3 ms·
> Multiple independent systems with the ability to sound an alarm and slam on the brakes if they detect an imminent pedestrian collision...seem like they probab
by w0m 9y ago
> Multiple independent systems with the ability to sound an alarm and slam on the brakes if they detect an imminent pedestrian collision...seem like they probably would be safer overall?
While yes - it would also force Uber to permanently partner with Volvo on technology they can't control. 'Uhuh, my Ubers a Chevy not a Ford - it could kill me because the Chevies don't built-in X is worse!'.
You do not want an arbitrary third party system controlling the car while the Uber system is in unknown ways; if the systems conflicted things could go out of control and be more dangerous.
- mannykannot 9y ago> it would also force Uber to permanently partner with Volvo on technology they can't control. That sounds like a win-win to me. >You do not want an arbitrary third party system controlling the car while the Uber system is in unknown ways; if the systems conflicted things could go out of control and be more dangerous. I find it interesting that, of these two systems, it is Volvo's widely-deployed system that is described as 'arbitrary'. If this argument had any merit, it would be unsafe for this system to be on the road, 'conflicting' with the car's human driver. On the contrary, the statistics clearly show that these systems reduce the frequency and severity of accidents.
- w0m 9y agoI know this sounds bad, but the arbitrary is that the Ubers aren't designed to be as safe as possible currently - they're designed to be testbeds of the new fully autonomous technology uber is developing. Maybe it makes sense to rely on arbitrary vehicle specific fallbacks, but long-term it doesn't as I'm sure They don't want to be dependent on a specific model. When you request a ride, do you want to care about whether your getting a Honda or a Volvo?