5 ms·

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and Uber that think self-driving is as easy putting it out on the road. And Tesla with their cost-saving no LIDAR nonsense. These companies should be fined hefty amounts and barred from testing out in public.

whimsicalism 3y ago
I feel like there logically must be a phase where testing in public will have to occur on the path to self driving.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  No plan of attack survives contact with the enemy. The same is true for test mocks
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
I agree 100%. The fact that they let this happen is an affront to the mandate of those safety organizations. Who is paying whom to clear these hurdles?
dehrmann 3y ago
You're criticizing them for both being dangerous and overly cautious? If anything, the Waymo clip confirms that Waymo's offering is safe.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  Those are not mutually exclusive.
zmnd 3y ago
How do we distinguish if it's "beta" or not? Waymo didn't kill anyone, is it beta? How does non-beta rollout look like?
yazaddaruvala 3y ago
> [2015] In California alone, 431 people died in accidents involving young drivers[0] By your logic we should also stop allowing 15-20 year olds to learn how to drive in public. So far the robots have done less damage. [0] https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accident-statistics-in-california https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accide...
- Zuiii 3y ago
  So? No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people. Having those kids on the road is a necessary evil. Having those dumb machines on the road is not. AI should be trained safely off the roads or not at all. If those companies don't know how then that's their problem, not ours.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    Why is it necessary to train kids on the road in real driving conditions but not necessary to train AI on the road in real driving conditions? These AIs have probably hundreds of thousands of hours of incident-free driving in simulation. Kids aren't even required to do a single hour in a simulator before they're allowed on the roads.
  - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
    > No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people 1. To my knowledge there has been only one death by a robot car. It was Uber’s and that program has been shut down for many reasons. 2. Given robot cars already have a higher bar for safety (ie fewer deaths, injuries, etc) than 15 year olds, wouldn’t the more prudent use of time/energy be to invest more into robot cars while changing policy so driving becomes (at minimum) 18+?
- petre 3y ago
  In Europe they can't drive normal cars before 18. They will be able to to so after 17 if accompanied by an adult and will be subject to a probation period of 2 years after taking the test. Also speed "limitiers" will be required in all new vehicles after 2024. Most of these would probably be audible nags, like the one that beeps if one drives without the seatbelt. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-commission-proposes-updated-requirements-driving-licences-and-better-cross-border-2023-03-01_en https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-com...
gruez 3y ago
> I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: But that car had a safety driver, who turned out to be negligent. What's the difference between a company testing a self-driving car with a safety diver killing someone because the safety driver was negligent, and a company doing deliveries with a human driver, and killing someone because the driver was negligent?
- stemlord 3y ago
  The argument is that self driving vehicles set a false expectation that the driver can relax-- bad design
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The car hit her because Uber purposefully disabled the Volvo SUV's built-in autobraking systems, and because the self-driving system detected and classified her with plenty of time to react...and simply did nothing to avoid hitting her. A complete and total failure of the self-driving control logic. It's also arguable that she was killed as a direct result of Nevada happily allowing Uber to conduct their self-driving testing after Uber was banned from testing in California for ignoring regulators and their cars routinely being caught violating traffic laws by dashcams, traffic cameras, and cyclist helmet cams. Even if the safety driver had not been playing with their phone - it's well demonstrated that the whole concept of a 'safety driver' is bullshit; in studies, the drivers are terrible at taking over when they haven't been in control of the vehicle. Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public. I go the other way with that information. Safety drivers being used that way are bullshit. If they didn't have the safety driver then there's no way in hell the braking systems would have been disabled and need manual intervention. Therefore it was bad management and the entire idea of using safety drivers that way that was the problem, not the underlying self-driving system.
Lammy 3y ago
> I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. Part of Total Information Awareness involves rolling as many cameras around in public as people will tolerate. San Francisco have made their priorities clear: https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-have-live-access-to-nearly-any-camera-in-the-city/ https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-h...
fsckboy 3y ago
> why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public because that's the definition of a beta test? they have gone through a number of test stages over the years, and if the goal is that they drive in public, the penultimate step is test driving in public. if your criticism is that they didn't do enough prior testing, could be, but you need to make that case.
treis 3y ago
>I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public Because self driving cars will save lives in the long run and are potentially the largest QOL improvement of my lifetime.
- nuker 3y ago
  Not in your lifetime.

whimsicalism 3y ago

I feel like there logically must be a phase where testing in public will have to occur on the path to self driving.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
No plan of attack survives contact with the enemy. The same is true for test mocks

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

I agree 100%. The fact that they let this happen is an affront to the mandate of those safety organizations. Who is paying whom to clear these hurdles?

dehrmann 3y ago

You're criticizing them for both being dangerous and overly cautious? If anything, the Waymo clip confirms that Waymo's offering is safe.

