3 ms·

> Disengagements means there is a safety driver present that takes over to prevent a dangerous situation. California, at least, cites a disengagement as "wheth

• jessriedel 3y ago
  > California, at least, cites a disengagement as "whether because of technology failure or situations requiring the test driver/operator to take manual control of the vehicle to operate safely. At your Ref. [0], I just opened up the CSV titled "2022 Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports (CSV)" under the header "2022 Disengagement reports". Under the column "Driver present (yes or no)", every single entry said "yes". > When a car is confused what happens? It stops. That is a safety issue by itself No, the car pulls over, just as it and every other taxi does when picking people up or dropping them off. It does not just stop in the middle of an intersection. I had 3 of these events in 22 trips, which means the number of times the car pulled over was overwhelmingly dominated by normal pick-up and drop-off, not confusion. > as it can lead to emergency services not being able to properly respond and killing someone[1] This article is deceptive, and you're either being deceived or are furthering it. An ambulance being delayed for seconds or minutes by human-driven cars in the road happens all the time. It is a constant occurrence. "90 seconds elapsed between the patient being put on the stretcher and the ambulance leaving the scene" means that at worst the ambulance was delayed by 60 seconds because stretchers don't teleport instantly into ambulances. The article does not causally attribute the death to the delay because that is extremely unlikely. It's not how emergency medicine works. This is just a classic case of fear mongering. ("Ambulance has to take detour around construction. Patient died. Therefore, construction caused death." No.) This of course doesn't mean that delaying ambulances unnecessarily by even a second should go without punishment/fine. It's avoidable and should be fixed. But it's wrong to think this doesn't happen with humans, and its slander to suggest the delay probably caused a death in this instance. > The fact people are trying to downplay this as "nothing" is shocking imo. What happens when a fleet of vehicles get confused, they all stall and it results in gridlock and frustration.[2] Be more quantitative.
  • flutas 3y ago
    > At your Ref. [0], I just opened up the CSV titled "2022 Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports (CSV)" under the header "2022 Disengagement reports". Under the column "Driver present (yes or no)", every single entry said "yes". Uh, that's kinda exactly my point? Any time a vehicle stalls, even when it has to be recovered by a person physically, somehow isn't a "disengagement." > No, the car pulls over, just as it and every other taxi does when picking people up or dropping them off. It does not just stop in the middle of an intersection. I had 3 of these events in 22 trips, which means the number of times the car pulled over was overwhelmingly dominated by normal pick-up and drop-off, not confusion. Easily refuted. [0], [1], [2], [3] should I continue? > This article is deceptive, and you're either being deceived or are furthering it. An ambulance being delayed for seconds or minutes by human-driven cars in the road happens all the time. It is a constant occurrence. "It already happens, so who cares if people die." Not even going to bother with the rest since it's clear you're pushing an angle from these two points alone. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWZGZWuUx-Y&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWZGZWuUx-Y&t=59s [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1k8raq83T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1k8raq83T4 [2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/business/driverless-cars-san-francisco-cruise/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/business/driverless-cars-san-... [3]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/san-francisco-police-self-driving-cars-cruise-18277009.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/san-francisco-po...
    • jessriedel 3y ago
      Your first and your third point are not responding to what I actually said. Your second point is replying to a general quantitative statement with anecdotes. Of course there will be unusual situations. This does not support your original wrong claim that Cruise was being disingenuous.
      • flutas 3y ago
        > Your first and your third point are not responding to what I actually said. TBH, I didn't even fully read your third point because it's clear you're pushing a certain perspective. I've provided evidence for all my claims, yet a single link hasn't shown up in yours. 10+ vehicles stall and require people to go out and retrieve the vehicles[0]... Nope, not a disengagement. Clearly the cars didn't have "a technology failure" they just needed to be towed back...for reasons. I guess they all ran out of gas, right? > Your second point is replying to a general quantitative statement with anecdotes. Of course there will be unusual situations. This does not support your original wrong claim that Cruise was being disingenuous. He says, while doing the exact same thing. The vast majority of recorded cases involve the cars "stalling out" in the middle of intersections, roads, or driveways. I have literally never seen evidence of a vehicle "pulling over" when confused. Please present evidence for your anecdotes. [0]: https://www.ktvu.com/news/driverless-cruise-cars-cause-traffic-jam-day-after-mass-expansion-approved-in-san-francisco https://www.ktvu.com/news/driverless-cruise-cars-cause-traff...