Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 317

Thread: Self-driving cars

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post


    Self-driving car slams into man while testing its ‘pedestrian detection’ feature
    Ollie McAteer for Metro.co.uk Wednesday 27 May 2015


    Bit awkward for Volvo.
    One of their new self-driving cars was testing a ‘pedestrian detection’ feature when it rammed into someone.
    The XC60 is seen reversing in a Dominican Republic car park.
    It then accelerates forwards and smashes into a bloke with his hands in his pockets who put too much trust in the machine.


    http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/27/self-d...ature-5216867/
    They probably shouldn't have been testing a feature they didn't buy:

    the incident happened because the people who bought the Volvo did not pay for the pedestrian detection functionality.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  2. #102

    Default

    ^lol, that's too funny "lets run someone over to test that we didn't buy the pedestrian saftey feature".

  3. #103

    Default

    So... the pedestrians have to buy it?


    Maybe through crowd funding.

  4. #104
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,475

    Default

    Wow! A living (still, I hope) crash test dummy.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  5. #105

    Default

    Just wait till someone hops into a rental car or test drives a new model and begins texting while the car drives itself but mows down pedestrians. Who is at fault when they realize that the car did not have certain features.

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/wetroad.asp
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #106
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,247

    Default

    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  7. #107
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Just wait till someone hops into a rental car or test drives a new model and begins texting while the car drives itself but mows down pedestrians. Who is at fault when they realize that the car did not have certain features.

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/wetroad.asp
    It wasn't an autonomous vehicle. It was a normal vehicle with some driver assist features. Obviously in such cases, the driver would be at fault.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    Wow, and manufacturers would expect car buyers to read a 1,000 page manual on how to drive their self driving cars??? I can imagine the long list of legal terms and conditions.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    Wow, and manufacturers would expect car buyers to read a 1,000 page manual on how to drive their self driving cars??? I can imagine the long list of legal terms and conditions.
    Volvo doesn't call it a self-driving car and yes, drivers are expected to know how to operate their vehicle and have read the manual.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  10. #110

    Default

    SPECIAL SECTION: TRANSPORTATION
    Tipping Point in Transit
    By FARHAD MANJOO JUNE 10, 2015

    Excerpt:

    "Cars and transportation will change more in the next 20 years than they’ve changed in the last 75 years,” said M. Bart Herring, the head of product management at Mercedes-Benz USA. “What we were doing 10 years ago wasn’t that much different from what we were doing 50 years ago. The cars got more comfortable, but for the most part we were putting gas in the cars and going where we wanted to go. What’s going to happen in the next 20 years is the equivalent of..."

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits...nt-in-transit/
    Last edited by KC; 10-06-2015 at 06:44 PM.

  11. #111
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Here it starts.

    Hackers seize control of Jeep, then crash it, using a laptop and cellphone about 15 km away

    Hackers have managed to take control of a car and crash it into a ditch while sitting on their sofa about 15 kilometres away.

    In the first such breach of its kind, security experts caused the engine to cut out and applied the brakes on a Jeep Cherokee, sending it into a spin.

    The U.S. hackers said they used just a laptop and cellphone to access the vehicle’s on-board systems via its wireless Internet connection. They claim that more than 470,000 cars made by Fiat Chrysler could be at risk.

    The hack was revealed by security researchers Charlie Miller, a former staffer at the National Security Agency, and Chris Valasek. They worked with Andy Greenberg, a writer with tech website Wired.com, who was driving the Jeep on public roads in St. Louis.

    In a demonstration for The Washington Post, Miller had to start the car the old-fashioned way, with his Jeep key fob. But once it was running, he found the vehicle’s Internet address and, while sitting in his office and typing on a MacBook Pro, hacked in through the dashboard information and entertainment system.
    Wired Story: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers...-jeep-highway/
    CBC link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ha...demo-1.3162944

    Wouldn't a self driving car be even more vulnerable?

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,475

    Default

    Wow! They need to get a fix in a hurry. My daughter just bought a new Cherokee.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  13. #113

    Default

    Even if they just can kill the engine, can you imagine the freeway traffic jams if 50 cars suddenly stop on a freeway?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #114
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,352

    Default

    On Chrysler's and Fiat's UConnect vehicles they could cut brakes, engine, control steering in reverse, engage brakes, plus control the radio, air conditioning, wipers

  15. #115

    Default

    They could change the radio station to country and western.


