Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbfb0f6 ... tted-woman
There's plenty of blame to go around. The street was dark and the pedestrian is not illuminated by the headlights until the last second. But the pedestrian certainly should have seen the car and used some common sense. The human backup driver was not paying any attention and was looking down (presumably playing with her phone). And the car has radar that should have detected the pedestrian, even if the pedestrian wasn't illuminated by the headlights.
There's plenty of blame to go around. The street was dark and the pedestrian is not illuminated by the headlights until the last second. But the pedestrian certainly should have seen the car and used some common sense. The human backup driver was not paying any attention and was looking down (presumably playing with her phone). And the car has radar that should have detected the pedestrian, even if the pedestrian wasn't illuminated by the headlights.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
You sure that's a human driver?
#JusticeForNolan
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Those sceanrios- safely and affordably in America won't be in my lifetime. When did the Prius come on line? and has that made a dent in the EV vs. gas car pendulum? nope. Traditional gas stations outnumber electric charging stations 98%-2 is I had to guess without looking it up. the entire gas car infrastructure is not compatible with either. That needs to change before this takes hold on any scale.BigDave wrote:The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
This is a great use of technology that will significantly reduce the number of crash fatalities and increase the efficiency of our infrastructure. It isn't all or nothing either, along the way we are getting cars that automatically brake, stay in their lanes, adaptive cruise control, etc. that make cars much safer.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Am i the only person that drives that sometimes makes multiple stops in a trip? That has to go around say a road being worked on or a car broke down or a wreck? Does anyone think that the radar controlling the car will catch an animal entering the road quickly enough?BigDave wrote:The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
And sorry, I like to drive and there are soooo many variables in driving that I think the self driving thing could be fine for an all highway drive from point A to point B but does not work at all in rural areas or in normal driving.
Not sure how you replace all the cars, I have a 22 yo ford truck and have no intention of scrapping it anytime soon, prob going to do some major re-build on it in the next few years, doubt I will add in self driving when I do that. Also not sure how you are going to buy all of these very expensive cars for the people that can't afford a new car at all.
-
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely is a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
Last edited by HvilleHokie on Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
my 2017 chevy has alot of those but it is not auto braking, it just gives a buzzer warning and cuts off cruise and the radio and throws a flashing red bar in the lower part of the windshield.... the only issue is most of the time I am not about to hit someone in the rear, it either catches a vehicle on a two lane road that the car for some reason thinks is about to run head on into me or a mailbox beside the road or it seems to do it when the sun hits the car the right way......thus why I won't buy a car with the auto braking... I can drive just fineTheH2 wrote:This is a great use of technology that will significantly reduce the number of crash fatalities and increase the efficiency of our infrastructure. It isn't all or nothing either, along the way we are getting cars that automatically brake, stay in their lanes, adaptive cruise control, etc. that make cars much safer.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b? Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
I have dynamic cruise control in my car. When in this mode it brakes automatically and is pretty sweet. Do I rely on it to break, not really (I let it speed up and slow down on the highway). However it works, and it is nice to know that my car can brake if I miss something. It happens, that's why people with perfect driving records still have accidents.cwtcr hokie wrote:my 2017 chevy has alot of those but it is not auto braking, it just gives a buzzer warning and cuts off cruise and the radio and throws a flashing red bar in the lower part of the windshield.... the only issue is most of the time I am not about to hit someone in the rear, it either catches a vehicle on a two lane road that the car for some reason thinks is about to run head on into me or a mailbox beside the road or it seems to do it when the sun hits the car the right way......thus why I won't buy a car with the auto braking... I can drive just fineTheH2 wrote:This is a great use of technology that will significantly reduce the number of crash fatalities and increase the efficiency of our infrastructure. It isn't all or nothing either, along the way we are getting cars that automatically brake, stay in their lanes, adaptive cruise control, etc. that make cars much safer.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
It's also great for backing out as it alerts when anything is coming by from a car to a person. It will also apply automatic brakes. It also won't let me run into a car when I'm parking. There are a lot of accidents in parking lots, these will all be avoided by new cars released in probably 2020.
