10 ms·

IF you rely on drivers being aware and able to intervene at any time, then you are creating a dangerous situation. Human beings can’t re engage and obtain situa

IF you rely on drivers being aware and able to intervene at any time, then you are creating a dangerous situation. Human beings can’t re engage and obtain situational awareness in emergencies.

dasil003 8y ago
Yeah, one key question is whether there a loud alarm triggered for human intervention a few seconds before it's necessary or is it relying on the constant awareness of the human. I am skeptical that an acceptable answer is anywhere near being possible.
- Fricken 8y ago
  Yeah, humans shouldn't be driving at all, but to get there, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    That's an expression I know as a former military wife that explains the need to accept training deaths. I have enormous difficulty with the idea that we really need to accept training deaths in self driving cars.
    - Fricken 8y ago
      Cars kill and injure more Americans than wars. Cruise and Waymo have been as cautious as they can reasonably expect to be. They both have months long training courses for their safety drivers, and camera in the vehicle that monitor driver attention. While the vehicles are still challenged by complex scenarios, basic object detection and emergency braking are pretty good. Neither has had an at-fault accident, excluding an ambiguous but non-injurious incident between a Cruise car and a lane splitting motorcyclist.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Having a highly trained, standing army is part of what keeps us out of war. Without it, we would soon be invaded and taken over. Historically, every time America shrinks its military, it winds up dragged into a war and having to ramp back up rapidly. There is no similar need for driverless cars. I'm American. I've lived without a car for over a decade. I don't see why we can't do more testing before putting lives at stake. I don't see why driverless cars killing people as part of their development is a thing we need to accept. Your assertion in no way clears up for me why we should shrug at the idea of people dying for this thing.
        Fricken 8y ago
        Having highly trained autonomous vehicles will keep us out of car crashes, currently we just sort of lie down and take it. As though we had 10 9/11 scale tragedies every year and just kind of threw our arms up and said "whatever, nuthin' we can do" And for the record I don't drive either, haven't since I was a young man.
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I don't personally see that as justification for accepting training deaths here. I'm not talking about stopping the development of driverless vehicles. I'm just telling you that your argument seems like a non sequitur to me. There are training deaths in the military precisely because humans are being trained to do dangerous things. Why can't driverless vehicles be trained without killing people? That's the thing you aren't actually answering.
        Fricken 8y ago
        I'm not defending Tesla or Uber, they're the ones that have killed people, and I think they both were (and in Tesla's case still are) behaving irresponsibly. Cruise and Waymo have both done tons of closed course testing, that's where they validate their respective systems against mission critical stuff like knowing when to slam on the brakes. But eventually they've got to go out into the real world and learn to deal with real traffic on real roads. I wish I could tell you the risk was zero, but it isn't and never will be.
    - Numberwang 8y ago
      Every large infrastructure project, such as bridges etc has an expected number of death. We know this and accept this is a sacrifice we can live with. Self driving cars should be seen as no different. And once it is safer than human drivers it will pay back those lives.
    - dwild 8y ago
      Well we accept deaths in cars... right now it's hard to tell the number but based on what Tesla said, it seems like self-driving cars stats are similar to normal cars. Ignoring self-driving car is essentially accepting deaths in non-self-driving car just as much... I sure hope you never argued that we should stop people from driving altogether...
    - ErikVandeWater 8y ago
      Why do we have to accept preventable deaths of any kind? We can start banning all sorts of things to reduce car deaths. Lower the highest speed limit to 35mph. Ban having a cell phone in your car, because access to it is distracting. Ban listening to music in your car because that is distracting. Why focus on slowing progress on the best thing for road safety - self-driving cars, while letting humans risk their lives all day and night due to their own negligence?
  - msiyer 8y ago
    "breaking a few eggs": We can surely afford to lose a few cars. I hope that is what you meant.
  - stuckinarut 8y ago
    Do you feel good about having such a cavalier attitude towards human lives?
trhway 8y ago
that seems to be the situation with Uber killing that woman. If i remember correctly they said that the emergency braking was disabled and they hoped on the driver taking over (and the driver was probably asleep or something like this as the woman had been for several seconds crossing those 2 lanes while being highlighted by the car's headlights - the video that Uber published and which let them off so easy obviously comes from a low sensitivity configured camera and doesn't correctly reflect the normal sensitivity of human eyes and what humans see in car headlight's field)
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  The driver was actually watching "The Voice" on their phone.
- xvf22 8y ago
  Yup, the video they first released was pretty misleading considering what the subsequent investigation has revealed.