    That would cause a lot of accidents.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  16. #116

    Default

    Fiat Chrysler recalls 1.4M vehicles due to hacking vulnerability
    Company takes action as researchers demonstrate how hackers can take remote control of vehicles

    http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...CMO-EN07272015
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #117

    Default

    These are not self driving cars whats your purpose in posting this in this thread?

    I'm sure PRT is hackable too, the only problem is, hackers have no interest in a system that isn't used.

  18. #118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,447

    Default

    In terms of self-driving cars I'd say the existing manufacturers woeful record on systems security is relevant. Hacking a completely self-driving car could lead to this:

    https://youtu.be/5UBdrMTxsvs?t=43s

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,352

    Default

    And to get back on topic, yet another Google car was in an accident... yet again it wasn't Google's fault as the car was rear ended.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/goog...ries-1.3156494

  20. #120

    Default How driverless cars will reduce urban traffic

    This is a neat article, check out the little simulators:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...raffic/400526/

    Won't this be sad for all those land owners with inner city parking lots? All their revenue will go... Heaven forbid, they might have to develop their pot of gold...

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    In terms of self-driving cars I'd say the existing manufacturers woeful record on systems security is relevant. Hacking a completely self-driving car could lead to this:

    https://youtu.be/5UBdrMTxsvs?t=43s
    Lol, "entering sleep mode..."

  22. #122

    Default

    I think this reveals more about the limitations of today's polling rather than any future.

    Ask a senior if they want a self driving car or to pay some outrageous unaffordable insurance rate or lose personal transportation altogether. Or ask a teen if they want to give up screen time to sit in gridlock for hours or maneuver - MANUALLY - a big old primative piece of technology down a city street - while also paying some huge insurance rate.


    Self-driving cars will have to pry the steering wheel from our cold, dead hands, poll says

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/28/13...lley-blue-book
    Last edited by KC; 28-09-2016 at 10:55 AM.

  23. #123
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,413

    Default

    I'm sure if they were conducted back in the late 1800's, most people would have responded in a poll that they were never going to give up their horse and carriage, too. Doesn't mean much.

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,447

    Default

    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #125
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.
    I love to drive but a car without pedals and a steering wheel is something that would catch on quickly. You keep the old manual car around for Sunday drives but it would quickly become as out of place and be viewed as dangerous a car without seat belts.

    I think cars without pedals and a steering wheel are 10 years away and there will be a quick transition.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.
    I love to drive but a car without pedals and a steering wheel is something that would catch on quickly. You keep the old manual car around for Sunday drives but it would quickly become as out of place and be viewed as dangerous a car without seat belts.

    I think cars without pedals and a steering wheel are 10 years away and there will be a quick transition.
    Like replacing the abacus or slide rule with an "electronic calculator".

    I'll have to look for a video showing the interior of the Sleeper car, here's the sound:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnT6_S-aECc
    Last edited by KC; 29-09-2016 at 06:49 AM.

  27. #127

    Default

    I wonder what a police chase will look like between two self driving cars.

    I also wonder if we'll need shoulders on roads any more, or streetlights, or headlights.

    If they go electric and batteries don't improve significantly will single person pods, maybe two or three wheeled pods predominate? What kinds of heaters will they have?

    Will transportation departments disappear with just say Google's computers dictating road design to cities?

  28. #128

    Default

    ^The short answer is, in time, everything we know about personal transportation and passenger vehicles will completely upend.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  29. #129
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    I don't see the point of them. I'll wait until the first one is hacked, and causes multiple accidents

  30. #130
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.

  31. #131

    Default

    But self-driving cars will have a significantly larger attack surface, involving so many more sensors and processors.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    But self-driving cars will have a significantly larger attack surface, involving so many more sensors and processors.
    Compare that to hundreds of thousands of new teenage drivers being added to the roads each year, many also consuming various drugs before driving, and then doing so for years thereafter. Then There's all blue collar and professional workers getting blitzed every night and then driving to work the next morning.

    In cars they could easily add a secondary ultra secure autonomous monitoring system to cut the power if anything goes wrong.
    Last edited by KC; 29-10-2016 at 05:10 PM.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I think this reveals more about the limitations of today's polling rather than any future.

