Back when I punched a time clock and repaired and maintained robotic pallet movers reading in floor tracks and ran on analog controls even. With analog control center tech.

I would not mind a robotic Pickup Truck/car in the wide expanse of West Texas. But just like those pallet trucks. I wanna be able to take control like when I plugged in the harness and hand control to take that pallet truck off line for Maint. Especially when hitting city traffic.

No wrecks on that old system indoors, though we had one ride off the loading docks cuz the truck pulled out without notifying anyone. After I left. I think they installed a physical way to keep the truck from leaving to keep a similar incident from occurring.


Not a lot of traffic out here sometimes. Easy to nod out at the wheel out here also. Seen it happen a few times with RV drivers. Wrecks were spectacular. RV's explode in the median. Cruise control can be your enemy out here when tired and drowsy.

Yeah, it's basically impossible for a human to pay attention for hours on end without actually doing anything. It seems like the "security drivers" are there soley to be liable when something bad (inevitably) happens.

That (especially the last part) seems pretty ridiculous to me.

What happened, according to Click, was that the built-in system proved incompatible with the AI. That's why they disabled it.

She was driver not passenger. All search engine results and even wikia material says and even uber homepage writes she was behind wheel.
It is possible. During day time it is easier to distract ourselves from driving cause see more and further and from one portion of look can get enough info to predict that nothing will happen if and can take away eyes longer, but if might happen then not look away. However when night time then this look away time is shorter. I know what i talk when it comes to driving. My work required me to drive a lot and for long periods of time with and without cargo. As i already wrote human brain operates very similar to computer. Our driving style is learned very similar way AI would learn.

That was not what I meant. Of course she was behind the wheel, that was her job. She was supposed to take over instantly if anything went wrong and she could hardly do that from a back seat. The point I was making was that psychologically she was a passenger. She was not driving, she was being driven.
Exactly! You were driving the car. She was not. I have no experience of driving myself, but I can readily believe that an active driver will concentrate on the road more at night when the lighting is bad. That makes sense. What does not make sense is to expect the same level of concentration from someone who is not actually driving and probably does not believe that she will ever need to take over the wheel.

@hazel
I watched video footage about this event after i posted replies and i was correct. This accident is not fault of self-driving car. On the contrary if self driving car would be used it would prevent accident. Since you wrote in your signature you are "old" that means you need someone who explains this in slow pace and with clear voice. Have a look at this video and watch it fully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5vbjl3TNEE
This is not fault of self driving vehicles but human error using them. That woman got killed cause Uber failed to hire proper driver and should not have disabled safety systems other companies enable.

While this may be true....

THIS would be hilarious if it wasn't also crude, offensive, and a mistaken assumption.

Another perfect example of how you, Arcane, leap to wrong conclusions without evidence and often contrary to existing evidence.. just going along with cliches and silly assumptions. Of course there are some old people who are slow but there are also young people who are slow and conversely many old people who have won Nobel Prizes, conceived great works in Art and every other field of human endeavor and sometimes, utterly changed the course of History.

I'm likely older than hazel, approaching my 73rd birthday. Do I strike you as "slow"? or lacking in experience?

What perfect example? It is obvious to me we don't understand each other POV and context cause i don't leap into wrong conclusions without evidence otherwise i would be wrong and i am not (c)rude, offensive and mistaken. She wrote about accident without analysing what really happened but based on outcome title "uber self driving car hits pedestrian" etc. and without driving basics understanding which i have. I tried to explain to her in normal way that it was not fault of car that pedestrian got killed but she insisted that it could be fault of self-driving vehicle cause safety driver was relaxed and trusting car. It still wasn't fault of car. Since i know most people live in USA i gave video with USA citizens explaining same points i made. It is human error using them not self-driving vehicle concept in general. Driver is also at fault just like those who disabled safety systems. Just like other accidents:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...g+car+accident
It all comes down to human error in those situations. One is texting, other is watching Harry Poter, third is not listening to safety warnings and so on. I have yet to see any accident where self-driving car with all systems working properly is truly at fault. All of those drivers where informed before they stepped into car that car does not have yet true driving AI so caution is mandatory.

Arcane, had you been paying attention, you would see that yours and my conclusions about self-driving cars are somewhat similar. I don't think they are, as the thread title says "accidents waiting to happen", at least on a level greater than accidents already do occur with human drivers. My argument with your words and line of "reasoning" is jumping to the conclusion, not only that hazel is old and slow, but that ALL old people are slow and require some young person to speak slowly and clearly to get a grasp on anything. That is not only ignorant... that is stupid, and yes.. crude, offensive and mistaken... just like this last remark of mine (for demonstration purposes only, of course) about "stupid" qualifies for two of those.

Some of the posts I feel like are comparing apples with oranges. May be my miss-understanding.

I think better question here is:
- if we have dedicated lanes for self-driving vehicles and dedicated lanes for non-self-driving vehicles. Which do you all think will have more accidents?

Now, I know, chances of this actually happening (dedicated lanes) are slim to none, but I feel like humans are worse at driving, with all the distractions! And, yes I also know that us humans are writing code for self-driving cars; and I am sure in early releases self-driving cars are not perfect but over time, I am sure they will improve.

enorbet, i think what happened is same misunderstanding as with rokytnji in faith thread. It is misunderstanding of context of posting. Just like rokytnji was not trying to make me insulter but i misunderstood as if would be, i was not insulting hazel while you thought i was insulting when i was simply trying to deliver same message differently cause it was obvious some people do not understand driving world basics. Self driving car sensors detect more than human eyes see. And i did have grandparents so my post is not entirely wrong. Older people do take it slower.

Hmmm.... seems clear to me you are "back-pedaling" now. Maybe it's just that I'm old and slow

Ha, ha! I'm still older. I had my 74th last week.

I'm feeling quite the youngster at only 70. Thanks.

For the win: Hazel! ;-)


Back to the point: Once it gets "good enough" I can see that AI might be far safer than a fallible, frail human when controlling what amounts to a one ton bullet. (Our current annual highway death toll speaks to the wisdom of seeking a better option!) It does not have to be perfect, it just has to be enough better than WE are for the choice to be clear. That might not take much.

The U.S. almost abandoned better national mass transit options in favor of the family auto and the national highway system. IT is beginning to become clear that this model may not be sustainable over the long run. Automated mass transit may be key to our national transit systems of year 2100+! I wish those of us on this thread could be alive to observe THAT change. It should be (excuse the term) a wild ride!