People who know, know.
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Yes, computers are faster than humans.cwtcr hokie wrote:Am i the only person that drives that sometimes makes multiple stops in a trip? That has to go around say a road being worked on or a car broke down or a wreck? Does anyone think that the radar controlling the car will catch an animal entering the road quickly enough?BigDave wrote:The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
You're a good driver, that's great. Think about all the crappy drivers that will all of a sudden not be behind the wheel. Technology makes things cheaper. The baseline cars for Toyota will start having all these safety features I believe next year. It's sort of like power windows and door locks, or a/c, or anti-lock brakes.cwtcr hokie wrote:And sorry, I like to drive and there are soooo many variables in driving that I think the self driving thing could be fine for an all highway drive from point A to point B but does not work at all in rural areas or in normal driving.
Not sure how you replace all the cars, I have a 22 yo ford truck and have no intention of scrapping it anytime soon, prob going to do some major re-build on it in the next few years, doubt I will add in self driving when I do that. Also not sure how you are going to buy all of these very expensive cars for the people that can't afford a new car at all.
People who know, know.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Sounds great. Does your wife let you drive it?TheH2 wrote:I have dynamic cruise control in my car. When in this mode it brakes automatically and is pretty sweet. Do I rely on it to break, not really (I let it speed up and slow down on the highway). However it works, and it is nice to know that my car can brake if I miss something. It happens, that's why people with perfect driving records still have accidents.cwtcr hokie wrote:my 2017 chevy has alot of those but it is not auto braking, it just gives a buzzer warning and cuts off cruise and the radio and throws a flashing red bar in the lower part of the windshield.... the only issue is most of the time I am not about to hit someone in the rear, it either catches a vehicle on a two lane road that the car for some reason thinks is about to run head on into me or a mailbox beside the road or it seems to do it when the sun hits the car the right way......thus why I won't buy a car with the auto braking... I can drive just fineTheH2 wrote:This is a great use of technology that will significantly reduce the number of crash fatalities and increase the efficiency of our infrastructure. It isn't all or nothing either, along the way we are getting cars that automatically brake, stay in their lanes, adaptive cruise control, etc. that make cars much safer.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
It's also great for backing out as it alerts when anything is coming by from a car to a person. It will also apply automatic brakes. It also won't let me run into a car when I'm parking. There are a lot of accidents in parking lots, these will all be avoided by new cars released in probably 2020.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
They already do. Besides, self driving cars won't need parking garages!cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b? Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L22S2VGB5Xw
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
reality may crash the self driving party, we will seeTheH2 wrote:They already do. Besides, self driving cars won't need parking garages!cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b? Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L22S2VGB5Xw
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
It could. It's a goal worth reaching for though.cwtcr hokie wrote: reality may crash the self driving party, we will see
People who know, know.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15761
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
I'm AOK with technology but the human element is still there...as I've said in the past we humans could phuque up a one car funeral.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
It'll be a long time before a car can drive where I do. Computers still can't navigate a creek or trail.Major Kong wrote:I'm AOK with technology but the human element is still there...as I've said in the past we humans could phuque up a one car funeral.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Yep, and it will be revolutionary when it happens. It will probably destroy home values for neighborhoods in proximity to work locations as well.BigDave wrote:The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Will be a decades long transformation. Ultimately, yes. But it will be a gradual rot till critical mass is reached of driverless efficiency to be realized. It would be better today if we could get these idiots doing the speed limit in the left hand lane out of the way. In Richmond, blacks are playing the role of Asians for some reason. When I go to Charlotte, it's the opposite with them driving 90mph. My hunch is it's a BLM inspired, passive-aggressive move. Or their response to the fake "driving while black" butt hurt. "Yeah, I'll just do 65 in the left hand lane MFer". A driverless car would give a consistent flow and remove the various assholes on the road, like the jerk that will crawl in one lane at the speed of the next, giving a mile of free space between them and the rest of traffic. There's a special place in hell for those douchebags.USN_Hokie wrote:Yep, and it will be revolutionary when it happens. It will probably destroy home values for neighborhoods in proximity to work locations as well.BigDave wrote:The long-term picture is not that Uber would be the only driver-less cars - it's that all cars would be self-driving. You could go to sleep and let your car drive you. Or you could do work during your commute. Or anything you want.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
Because automated cars will never become distracted, will follow traffic regulations, and have a bunch of safety features beyond what a human can do.