Gabrys1 3y ago
Those are not mutually exclusive.

zmnd 3y ago

How do we distinguish if it's "beta" or not? Waymo didn't kill anyone, is it beta? How does non-beta rollout look like?

yazaddaruvala 3y ago

> [2015] In California alone, 431 people died in accidents involving young drivers[0] By your logic we should also stop allowing 15-20 year olds to learn how to drive in public. So far the robots have done less damage. [0] https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accident-statistics-in-california https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accide...

Zuiii 3y ago
So? No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people. Having those kids on the road is a necessary evil. Having those dumb machines on the road is not. AI should be trained safely off the roads or not at all. If those companies don't know how then that's their problem, not ours.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  Why is it necessary to train kids on the road in real driving conditions but not necessary to train AI on the road in real driving conditions? These AIs have probably hundreds of thousands of hours of incident-free driving in simulation. Kids aren't even required to do a single hour in a simulator before they're allowed on the roads.
- yazaddaruvala 3y ago
  > No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people 1. To my knowledge there has been only one death by a robot car. It was Uber’s and that program has been shut down for many reasons. 2. Given robot cars already have a higher bar for safety (ie fewer deaths, injuries, etc) than 15 year olds, wouldn’t the more prudent use of time/energy be to invest more into robot cars while changing policy so driving becomes (at minimum) 18+?
petre 3y ago
In Europe they can't drive normal cars before 18. They will be able to to so after 17 if accompanied by an adult and will be subject to a probation period of 2 years after taking the test. Also speed "limitiers" will be required in all new vehicles after 2024. Most of these would probably be audible nags, like the one that beeps if one drives without the seatbelt. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-commission-proposes-updated-requirements-driving-licences-and-better-cross-border-2023-03-01_en https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-com...

gruez 3y ago

> I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: But that car had a safety driver, who turned out to be negligent. What's the difference between a company testing a self-driving car with a safety diver killing someone because the safety driver was negligent, and a company doing deliveries with a human driver, and killing someone because the driver was negligent?

stemlord 3y ago
The argument is that self driving vehicles set a false expectation that the driver can relax-- bad design
KennyBlanken 3y ago
The car hit her because Uber purposefully disabled the Volvo SUV's built-in autobraking systems, and because the self-driving system detected and classified her with plenty of time to react...and simply did nothing to avoid hitting her. A complete and total failure of the self-driving control logic. It's also arguable that she was killed as a direct result of Nevada happily allowing Uber to conduct their self-driving testing after Uber was banned from testing in California for ignoring regulators and their cars routinely being caught violating traffic laws by dashcams, traffic cameras, and cyclist helmet cams. Even if the safety driver had not been playing with their phone - it's well demonstrated that the whole concept of a 'safety driver' is bullshit; in studies, the drivers are terrible at taking over when they haven't been in control of the vehicle. Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public. I go the other way with that information. Safety drivers being used that way are bullshit. If they didn't have the safety driver then there's no way in hell the braking systems would have been disabled and need manual intervention. Therefore it was bad management and the entire idea of using safety drivers that way that was the problem, not the underlying self-driving system.

Lammy 3y ago

> I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. Part of Total Information Awareness involves rolling as many cameras around in public as people will tolerate. San Francisco have made their priorities clear: https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-have-live-access-to-nearly-any-camera-in-the-city/ https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-h...

fsckboy 3y ago

> why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public because that's the definition of a beta test? they have gone through a number of test stages over the years, and if the goal is that they drive in public, the penultimate step is test driving in public. if your criticism is that they didn't do enough prior testing, could be, but you need to make that case.

treis 3y ago

>I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public Because self driving cars will save lives in the long run and are potentially the largest QOL improvement of my lifetime.

nuker 3y ago
Not in your lifetime.