    Ask a senior if they want a self driving car or to pay some outrageous unaffordable insurance rate or lose personal transportation altogether. Or ask a teen if they want to give up screen time to sit in gridlock for hours or maneuver - MANUALLY - a big old primative piece of technology down a city street - while also paying some huge insurance rate.


    Self-driving cars will have to pry the steering wheel from our cold, dead hands, poll says

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/28/13...lley-blue-book
    Most people are selfish.

    The biggest problem on the roads today is distracted driving. And autonomous self driving cars don't drive drunk or stoned. Self driving cars could save thousands of lives each year, and prevent many times more injuries. They'll be much, much safer.

    When the subject of safety, and safety features, comes up, it almost always involves safety for those inside the vehicle, ignoring the people outside the vehicle. I wonder if it makes drivers less cautious, because they are safer, but making it more dangerous to those outside the vehicle.

    I'm sure there will be some problems with self driving cars, and maybe some collisions, but the numbers will be minuscule compared to the carnage that we seem to accept as "just the way it is".

    I remember a conversation with a police officer after yet another drunk driver killed someone I knew. I was beside myself, wondering how in the world someone could be so stupid and selfish to drive drunk when we all know what can happen. He said everybody thinks they are a great driver, and that it will never happen to them.

    I may not live to see autonomous cars take over the roads, but I wish it could happen tomorrow. Then I wouldn't have to worry so much about idiots looking at their phone while they drive. Or people who think speeding is ok because they are in a hurry, and they are better drivers than everybody else.

    I'm interested to see what the insurance ramifications will be for those who choose to drive after self-driving cars become common. Will they be higher, because someone chooses a more dangerous option? Or will they be lower, because self-driving cars make the roads safer for everyone?

    I also wonder about the cost of owning a car they drive themselves. I don't think many people will own these self driving vehicles. Instead, it'ill be similar to hailing a cab. Could save people a lot of money compared to owning a car, and all of the costs associated with that. No need for a garage, or parking at home. Owning a car will be a luxury.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 29-10-2016 at 10:22 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I can do a lot to fix a broken down car but today, I'd probably still just call AMA to tow it rather than fix it on the side of the road myself.

    ...and my wife has her outlandishly complex Touareg that she wouldn't dare let me take a wrench to if it broke down.

    It will be like switching from free TV via rabbit ears to hugely expensive cable TV and people will jump at the chance to handover their money for a bit of convenience.
    Last edited by KC; 30-10-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  36. #136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I can do a lot to fix a broken down car but today, I'd probably still just call AMA to tow it rather than fix it on the side of the road myself.

    ...and my wife has her outlandishly complex Touareg that she wouldn't dare let me take a wrench to if it broke down.

    It will be like switching from free TV via rabbit ears to hugely expensive cable TV and people will jump at the chance to handover their money for a bit of convenience.
    My brother in law is a mechanic,, so we have no worries who will fix our cars. Good anology re the rabbit ears. I guess we won't be jumping on this concept, if we even live to see it. It's a shame more jobs will be lost in all of this, it's almost as if we want the Human race to become extinct.

  37. #137
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.

    And the majority of people now can't fix their cars. Self driving or not. That won't change anything either.

    The way this may go is that you don't 'own' your car, car sharing is going to be far more likely. So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way.

    As to your 'job loss' comment, we've survived without all kinds of jobs that have been replaced by other technology. There is a long list of technology that replaced human (or animal) jobs. Tractors, weaving machines, washing machines, computers and more. There is short term job loss, but long term those jobs are replaced in other sectors due to efficiency gains.

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.
    So when a car is hacked, which could actually become a common issue, and it drives off a cliff killing 4 people, it's still a safer alternative than people driven?

    I'd have to 100% disagree. Keep in mind I'm not doubting self driving cars are safer because that's true, just that I think it gets negated when the issue of wireless hacking gets put into the picture. The digital security of self driving vehicles is going to have to be astronomical for it to be successful.

  39. #139

    Default

    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #140
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    So when a car is hacked, which could actually become a common issue
    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?

    I mean people obviously murder each other. 516 homicides in Canada in 2014.

    But in 2013 Canada had 2114 die by car accident. If self driving cars half that number, and people start murdering each other at 3x the 2014 rate (with 1,000 being by car) then we're still at a net positive. And you're assuming a lot of people are going to start murdering out of nowhere.

    Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Yes. Should we therefore abandon the technology? Hell no.

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.

    And the majority of people now can't fix their cars. Self driving or not. That won't change anything either.

    The way this may go is that you don't 'own' your car, car sharing is going to be far more likely. So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way.

    As to your 'job loss' comment, we've survived without all kinds of jobs that have been replaced by other technology. There is a long list of technology that replaced human (or animal) jobs. Tractors, weaving machines, washing machines, computers and more. There is short term job loss, but long term those jobs are replaced in other sectors due to efficiency gains.
    "So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way."

    Right after you wipe the sperm or puke or diaper leakage off the seat. Or air out the smell of drugs...


    On jobs always being replaced: That may well change going forward in terms of the earnings potential for future jobs. Computers, robotics and automation, etc. may be able to replace much intelligent or skillful work currently done by people. So we end up living lives more like millions of those in the cities of third world nations, inventing various means to just survive as there is little to no demand for what people can offer.
    Last edited by KC; 30-10-2016 at 06:01 PM.

  42. #142
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.
    And those people are every bit is irrational and bad at logic as those who think self-driving cars won't be safer and/or think they don't have a use.

  43. #143

    Default

    I am not worried about hacking - I am concerned about a computer in a driverless car, swerving and braking to miss something on the road and colliding with a pedestrian on the sidewalk instead.

    A human driver will be more empathetic to running over a pedestrian than a computer would, and may instead collide with another car because a low-speed collision with another driver would cause less suffering than a collision with a pedestrian.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I am not worried about hacking - I am concerned about a computer in a driverless car, swerving and braking to miss something on the road and colliding with a pedestrian on the sidewalk instead.

    A human driver will be more empathetic to running over a pedestrian than a computer would, and may instead collide with another car because a low-speed collision with another driver would cause less suffering than a collision with a pedestrian.
    That's already raising the ethical questions. In a no win draw, who does the computer choose to save, the pedestrian or the driver? Eg rock in the middle of the road, pedestrian on the left, cliff on the right. ...

    I'm not so sure the human driver would choose the cliff.
    Last edited by KC; 31-10-2016 at 11:02 AM.

  45. #145
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.

    Ford Pinto and gas tank explosions. Not many happened, in fact, tests rigged to produce the said explosion didn't. But...

    Pontiac Fiero 2M4 engine fires. Again, not many actually happened. Didn't deter the folklore...

    Autonomous vehicles and self driving vehicles still have a large uphill battle, but they will become a part of our environment sooner than later. I for one will never buy one unless I am forced to. I love driving.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  46. #146
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Test out and provide feedback to MIT on what you think a self driving car should do: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

  47. #147

    Default

    The hope is that since the computer-generated wouldn't be speeding or distracted, and would slow down more than most human drivers in adverse conditions, there would be fewer of these situations to start with.

    And, the computer should be able to decide that breaking hard and then hitting the rock at a slower speed won't be fatal, so it would sacrifice the car.

    And I'm confident that it would.

    Because Pinto.

    No, not because the pinto shows that automakers are willing to build unsafe cars, but because the whole experience show that the public and the courts will be much, much harder on a company who's designs cause a handful of deaths than they are on individual's daily deadly negligence.
    There can only be one.

  48. #148
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Partly true, but the focus lately on the distracted driving narrative says that the lawmakers and the courts are paying pretty close attention to the daily driving issues. What the pinto narrative shows more is that people are willing to sue over anything, and that the public will let myth become reality...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, not because the pinto shows that automakers are willing to build unsafe cars, but because the whole experience show that the public and the courts will be much, much harder on a company who's designs cause a handful of deaths than they are on individual's daily deadly negligence.
    I still see a lot of brand new GMs on the road & they killed hundreds of people over a decade & they basically got a slap on the wrist from the courts & every regulatory body. All caused by the effort to save literally a couple bucks on a car.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #150
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    And I own 3 of those allegedly death cars, and have yet to have the keys followed to the ignition once. I can't even forcibly pull the keys out of the ignition. So, like the 2m4 Fiero fires, how many of this event happened? However, this goes directly to the point I'm trying to make. It takes a couple accidents to then allegedly branded car or a maker as unsafe. While I don't expect a Ralph Nader to show up with autonomous cars, this better be in the back of their minds.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  51. #151
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?
    You think hackers are going to magically stop hacking because now it's a vehicle their hacking into and not a computer? You mean these hackers have ethics?

