34 ms·

I enjoy hating on Uber as much as the next person, but this honestly just sounds like shrewd focusing of effort in light of recent events on Uber's part. Their

I enjoy hating on Uber as much as the next person, but this honestly just sounds like shrewd focusing of effort in light of recent events on Uber's part. Their permit was expiring, and there was going to be a load of paperwork along with probably lengthy boardroom meetings with authorities explaining what went wrong and why it won't happen again, if Uber wanted to renew. I see no reason (in this article, at least) to suspect that Uber won't re-apply at a later date when they have a better handle on what went wrong in Tempe.

djsumdog 9y ago
I think with all the other things we've learned about their self driving program, it's unlikely to return. Months before this, there were other articles posted here that talked about how some safety drivers needed to step in every couple of minutes. Uber's model is based around selling at a loss to undercut Taxis, Lyft and other ride sharing companies, just enough to keep the investment capital coming in, with the hopes of ultimately cutting costs by removing the driver. Even with Waymo, GM, Tesla and others, I don't think we're going to realistically see wide scale deployment for autonomous vehicles within the next ten years. They have money to burn. Uber doesn't. There's a lot of tax money going into that research too and it really needs to be fed back into the public transport infrastructure that's crumbling around the US. I wish research on autonomous road vehicles stayed in the private sector. They're cool tech, but they'll be useless if systems like the NYC Metro and Chicago CTA fall apart.
- ehnto 9y ago
  I don't believe they will ever be widespread with infrastructure how it currently is. I don't believe it's the correct problem to be solving either. I feel self driving cars are a stop-gap for better public transport inside smarter layouts of cities where cars are not the primary method of getting people and stuff around. The only good fit for autonomous cars I see is long distance suburban commutes, or highway commutes, which is more a symptom of suburbia than a smart way to layout a city. Part of my reasoning involves the dispelling the assumption that we have a right to a car and road based travel option, so I get that I am probably in a minority of thought process. I also love my cars, love travelling on the open road and love combustion engines. But I would give it up for a safer, cleaner and more personable, community focused city.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    It's easier to make cars self-driving than to fundamentally re-architect the layout of every single city in the nation, though. We've always had these grand transportation ideas. They don't seem to pan out.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      You also only pit yourself against Big Oil instead of also against Big Auto and city planners.
      - ehnto 9y ago
        It would take a complete uprooting of transport as we know it, no doubt. I suspect it would take something drastic like a federal ban on automobiles. Not going to happen.
    - ehnto 9y ago
      I absolutely agree, it's probably too late for established cities and suburban sprawl. I guess I just hope for a better solution than autonomous cars. I guess this is just a step in the evolution of per-individual transport, and eventually we will get rid of roads and automobiles as we know them for self-locomoting ambiguous transport pods that don't need big asphalt/concrete roads. We waste so much space to roads and bespoke parking lots.
      - djsumdog 9y ago
        No, that's totally wrong. The United States use to have more passenger rail than Europe did today. It happened over a very short period of time and it can be made better in a short period of time. Seattle's ST3 project could prove this if it moves the suburban areas close together around rail stations. There's a great Wendover video one this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA Transportation is the single greatest factor in reducing the number of people in poverty in a city. This isn't just opinion, there are a number of studies that suggest this. American can greatly reduce poverty, pollution and gridlock if we got over our apprehension to rails.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Uber is not going to give up just because they killed one “loser” (probably how they think of her, given that they let an unsafe product on the road to kill her). The thought of cutting all the “losers” on their payroll and replacing them with enslaved robots is too appealing to them.
