More proof that autonomous vehicles are bad.

DdBob

DdBob

Dogue in teh desert
Only five days after Uber killed a pedestrian with their self driving car Tesla decides to not be outdone and it kills one of it's customers with "auto pilot" technology. This is not the first time Tesla has used autonomous tech to kill one of it's customers. M'kay I think this is pretty good proof that robot cars are not something we should take lightly !
's also disturbing that Tesla lays blame on an "unrepared" highway crash gaurd rather than take responsibility.



http://fortune.com/2018/03/31/tesla-autopilot-fatal-model-x-crash/

The driver, according to data in the vehicle’s logs, had about five seconds to react before striking the divider, but did not. The driver was killed in the crash, which Tesla says was made worse by an unrepaired highway crash guard.
 
The question isn’t whether autonomous cars get in accidents or kill people, the question is whether they do it more than human drivers. Nothing will ever be perfect, but how many people were killed by human drivers in the same timeframe That these two people were killed by autonomous cars, per capita?
 
smurfco said:
The question isn’t whether autonomous cars get in accidents or kill people, the question is whether they do it more than human drivers. Nothing will ever be perfect, but how many people were killed by human drivers in the same timeframe That these two people were killed by autonomous cars, per capita?
Click to expand...

What!!!??? I consider myself a happy non-participant in the stupid driving habits that cause a large percentage of auto fatalities. I'm not immune, but I'm not going to die from some of the most common causes. Texting, drinking while driving, tailgating people in the fastest lanes of the freeway, driving more than 20 or 30 mph faster than cars in neighboring lanes. You can opt out of stupid behavior, and yes possibly get killed by someone else, but still lowering your own odds. You can't opt out of self-driving car failures, you're right in there with the same odds as everyone else. Skill won't save you (for fully autonomous cars), caution won't save you if an algorithm is wrong, one of its cameras is malfunctioning, or a computer chip failure. I prefer controlling my own destiny.
 
rickenvox said:
What!!!??? I consider myself a happy non-participant in the stupid driving habits that cause a large percentage of auto fatalities. I'm not immune, but I'm not going to die from some of the most common causes. Texting, drinking while driving, tailgating people in the fastest lanes of the freeway, driving more than 20 or 30 mph faster than cars in neighboring lanes. You can opt out of stupid behavior, and yes possibly get killed by someone else, but still lowering your own odds. You can't opt out of self-driving car failures, you're right in there with the same odds as everyone else. Skill won't save you (for fully autonomous cars), caution won't save you if an algorithm is wrong, one of its cameras is malfunctioning, or a computer chip failure. I prefer controlling my own destiny.
Click to expand...
This is an argument against you personally getting a self driving car, this is not an argument against self driving cars in general. Also, everybody thinks that they are an excellent driver.
 
smurfco said:
This is an argument against you personally getting a self driving car, this is not an argument against self driving cars in general. Also, everybody thinks that they are an excellent driver.
Click to expand...

Well no, the first part of my argument has nothing to do with self-driving cars. My argument was people are not all in the same odds for traffic fatalities, which has been proven statistically. For example teen drivers have much higher odds for dying in auto accidents. Same with drunk drivers, texters, people who speed, bad eyesight, or lack driving skills. So given that I wouldn't just compare, as you were suggesting, the rate of traffic fatalities for human operated vehicles to autonomous cars (assuming we would even have enough data for autonomous cars in the next 5-10 years).

My next point was autonomous cars will have the same odds of traffic fatalities in the case where the person in the car is not intervening with manual controls. So whatever those odds are, I'm no better off than anyone else even if I am better off in a manual vehicle. So it's not the same.

That was my point, and had nothing to do with whether I personally would hop into a self-driving car, the odds apply to everyone.
 
smurfco said:
This is an argument against you personally getting a self driving car, this is not an argument against self driving cars in general. Also, everybody thinks that they are an excellent driver.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think Rick made an argument against ato robot cars in general. He is right. Myself is a cautious drive and one who practices defensive driving....anticipation, distance to stop and one I think most never do is that i constantly scan the review mirror not just for cars in the rear but my surroundings. I then know I can swerve if need be. I can also predict "dangerous drivers" and act accordingly, etc, etc....ain't no robot as smart as me.
Let Darwin sort it out and the ones who's time is up is well.....up. Let's not mess the whole Darwin thing up and let the stupid ones avoid Karma.....Man over machine!
 
rickenvox said:
Well no, the first part of my argument has nothing to do with self-driving cars. My argument was people are not all in the same odds for traffic fatalities, which has been proven statistically. For example teen drivers have much higher odds for dying in auto accidents. Same with drunk drivers, texters, people who speed, bad eyesight, or lack driving skills. So given that I wouldn't just compare, as you were suggesting, the rate of traffic fatalities for human operated vehicles to autonomous cars (assuming we would even have enough data for autonomous cars in the next 5-10 years).