    It's not going to make a difference. The challenge is there. The vpn/anonymous internet is there.

  52. #152

    Default

    They've admitted fault & paid out for at least 124 deaths directly attributed & that doesn't count any of the people covered by the still-ongoing multi-district litigation nor those that GM rejected as not being definitively caused by their acknowledged fault. They recalled 30 MILLION cars.

    That's more than "a couple".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #153
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?
    You think hackers are going to magically stop hacking because now it's a vehicle their hacking into and not a computer? You mean these hackers have ethics?

    It's not going to make a difference. The challenge is there. The vpn/anonymous internet is there.
    Hacking is not equal to murder and you're making the leap that all hackers are going to be murderers? That's a big moral change from trolling/stealing/other non lethal hacking.

    I see the hacking as more like maybe they'll play bad music on the car audio, change your destination, etc. Not straight up killing people.

  54. #154

    Default

    I find those who always imagine the worst of others are generally pretty crummy people themselves. Kinda like when a fundamentalist Christian talks about the temptations of homosexuality only because they're living a lie & not being themselves & project their mental state on others.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  55. #155
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    They've admitted fault & paid out for at least 124 deaths directly attributed & that doesn't count any of the people covered by the still-ongoing multi-district litigation nor those that GM rejected as not being definitively caused by their acknowledged fault. They recalled 30 MILLION cars.

    That's more than "a couple".
    Cough...Firestone...Cough...

    There is more than enough to go around.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  56. #156

    Default

    Watch the short video on these cars linking together on the road...


    This tiny car can change shape and drive sideways

    http://mashable.com/2015/05/08/eo2-f.../#.R8Byoic1aq9

  57. #157

    Default

    Consider... Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse

    It’s morbid, but the truth is that due to limitations on who can contribute transplants, among the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads (a number that, after years of falling mortality rates, has recently been trending upward). Currently, 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident. That’s why departments of motor vehicles ask drivers whether they want to be donors.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  58. #158

    Default

    Martti Is a Fully Autonomous Car Made for Snowy Streets - Bloomberg

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-snowy-streets

  59. #159

    Default

    Uber halts self-driving car tests after death - BBC News
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43459156

  60. #160
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,599

    Default

    Does it feel like a major lawsuit is on the way?

  61. #161

    Default

    Two or three more incidents and a billion dollars of research will go down the drain when driverless cars are outlawed.

    It is not a question if if but when.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #162
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    What happened today was everything that scares me, AND there was someone in the car! WTH?

  63. #163
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Does it feel like a major lawsuit is on the way?
    I think there should be!

  64. #164
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,644

    Default

    Driverless or autonomous cars are only at Level 2. I worked with the Alberta Automobile insurance rate board, recently and they asked the public if Autonomous vehicles are allowed on Alberta roads, what is the likely hood of them using one. Before today, most younger people are ok with them. The question I have is was this vehicle hacked in anyway?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  65. #165

    Default

    If it was hacked, then that is a real concern as well. Cars that can be hacked or a viris introduced could lead to killing the driver, the passengers or pedestrians and other drivers. Could the hacker be from a competing company, a terrorist or a Russian? What about a AI attack where the car's computer decides it is more important to maintain its speed that stop for a human?

    Now this may all be rabbit holes but the point is that you are adding may more possible causes and unintended consequences. These type of risks were as well know as the dangers of using explosive hydrogen in airships or not installing seat belts in cars or the dangers of smoking. Why create a driverless car when statistically it is well known that it will take decades to work out the bugs and lead to a lot of deaths when driving is such a complex task with billions of permutations that cannot all be avoided and where people will be lulled into a false sense of security. I already see this in ads on TV where automatic control is marketed as more reliable than the person who should be driving it.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #166

    Default

    Hacked? I’d day the odds are that it was just bad software.

    Anyone who’s used a computer for any length of time has encountered far more problems from bugs etc than hacks. That’s why we finally switched to Apple over a decade ago - got tired of all the Windows problems.

  67. #167

    Default

    Hindenburg effect is taking place.


    People are dying everyday as is.