Rapzid 9y ago
If I were them I would def lie low, and perhaps mount a subversive smear compaign against the victim. Take out public service ads reminding people to look both ways before crossing a road, don't cross roads outside of crosswalk s at night, and etc. A reminder of the good old advice mom used to give. Shift public opinion of responsibility toward the jwalker and go from there. EDIT: https://m.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Police-give-gift-cards-to-pedestrians-for-doing-12785384.php https://m.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Police-...
- iancmceachern 9y ago
  This is exactly what the burgeoning automobile industry did early last century. Its why we have j walking laws. Cars were faster than horses and so people were getting hit. The automotive industry responded in the same way you describe essentially creating j walking laws. History repeats itself!
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    The States is the only place I’ve ever been that seems to have jaywalking laws, I don’t think they are common at all. Even in the states it seems hard to get pinged for it. Most places require you to cross at a crossing if one is nearby, which is fairly common sense.
    - 220V_USKettle 9y ago
      Most countries don't have interstates cutting through city centers, either.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Nope. Most European states have them - but it's a CYA/gotcha sort of law, not enforced unless the police desperately needs something to "ping" you for. I have been ticketed for it exactly once - the cop indicated he had a quota of tickets to fill for the month.
      - 9y ago
keyle 9y ago
Well it's not like they made a booboo, and some bugs caused some inconvenience to a few or many people. Someone died.
- Rapzid 9y ago
  If Uber is not found legally at fault which seems likely given the circumstances and based on opinions from people with legal expertise in these cases, I highly doubt they will let themselves got derailed completely by this. Too much money is at stake. Further, we don't stop using trains, or buses when a pedestrian makes an error and gets killed because they "could have not been hit, maybe". For those who have paid attention to those other accidents(even though the local transit isn't as sexy to hate on as Uber, and they didn't involve AI), it can actually be quite shocking how little of a blip it causes in the transportation system.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Self-driving cars have to be at least as safe as human-driven ones for them to ever become accepted and thus widespread. Realistically, they need to be many times safer than human-driven cars for acceptance. It doesn't matter who's technically at fault; they cannot cause more deaths than human drivers. Everyone makes mistakes and they don't deserve to be killed by an algorithm for it.
    - TheGRS 9y ago
      Probably the best point I've seen made by this. Humans are not computers and will do illogical things like jay walk across busy streets. Can't say I know the details for this particular situation, but many times a driver will see the telltale signs that someone is about to run across the street before it happens.
      - scaryclam 9y ago
        Hazard perception is actually a part of the driving test in the UK. They make candidates sit in front of a computer, watch clips of situations and click the mouse when they think there's a dangerous situation developing.
RoyTyrell 9y ago
I agree with you on all points. Should Uber continue their self-driving efforts, I hope they take both public safety and passenger safety more seriously.
tomerico 9y ago
Prediction - Uber will go back to two people in each car and will be back on the road (eventually). This is enough of a mitigation to appease the public and the regulators.

