4 ms·

If these incidents were covered up, why would you trust anything else they say? They often claim after a crash that the vehicle was in manual mode. Do you trus

If these incidents were covered up, why would you trust anything else they say? They often claim after a crash that the vehicle was in manual mode. Do you trust that? They need to come clean, they need to become more transparent, and most importantly, they need to be regulated with an iron fist.

DeonPenny 8y ago
They weren't covered up though. They weren't required to disclose them because there were no regulations. There is no proof that they have frequent crashes now that the technology mature and their no proof that thats not true. Also, why would they be so heavily regulated for no reason? Would you also do that with the internet, phones, or new technology? You provide regulation based on a problem that occurs that's unfair and bad practice to just make rules to perceived problems.
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  There was no autonomous mode reporting requirement, but as I understand The New Yorker report, they probably should have contacted the authorities because they were involved in a crash. Their main claim to fame is driving 10M miles in autonomous mode without any serious incidents. The crash, as described by The New Yorker, was a serious incident that was at least partially caused by their software behaving recklessly. https://www.pe.com/2011/01/03/who-has-right-of-way-when-merging-onto-freeway/ https://www.pe.com/2011/01/03/who-has-right-of-way-when-merg... The New Yorker also mentions other incidents that were never reported to the public. Why iron fisted regulation? Their software may soon control thousands of two-ton SUVs on public roads. They've shown no intention of being transparent. They've shown that safety is not their number of priority. I am not necessarily saying they should be prevented from operating, but strict regulation is required to protect the public.

4 ms·

If these incidents were covered up, why would you trust anything else they say? They often claim after a crash that the vehicle was in manual mode. Do you trus

by oldgradstudent 8y ago

DeonPenny 8y ago
They weren't covered up though. They weren't required to disclose them because there were no regulations. There is no proof that they have frequent crashes now that the technology mature and their no proof that thats not true. Also, why would they be so heavily regulated for no reason? Would you also do that with the internet, phones, or new technology? You provide regulation based on a problem that occurs that's unfair and bad practice to just make rules to perceived problems.
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  There was no autonomous mode reporting requirement, but as I understand The New Yorker report, they probably should have contacted the authorities because they were involved in a crash. Their main claim to fame is driving 10M miles in autonomous mode without any serious incidents. The crash, as described by The New Yorker, was a serious incident that was at least partially caused by their software behaving recklessly. https://www.pe.com/2011/01/03/who-has-right-of-way-when-merging-onto-freeway/ https://www.pe.com/2011/01/03/who-has-right-of-way-when-merg... The New Yorker also mentions other incidents that were never reported to the public. Why iron fisted regulation? Their software may soon control thousands of two-ton SUVs on public roads. They've shown no intention of being transparent. They've shown that safety is not their number of priority. I am not necessarily saying they should be prevented from operating, but strict regulation is required to protect the public.