    1 dead, several hurt in Alabama bus crash
    Bus was carrying students from Florida to Texas when it plunged into a ravine

    The Associated Press
    March 13, 2018
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/al...rash-1.4573919


    Just Alberta:

    “The number of traffic fatalities decreased 10.6% over the past year from 369 fatalities in 2014 to 330 in 2015”

    https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2502...oad/ar2015.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 20-03-2018 at 06:33 AM.

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    How about you don't all just jump to conclusion so quickly.

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-uber-self-driving-car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/


    After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Does it feel like a major lawsuit is on the way?
    For what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Two or three more incidents and a billion dollars of research will go down the drain when driverless cars are outlawed.

    It is not a question if if but when.
    People kill people with cars everyday. In Canada we average 5 traffic fatalities a day. Autonomous vehicles will make that go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    What happened today was everything that scares me, AND there was someone in the car! WTH?
    What scares you? The fact that even with advanced sensors AND a safety driver in the car, this still happened? If you had been driving, do you think you could have avoided the fatal crash?
    Last edited by Channing; 20-03-2018 at 08:28 AM.

  69. #169
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,470

    Default

    What scares you? The fact that even with advanced sensors AND a safety driver in the car, this still happened? If you had been driving, do you think you could have avoided the fatal crash?
    YES!

  70. #170
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    What scares you? The fact that even with advanced sensors AND a safety driver in the car, this still happened? If you had been driving, do you think you could have avoided the fatal crash?
    YES!
    Yes to which question.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    What scares you? The fact that even with advanced sensors AND a safety driver in the car, this still happened? If you had been driving, do you think you could have avoided the fatal crash?
    YES!
    And you may be very right on that. That’s why these systems are still in testing. However people drivers kill lot of people as is.

    What does the video show the “safety driver” aka passenger doing at the time? Hands on the wheel or not? Microseconds count.

    The public, the media and the politicians will be very unforgiving of innocent victims of such research and development. This victim may not have been innocent. Nonetheless that’s how it is and everyone knows it. Maybe they need more lights on and a second “safety driver” in such vehicles because of the delayed response likely involved by humans.
    Last edited by KC; 20-03-2018 at 07:12 AM.

  72. #172

    Default

    The above link on this video didn’t work for me


    Uber is 'likely' not at fault in the fatal self-driving car crash, local police chief says - The Register Citizen

    http://www.businessinsider.com/tempe...t=allverticals

  73. #173
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,475

    Default

    If this person stepped off the kerb right in front of the car, even if the car 'saw' the pedestrian in a microsecond, the braking distance to come to a stop from the reported 60k/mh would not have been enough to avoid the collision regardless of whether a computer or a person were driving.
    Last edited by howie; 20-03-2018 at 08:03 AM.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  74. #174

    Default

    Instead of a straight line stop, could a driver have swerved to avoid or reduce the chance?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #175
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Instead of a straight line stop, could a driver have swerved to avoid or reduce the chance?
    ...that would all depend on how fast, or if, a manual override/input would have done anything...

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    What scares you? The fact that even with advanced sensors AND a safety driver in the car, this still happened? If you had been driving, do you think you could have avoided the fatal crash?
    YES!
    And you may be very right on that. That’s why these systems are still in testing. However people drivers kill lot of people as is.

    What does the video show the “safety driver” aka passenger doing at the time? Hands on the wheel or not? Microseconds count.

    The public, the media and the politicians will be very unforgiving of innocent victims of such research and development. This victim may not have been innocent. Nonetheless that’s how it is and everyone knows it. Maybe they need more lights on and a second “safety driver” in such vehicles because of the delayed response likely involved by humans.
    ...I know we've had this discussion before on other topics...but again my friend this will come down to liability and litigation...

    I can hear the accident lawyers salivating at this one. The river of spit will be more than a Mississippi flood. You can now sue the safety driver, UBER, the software manufacturer, the programmer, the automaker, the municipality, the road designer...a whole host of entities...

    Why? ...because in autonomous driving accidents, you now have a whole system of potential defendants. ...and just like the old CMA exam which put a similar question out...the answer is sue everyone...let the courts figure it out. This will be a real first test of autonomous driving...because before, you just sued the fleshy thing behind the wheel...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  76. #176
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Instead of a straight line stop, could a driver have swerved to avoid or reduce the chance?
    As I previously quoted.