IF you rely on drivers being aware and able to intervene at any time, then you are creating a dangerous situation. Human beings can’t re engage and obtain situational awareness in emergencies.

dasil003 8y ago

Yeah, one key question is whether there a loud alarm triggered for human intervention a few seconds before it's necessary or is it relying on the constant awareness of the human. I am skeptical that an acceptable answer is anywhere near being possible.

Fricken 8y ago
Yeah, humans shouldn't be driving at all, but to get there, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  That's an expression I know as a former military wife that explains the need to accept training deaths. I have enormous difficulty with the idea that we really need to accept training deaths in self driving cars.
  - Fricken 8y ago
    Cars kill and injure more Americans than wars. Cruise and Waymo have been as cautious as they can reasonably expect to be. They both have months long training courses for their safety drivers, and camera in the vehicle that monitor driver attention. While the vehicles are still challenged by complex scenarios, basic object detection and emergency braking are pretty good. Neither has had an at-fault accident, excluding an ambiguous but non-injurious incident between a Cruise car and a lane splitting motorcyclist.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Having a highly trained, standing army is part of what keeps us out of war. Without it, we would soon be invaded and taken over. Historically, every time America shrinks its military, it winds up dragged into a war and having to ramp back up rapidly. There is no similar need for driverless cars. I'm American. I've lived without a car for over a decade. I don't see why we can't do more testing before putting lives at stake. I don't see why driverless cars killing people as part of their development is a thing we need to accept. Your assertion in no way clears up for me why we should shrug at the idea of people dying for this thing.
      - Fricken 8y ago
        Having highly trained autonomous vehicles will keep us out of car crashes, currently we just sort of lie down and take it. As though we had 10 9/11 scale tragedies every year and just kind of threw our arms up and said "whatever, nuthin' we can do" And for the record I don't drive either, haven't since I was a young man.
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I don't personally see that as justification for accepting training deaths here. I'm not talking about stopping the development of driverless vehicles. I'm just telling you that your argument seems like a non sequitur to me. There are training deaths in the military precisely because humans are being trained to do dangerous things. Why can't driverless vehicles be trained without killing people? That's the thing you aren't actually answering.
        Fricken 8y ago
        I'm not defending Tesla or Uber, they're the ones that have killed people, and I think they both were (and in Tesla's case still are) behaving irresponsibly. Cruise and Waymo have both done tons of closed course testing, that's where they validate their respective systems against mission critical stuff like knowing when to slam on the brakes. But eventually they've got to go out into the real world and learn to deal with real traffic on real roads. I wish I could tell you the risk was zero, but it isn't and never will be.
  - Numberwang 8y ago
    Every large infrastructure project, such as bridges etc has an expected number of death. We know this and accept this is a sacrifice we can live with. Self driving cars should be seen as no different. And once it is safer than human drivers it will pay back those lives.
  - dwild 8y ago
    Well we accept deaths in cars... right now it's hard to tell the number but based on what Tesla said, it seems like self-driving cars stats are similar to normal cars. Ignoring self-driving car is essentially accepting deaths in non-self-driving car just as much... I sure hope you never argued that we should stop people from driving altogether...
  - ErikVandeWater 8y ago
    Why do we have to accept preventable deaths of any kind? We can start banning all sorts of things to reduce car deaths. Lower the highest speed limit to 35mph. Ban having a cell phone in your car, because access to it is distracting. Ban listening to music in your car because that is distracting. Why focus on slowing progress on the best thing for road safety - self-driving cars, while letting humans risk their lives all day and night due to their own negligence?
- msiyer 8y ago
  "breaking a few eggs": We can surely afford to lose a few cars. I hope that is what you meant.
- stuckinarut 8y ago
  Do you feel good about having such a cavalier attitude towards human lives?

trhway 8y ago

that seems to be the situation with Uber killing that woman. If i remember correctly they said that the emergency braking was disabled and they hoped on the driver taking over (and the driver was probably asleep or something like this as the woman had been for several seconds crossing those 2 lanes while being highlighted by the car's headlights - the video that Uber published and which let them off so easy obviously comes from a low sensitivity configured camera and doesn't correctly reflect the normal sensitivity of human eyes and what humans see in car headlight's field)

charleslmunger 8y ago
The driver was actually watching "The Voice" on their phone.
xvf22 8y ago
Yup, the video they first released was pretty misleading considering what the subsequent investigation has revealed.