Yes... it is fully automated from point a to point b. Technology already exists. That’s what uber is testing in Tempe (and Pittsburgh)What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b?
Then the drunk programs the destination to be the Wendy’s? How is this a problem?Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
your assumption is that all vehicles on the road are self driving...bad assumptionHvilleHokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
Because automated cars will never become distracted, will follow traffic regulations, and have a bunch of safety features beyond what a human can do.
Yes... it is fully automated from point a to point b. Technology already exists. That’s what uber is testing in Tempe (and Pittsburgh)What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b?
Then the drunk programs the destination to be the Wendy’s? How is this a problem?Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
-
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
I’m not assuming that at all. The tests in Tempe and Pittsburgh are on roads right now intermixed with human drivers.cwtcr hokie wrote:your assumption is that all vehicles on the road are self driving...bad assumptionHvilleHokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
Because automated cars will never become distracted, will follow traffic regulations, and have a bunch of safety features beyond what a human can do.
Yes... it is fully automated from point a to point b. Technology already exists. That’s what uber is testing in Tempe (and Pittsburgh)What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b?
Then the drunk programs the destination to be the Wendy’s? How is this a problem?Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
I also don’t think the number will go to zero. But it will be significantly reduced.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
the best question then again is who is paying the price for all these cars for the american population and anybody that cares about what they drive and how it looks is going to drive around with all the equipment mounted on it that a total self driving vehicle needs?HvilleHokie wrote:I’m not assuming that at all. The tests in Tempe and Pittsburgh are on roads right now intermixed with human drivers.cwtcr hokie wrote:your assumption is that all vehicles on the road are self driving...bad assumptionHvilleHokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote:you think all traffic accidents will go away? how?HvilleHokie wrote:37k deaths a year from traffic accidents. Millions of accidents a year. Traffic jams in most cities. DUIs, cost of ownership, insurance costs, shipping costs.CFB Apologist wrote:This is the classic "solution looking for a problem". We don't "need" self driving cars on any scale in America. The infrastructure is not there, there are too many people, too many traditional cars. What we do need is better public transportation in big cities, but not self driving cars. Totally unnecessary. Also some humans like to drive, many humans are great drivers. And if your answer is "DUIs", this won't make a dent in those. If someone consciously leaves a bar too drunk to control a car, that same person is not going to hail for a driverless uber- they don't hail for cabs today, why would this change that? It wouldn't. could a few fender benders be prevented? maybe. Solution looking for its problem here.
All problems that could be helped if not solved by driverless cars.
There absolutely a problem that is being addressed by this technology.
Because automated cars will never become distracted, will follow traffic regulations, and have a bunch of safety features beyond what a human can do.
Yes... it is fully automated from point a to point b. Technology already exists. That’s what uber is testing in Tempe (and Pittsburgh)What does self driving have to do with dui's, the computer still has to be told where to go and the car is going to know how to negotiate parking lots and parking decks. You actually think it is total self driving from point a to point b?
Then the drunk programs the destination to be the Wendy’s? How is this a problem?Guess the drunk driver never needs to take a leak or decides he wants wendys fries on the way home
I also don’t think the number will go to zero. But it will be significantly reduced.
The price question is all the self driving stuff is not free, it costs quite a bit. So why is a non wealthy person going to spend the extra money that they don't have on a car equipped with that, or better yet how are they going to be able to afford it? Teslas are neat vehicles....that wealthy people buy instead of a porsche
Re: Dashcam video from self-driving Uber fatal crash
Accidents are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Seems like an easy way to improve life in America.