4 ms·

Until further investigated, this is FUD.

by sshine 3y ago

statop 3y ago
It isn't FUD, it's dumb autonomous vehicles won't get out of the way. Just force them to allow human intervention, a person gets in and moves it. What's the big deal? It shouldn't even be restricted to emergency personnel. If people steal them Cruise can file charges and consider it an expense of doing business.
- pests 3y ago
  I'm bearish on self driving usually but this seems blown out of porportions. 1) I don't think it was in the way. A lane was open to the right lane but it waited 90s for a firetruck to move in the left lane before it continued on. 2) If I am paying for a ride in a Cruise and some random person hops in the front seat to "relocate" the car because it is inconviencing them - I will not be happy. Safety issue, etc. 3) We don't know if the patient would have died anyways. It was only a 90 second delay. 4) "after" in the title is being used as temporally after. There were a lot of things that happened before you could attribute to the cause of death - signaling out this one is sensationalist.
  - statop 3y ago
    2) sure.. and you won't be happy if someone carjacks your uber either I imagine? get out of the car.
    - pests 3y ago
      What kind of question is that? Of course I wouldn't be happy. Would you? What does me getting out of the car have to do with anything?
      - statop 3y ago
        Your stated argument against allowing human control of the vehicle is that it presents a safety issue, implying that you could be car jacked. You could be car jacked while riding in a taxi/lyft/uber/etc. It’s unclear why you think this any different.
        pests 3y ago
        Usually a taxi/lyft/uber has the doors locked and if someone tried to open them the driver would drive away. In this situation of yours it sounds like anyone can just walk up to a AV and open the door and get in.
  - flandish 3y ago
    1) it took 90s to prepare for transport before being able to move. This is fast but also standard. 2) If you are in the car, and I as a firefighter enter, I am going to announce that and your opinion doesn’t matter. I am moving it for safetys sake. I will be safe, kind, and take your safety into consideration. But that you will be late to work does not enter. 3+4) I have extricated patients, in massive accidents, alive when I package them on the stretcher, and then only hear they died later. It fucking sucks. Was it me not getting that roof popped, or door opened fast enough? Was it the amb? Traffic? Was it the taxi who refused to move? It sticks with you. It’s a hard part of the job.
    - pests 3y ago
      2) I agree with you but normally a car is locked from the inside and random people (firefighter or not) shouldn't be able to just open it via the usual methods. Police still have to bust out windows to extract people all the time. They don't get a special unlock button. I agree with you in general. I'm sorry you have to go through things like that.
      - flandish 3y ago
        Yes but a key assigned to apparatus like fire will fix that concern. We already have keys to buildings in the trucks, basically. This is no different.
prosody 3y ago
The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.
  - beachy 3y ago
    > Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. All the more reason not to fuck things up at this stage. Precautionary principl is very appropriate with new tech in a safety-critical context.
    - djohnston 3y ago
      More people are dying with unnecessary precaution because we keep humans behind the wheel.
  - joshribakoff 3y ago
    I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Having trouble finding a charitable way to interpret your point here. I don't think anyone should die as a result of drunk driving.

Until further investigated, this is FUD.

by sshine 3y ago

Until further investigated, this is FUD.

It isn't FUD, it's dumb autonomous vehicles won't get out of the way. Just force them to allow human intervention, a person gets in and moves it. What's the big deal? It shouldn't even be restricted to emergency personnel. If people steal them Cruise can file charges and consider it an expense of doing business.

pests 3y ago
I'm bearish on self driving usually but this seems blown out of porportions. 1) I don't think it was in the way. A lane was open to the right lane but it waited 90s for a firetruck to move in the left lane before it continued on. 2) If I am paying for a ride in a Cruise and some random person hops in the front seat to "relocate" the car because it is inconviencing them - I will not be happy. Safety issue, etc. 3) We don't know if the patient would have died anyways. It was only a 90 second delay. 4) "after" in the title is being used as temporally after. There were a lot of things that happened before you could attribute to the cause of death - signaling out this one is sensationalist.
- statop 3y ago
  2) sure.. and you won't be happy if someone carjacks your uber either I imagine? get out of the car.
  - pests 3y ago
    What kind of question is that? Of course I wouldn't be happy. Would you? What does me getting out of the car have to do with anything?
    - statop 3y ago
      Your stated argument against allowing human control of the vehicle is that it presents a safety issue, implying that you could be car jacked. You could be car jacked while riding in a taxi/lyft/uber/etc. It’s unclear why you think this any different.
      - pests 3y ago
        Usually a taxi/lyft/uber has the doors locked and if someone tried to open them the driver would drive away. In this situation of yours it sounds like anyone can just walk up to a AV and open the door and get in.
- flandish 3y ago
  1) it took 90s to prepare for transport before being able to move. This is fast but also standard. 2) If you are in the car, and I as a firefighter enter, I am going to announce that and your opinion doesn’t matter. I am moving it for safetys sake. I will be safe, kind, and take your safety into consideration. But that you will be late to work does not enter. 3+4) I have extricated patients, in massive accidents, alive when I package them on the stretcher, and then only hear they died later. It fucking sucks. Was it me not getting that roof popped, or door opened fast enough? Was it the amb? Traffic? Was it the taxi who refused to move? It sticks with you. It’s a hard part of the job.
  - pests 3y ago
    2) I agree with you but normally a car is locked from the inside and random people (firefighter or not) shouldn't be able to just open it via the usual methods. Police still have to bust out windows to extract people all the time. They don't get a special unlock button. I agree with you in general. I'm sorry you have to go through things like that.
    - flandish 3y ago
      Yes but a key assigned to apparatus like fire will fix that concern. We already have keys to buildings in the trucks, basically. This is no different.

prosody 3y ago

The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.

CamperBob2 3y ago
Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.
- beachy 3y ago
  > Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. All the more reason not to fuck things up at this stage. Precautionary principl is very appropriate with new tech in a safety-critical context.
  - djohnston 3y ago
    More people are dying with unnecessary precaution because we keep humans behind the wheel.
- joshribakoff 3y ago
  I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Having trouble finding a charitable way to interpret your point here. I don't think anyone should die as a result of drunk driving.