3 ms·
The Uber vehicle knows exactly if and where a bike is, and so it doesn't have to follow the defensive protocols that compensate for driver error. In fact we act
by rdlecler1 10y ago
The Uber vehicle knows exactly if and where a bike is, and so it doesn't have to follow the defensive protocols that compensate for driver error. In fact we actually don't know how the car would react if a bike was in the lane. Maybe it slows down and lets it go by. Maybe it does merge into the lane to notify the rider. A similar problem is present for all merge lane action so I assume that it can deal with this case. About 100 people die in car accidents every day. Every day that we hold up progress on this is another 100 lives lost. Let's not be alarmists without having the facts.
- duskwuff 10y ago"Our vehicles break the law [1] because we think it's not important." [1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21717 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
- abalone 10y agoThe problem isn't that SF is against autonomous driving pilots. The problem is Uber doesn't want to register for a permit and thus be required to report its accidents / incidents of driver intervention. Uber's claim is that a permit is not required because a human is overseeing the system. But that's 100% disingenuous. The permitting program explicitly assumes a human is in charge. The point is to compel companies to report when the human has to disengage the system because it making an error or fails to intervene in time and causes an accident.[1] That information is crucial for assessing the maturity of autonomous driving systems. Probably Uber's fail rate is super high, judging from multiple reports about them running red lights on day 1. They don't want to scare people off by reporting their early numbers. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...