average test flight program for a commercial airliner. Before we run vehicles as potentially destructive as a fully loaded 18-wheeler autonomously on public roads, we should log tens of thousands of test hours under simulated real-world traffic conditions. That's expensive, hence Uber's willingness to roll the dice with other people's lives. The burden is not on the public to show that an autonomous truck is unsafe; the burden is on the promoters to show that it is safe. That burden is not even close to being met, as the article acknowledges when they say the technology won't be ready for another 5 years. This was a stunt to help Uber maintain its valuation, and the DoT should've been looking out more for the public.