My next point was autonomous cars will have the same odds of traffic fatalities in the case where the person in the car is not intervening with manual controls. So whatever those odds are, I'm no better off than anyone else even if I am better off in a manual vehicle. So it's not the same.

That was my point, and had nothing to do with whether I personally would hop into a self-driving car, the odds apply to everyone.
Click to expand...
I would think the relevant comparison isn't 'are your odds when driving better than other people', it's 'are your odds better when you're driving vs when you're riding in an autonomous car', no?
 
yabba said:
Also everyone thinks they control their own destiny
Click to expand...

yabba, if you're not in control of your own destiny then you need to attend one of my seminars entitled "How to Control Your Own Destiny." For a small investment I will give you the tools you need to take control of your destiny and improve your love life. I take PayPal.
 
yabba said:
I would think the relevant comparison isn't 'are your odds when driving better than other people', it's 'are your odds better when you're driving vs when you're riding in an autonomous car', no?
Click to expand...

well I guess that's what I'm saying. Some people's odds will be better driving themselves compared to a self-driving car (assuming we ever get statistics on the percentage of autonomous car failures that can cause fatal accidents) and some other people's odds will be safer in an self-driving car that has the possibility of failure.
 
rickenvox said:
well I guess that's what I'm saying. Some people's odds will be better driving themselves compared to a self-driving car (assuming we ever get statistics on the percentage of autonomous car failures that can cause fatal accidents) and some other people's odds will be safer in an self-driving car that has the possibility of failure.
Click to expand...
yeah, and we clearly don't have enough data yet because self-driving cars aren't widespread yet, but once we do, I would be surprised if the vast majority of people's odds aren't better off letting the car drive. Basically, what smurfco said.
smurfco said:
everybody thinks that they are an excellent driver.
Click to expand...
except I think I'd revise to "everybody thinks they're a better driver than they actually are"
 
The only reason these discussions even come up is people's general trust in artificial intelligence and not having a clear understanding of how primitive that technology is to this day. Winning chess matches with masters does not compare to making sense of visual, auditory data while driving and all of the connections our brains are making to identify possible threats or risks. Computers, although faster at many simple tasks, do not make neural connections with anything even closely approximating the complexity of the human brain. Self driving cars need much more accuracy than missile guidance systems, as missile guidance systems are designed to kill and our government accepts a certain level of collateral damage. Do autonomous car computer programmers study and account for the habits of homeless people on busy urban streets? What about squirrels? Do they just run them over as a default or dangerously swerve to avoid them and creating another unanticipated risk? Cats? I'm weighing those decisions every day. Squirrel, I'll slow or swerve to avoid in my neighborhood, but not on a mountain road. Cats I give a little more concern towards. I fully expect a homeless person crossing the street to immediately reverse direction at any time.
 
yabba said:
yeah, and we clearly don't have enough data yet because self-driving cars aren't widespread yet, but once we do, I would be surprised if the vast majority of people's odds aren't better off letting the car drive. Basically, what smurfco said.

except I think I'd revise to "everybody thinks they're a better driver than they actually are"
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse, but you don't have the comparison point for traditional manual vehicles that weeds out teenagers racing at 2 in the morning, drunk drivers, drivers texting, unsafe vehicles, etc. You just can't compare fatality statistics.
 
rickenvox said:
Not to beat a dead horse, but you don't have the comparison point for traditional manual vehicles that weeds out teenagers racing at 2 in the morning, drunk drivers, drivers texting, unsafe vehicles, etc. You just can't compare fatality statistics.
Click to expand...
that was my point.

that said, if those drunk racing teens etc are in autonomous cars, it's going to increase your odds, even with your exquisitely honed CNS
 
pmc100 said:
Thousands of people died at the hands of human drivers today. Today.
Click to expand...

...and? Think of the implications. If thousands don't die from cars and we eliminate all potential bad things ....coffeee in California, fluoride, charbroiled foods, burnt toast, etc...anything of danger then where will all the people live? where will all the food come from (Soylant Green?) Will everybody get along or will there be more violence, more jails, etc etc. Perhaps auto accidents are just one of "natures" methods of thinning the herds....perhaps it just is what it is ?
 
yabba said:
that was my point.

that said, if those drunk racing teens etc are in autonomous cars, it's going to increase your odds, even with your exquisitely honed CNS
Click to expand...

well that's something I've been wondering about, do autonomous cars allow you to override and violate traffic laws like speed limit? If they do then they're in for big liability lawsuits. If they don't, who the hell drives 65 mph on a freeway nowadays?
 
Rickenvox is in the wrong line of work. He should obviously be a driving instructor. Keep us safe out there, Rick!
 
Driving_cats_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top