    After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
    However, we're all working on anecdotal information and supposition. Let's not jump to conclusions.

  77. #177
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post

    As I previously quoted.

    After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
    However, we're all working on anecdotal information and supposition. Let's not jump to conclusions.
    Fair enough...but this is where it is going to get really sticky in the world of personal injury law...

    ...just off the top of my head...jumping out of the shadows is moot. Lasers see through shadows. Proximity warning sensors work in the dark. Automation allegedly has a higher and far superior "vision" for lack of a better word.

    So...based on the quote...this will get easily killed in court. The premise is that autonomous driving vehicles will prevent these issues with their superior "reflexes" etc...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  78. #178
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    That quote means nothing in a court of law obviously. You're still coming up with issues based on lack of information. None of us have seen the video, seen the data the sensor produced. I mean what about trees that caused the shadows? Or what about the fact that she was pushing a bike laden with plastic bags? Was she indeed stationary until the car immediately in front of her and she jumped into it? All this wild guessing is useless and not helpful. Because we don't have the data, we can't know what happened.

    But if a person driving would have still had the fatal collision, should an autonomous vehicle be held to a higher standard of liability?

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Instead of a straight line stop, could a driver have swerved to avoid or reduce the chance?
    As I previously quoted.

    After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
    However, we're all working on anecdotal information and supposition. Let's not jump to conclusions.
    It's not at all uncommon the have shadows right next to a sunlit roadway without it being fatal - if the sidewalk is shadowed there's literally nothing that the victim could have done other than "step directly from the shadow onto the road". Cameras have more trouble with high contrast than our eyes do, and responsible autonomous car design would determine when there are blind spots due to glare or shadows and slow accordingly.

    Rather than looking at the video that merely shows what the car saw and then pronouncing a judgement, investigators should go to the site in similar conditions before deciding what a human would have seen.
    There can only be one.

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post

    But if a person driving would have still had the fatal collision, should an autonomous vehicle be held to a higher standard of liability?
    It depends. Human nature of investigators and prosecutors means that we often excuse behaviour that shouldn't be excused, but situations that apply to humans don't apply to corporations or programs. They don't have medical issues, and don't have instinctive behaviour. A driver who swerves to avoid being cut off and hits someone else is at fault but it is an instinctive reaction which should be taken into account. If a autonomous car does the same then that decision was programmed it - rather than instinct it's a deliberate decision.

    Beyond that, judicial consequences for the same degree of fault should be different depending on the guilty party. Uber or google should face much more substantial fines, similar to what ford and GM have faced for ignoring fatal flaws, since the fine should be enough to change the way their cars operate. There should also be far more exhaustive investigation, similar to what you see for an airline crash or passenger train derailment - you can't just blame a flawed human driver's mental state, recklessness or negligence.
    There can only be one.

  81. #181
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    That quote means nothing in a court of law obviously. You're still coming up with issues based on lack of information. None of us have seen the video, seen the data the sensor produced. I mean what about trees that caused the shadows? Or what about the fact that she was pushing a bike laden with plastic bags? Was she indeed stationary until the car immediately in front of her and she jumped into it? All this wild guessing is useless and not helpful. Because we don't have the data, we can't know what happened.

    But if a person driving would have still had the fatal collision, should an autonomous vehicle be held to a higher standard of liability?
    Answer to Q 2....YES...YES...and YES. Please re read what I said. The entire premise of computers being better, faster, that they can see in the dark, that they can decipher trees from shadows from people from puppies...the whole business case for automony and removing the fleshy, mistake prone driver is all about being LEAGUES better than the person.

    I am not coming up with issues based on a lack of information on this specific case. I am coming up with the concerns that people levy...and that lawyers are already clamouring over to get this case. They've been waiting..not only to get the payout...but to set precedence.

    @Highlander II, agreed...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  82. #182
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Two or three more incidents and a billion dollars of research will go down the drain when driverless cars are outlawed.