djsumdog 9y ago

I think with all the other things we've learned about their self driving program, it's unlikely to return. Months before this, there were other articles posted here that talked about how some safety drivers needed to step in every couple of minutes. Uber's model is based around selling at a loss to undercut Taxis, Lyft and other ride sharing companies, just enough to keep the investment capital coming in, with the hopes of ultimately cutting costs by removing the driver. Even with Waymo, GM, Tesla and others, I don't think we're going to realistically see wide scale deployment for autonomous vehicles within the next ten years. They have money to burn. Uber doesn't. There's a lot of tax money going into that research too and it really needs to be fed back into the public transport infrastructure that's crumbling around the US. I wish research on autonomous road vehicles stayed in the private sector. They're cool tech, but they'll be useless if systems like the NYC Metro and Chicago CTA fall apart.

ehnto 9y ago
I don't believe they will ever be widespread with infrastructure how it currently is. I don't believe it's the correct problem to be solving either. I feel self driving cars are a stop-gap for better public transport inside smarter layouts of cities where cars are not the primary method of getting people and stuff around. The only good fit for autonomous cars I see is long distance suburban commutes, or highway commutes, which is more a symptom of suburbia than a smart way to layout a city. Part of my reasoning involves the dispelling the assumption that we have a right to a car and road based travel option, so I get that I am probably in a minority of thought process. I also love my cars, love travelling on the open road and love combustion engines. But I would give it up for a safer, cleaner and more personable, community focused city.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  It's easier to make cars self-driving than to fundamentally re-architect the layout of every single city in the nation, though. We've always had these grand transportation ideas. They don't seem to pan out.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    You also only pit yourself against Big Oil instead of also against Big Auto and city planners.
    - ehnto 9y ago
      It would take a complete uprooting of transport as we know it, no doubt. I suspect it would take something drastic like a federal ban on automobiles. Not going to happen.
  - ehnto 9y ago
    I absolutely agree, it's probably too late for established cities and suburban sprawl. I guess I just hope for a better solution than autonomous cars. I guess this is just a step in the evolution of per-individual transport, and eventually we will get rid of roads and automobiles as we know them for self-locomoting ambiguous transport pods that don't need big asphalt/concrete roads. We waste so much space to roads and bespoke parking lots.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      No, that's totally wrong. The United States use to have more passenger rail than Europe did today. It happened over a very short period of time and it can be made better in a short period of time. Seattle's ST3 project could prove this if it moves the suburban areas close together around rail stations. There's a great Wendover video one this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA Transportation is the single greatest factor in reducing the number of people in poverty in a city. This isn't just opinion, there are a number of studies that suggest this. American can greatly reduce poverty, pollution and gridlock if we got over our apprehension to rails.
ggg9990 9y ago
Uber is not going to give up just because they killed one “loser” (probably how they think of her, given that they let an unsafe product on the road to kill her). The thought of cutting all the “losers” on their payroll and replacing them with enslaved robots is too appealing to them.

Rapzid 9y ago

If I were them I would def lie low, and perhaps mount a subversive smear compaign against the victim. Take out public service ads reminding people to look both ways before crossing a road, don't cross roads outside of crosswalk s at night, and etc. A reminder of the good old advice mom used to give. Shift public opinion of responsibility toward the jwalker and go from there. EDIT: https://m.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Police-give-gift-cards-to-pedestrians-for-doing-12785384.php https://m.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Police-...

iancmceachern 9y ago
This is exactly what the burgeoning automobile industry did early last century. Its why we have j walking laws. Cars were faster than horses and so people were getting hit. The automotive industry responded in the same way you describe essentially creating j walking laws. History repeats itself!
- lostlogin 9y ago
  The States is the only place I’ve ever been that seems to have jaywalking laws, I don’t think they are common at all. Even in the states it seems hard to get pinged for it. Most places require you to cross at a crossing if one is nearby, which is fairly common sense.
  - 220V_USKettle 9y ago
    Most countries don't have interstates cutting through city centers, either.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Nope. Most European states have them - but it's a CYA/gotcha sort of law, not enforced unless the police desperately needs something to "ping" you for. I have been ticketed for it exactly once - the cop indicated he had a quota of tickets to fill for the month.
    - 9y ago

keyle 9y ago

Well it's not like they made a booboo, and some bugs caused some inconvenience to a few or many people. Someone died.

Rapzid 9y ago
If Uber is not found legally at fault which seems likely given the circumstances and based on opinions from people with legal expertise in these cases, I highly doubt they will let themselves got derailed completely by this. Too much money is at stake. Further, we don't stop using trains, or buses when a pedestrian makes an error and gets killed because they "could have not been hit, maybe". For those who have paid attention to those other accidents(even though the local transit isn't as sexy to hate on as Uber, and they didn't involve AI), it can actually be quite shocking how little of a blip it causes in the transportation system.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Self-driving cars have to be at least as safe as human-driven ones for them to ever become accepted and thus widespread. Realistically, they need to be many times safer than human-driven cars for acceptance. It doesn't matter who's technically at fault; they cannot cause more deaths than human drivers. Everyone makes mistakes and they don't deserve to be killed by an algorithm for it.
  - TheGRS 9y ago
    Probably the best point I've seen made by this. Humans are not computers and will do illogical things like jay walk across busy streets. Can't say I know the details for this particular situation, but many times a driver will see the telltale signs that someone is about to run across the street before it happens.
    - scaryclam 9y ago
      Hazard perception is actually a part of the driving test in the UK. They make candidates sit in front of a computer, watch clips of situations and click the mouse when they think there's a dangerous situation developing.

RoyTyrell 9y ago

I agree with you on all points. Should Uber continue their self-driving efforts, I hope they take both public safety and passenger safety more seriously.

tomerico 9y ago

Prediction - Uber will go back to two people in each car and will be back on the road (eventually). This is enough of a mitigation to appease the public and the regulators.