4 ms·
So if one of these fails, the car stops? That doesn't seem like redundancy.
by slowmotiony 9y ago
So if one of these fails, the car stops? That doesn't seem like redundancy.
- tux1968 9y agoIf you walk into a store and don't see that it is being robbed at gunpoint, it would be very nice to hear the assailant ordering the cashier to empty the til. You have two chances to steer clear. Either your eyes or ears may fail you now and again, but you're better off with both. No?
- jakeogh 9y agoNothing wrong with having a chance to steer clear, but it strikes me as an odd reaction unless you live in a society where only the criminals can defend themselves.
- cdancette 9y agoThe question is not about failing but detecting an obstacle and braking. If one system detects an obstacle, stop the car. Even if this system was failing and the other wasn't detecting anything. And if one system fail, yes the car should stop if it's not safe to drive with only one of them.
- m_eiman 9y agoSeems like a way to fail safe, which is what you should want.
- jakeogh 9y agounless the obstacle appears half way through an intersection where only one direction stops?
- jschwartzi 9y agoIn engineering we don't rely on our feeling. We have to actually have reason and evidence. You're approaching it as if the car should be moving at all costs, but the responsible engineering task is to keep the car moving unless the automated systems indicate that it's hazardous to others.
- tialaramex 9y agoYes, it's redundantly _safe_, which is the thing we actually care about. Safety is job #1. Well, not at Uber apparently. There are trade-offs here, sometimes we might decide to take a very small risk, after weighing it up. A famous example is ETOPS. Unlike propeller engines, jet engines for airliners are ridiculously reliable once running. ETOPS (jokingly "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim") is a scheme which over the past few decades has gradually allowed twin engine jets (which obviously just become over-engineered gliders if both their engines fail) to fly over oceans and other large distances with no airports, on the rationale that although total engine failure would probably be deadly without anywhere to put the plane down, two unrelated sequential engine failures are now so unlikely as to be overall negligible risk to the passengers. But that needs a risk we understand. If you have no idea what the risk is, you can't make that trade, so redundantly safe systems are the obvious choice.
- simion314 9y agoDid you skip the part where one of the system detects hitting a wall? Why is not the normal thing to slow down and stop? You will trust the experimental system that is in testing over a safer system?
- lambda 9y agoIt's called a failsafe. The failure mode should be the safest option; which is for the car to stop or slow until the human driver takes over.