    It is not a question if if but when.
    Your bias against self driving cars is absolutely bizarre. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year by thousands of pounds of metal driven by primates, and nary a person bats an eye about it. Several people (what is it, 3 at this point?) die from early prototype self driving car accidents and we need to outlaw them? Please explain the totally disparate level of reaction to me, because I totally do not get it. Would you have been calling for bans on early steam locomotives, which had a habit of blowing up? Would you have been tut-tutting at the Wright brothers and others that followed them in pioneering powered flight? Sure seems like it. Heck, you'd probably have been against riding horses because people might fall off and hit their heads or break their bones. You might have found different reasons, but I just don't get that kind of mind set in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    Hacked? I’d day the odds are that it was just bad software.


    Maybe. But it's likely the "bad software" was contained in the brain of the human was killed. Early reports indicate the pedestrian moved quickly in to traffic outside of a marked crosswalk.



  83. #183

    Default

    We have had autopilot on planes for over 100 years since Lawrence Sperry invented it in 1912. Flying planes is complex but actually less complex than driving because there are far more parameters and issues to deal with. Even after 100 years, we do not trust pilotless passenger planes and highly trained crews are mandatory and the industry is highly regulated.

    Now we have a driverless cars that have no strict regulations, no requirements for maintenance, inexperienced drivers etc.

    You know that stores cannot sell a toaster without CSA or UL certification to national electrical codes but there are no government standards or certification testing requirements.

    Do you think this is the right way to go blindly into legalizing driverless cars?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 20-03-2018 at 10:27 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    But if a person driving would have still had the fatal collision, should an autonomous vehicle be held to a higher standard of liability?
    The short answer is Yes. The whole premise of autonomous driving is based on superiority to the fallibility of humans behind the wheel. It's been sold on us that it is better, safer, etc. so when shite goes wrong, ball up. And the 'early prototype' excuse doesn't fly either, an 'early' human driver gets hammered financially and liability wise if at fault in an accident. But a machine gets a pass? Only as good as it's programming I guess? RichardS has it right. Where does the liability end or begin for that matter?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    But if a person driving would have still had the fatal collision, should an autonomous vehicle be held to a higher standard of liability?
    The short answer is Yes. The whole premise of autonomous driving is based on superiority to the fallibility of humans behind the wheel. It's been sold on us that it is better, safer, etc. so when shite goes wrong, ball up. And the 'early prototype' excuse doesn't fly either, an 'early' human driver gets hammered financially and liability wise if at fault in an accident. But a machine gets a pass? Only as good as it's programming I guess? RichardS has it right. Where does the liability end or begin for that matter?
    I'm not saying the machine should get a pass. But we're talking lawsuits before we even know what actually happened, beyond that there was a fatal collision.

    The machine will get it right more often than a human driver. But we should not expect the machine to get it right 100% of the time. Because they're created by humans. They can only react to situations and scenarios that humans have programmed them to deal with. They will always be improving as we/they encounter more situations to learn from. And also, what is 'right' is actually a much larger ethical issue in some cases.

  86. #186
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,475

    Default

    I don't think I want to be part of their learning progress, though.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  87. #187
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    I don't think I want to be part of their learning progress, though.
    What about the learning process of human drivers? You're a part of that process and they just need to pass a written test.

  88. #188

    Default

    Especially from the same companies that brought you the Ford Pinto, Volkswagen diesel emission tests, Takata killer airbags and the Chevy Cobalt ignition switches.

    On February 6, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled about 800,000 of its small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which could shut off the engine during driving and thereby prevent the airbags from inflating. The company continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled and paid compensation for 124 deaths. The fault had been known to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared. As part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, GM agreed to forfeit $900 million to the United States.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...switch_recalls

    In 2013, a series of deaths and injuries associated with defective Takata airbag inflators had led Takata to initially recall 3.6 million cars equipped with such airbags. Further fatalities caused by the airbags have led the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to order an ongoing, nationwide recall of more than 42 million cars, the largest automotive recall in U.S. history. In June 2017, Takata filed for bankruptcy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation

    BTW, Transport Canada is toothless and cannot force a recall of manufacturers as they can and do do in the united States.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    I don't think I want to be part of their learning progress, though.
    What about the learning process of human drivers? You're a part of that process and they just need to pass a written test.
    But again, when that 'learning' human driver errs, he/she is pounded. Sometimes to the point that they cannot afford to drive or require advanced education etc. Channing, I think some of what we are discussing here is beyond this 'one' incident that you say we don't know the facts to. And that is true, we don't know all the details. The bigger debate is the going forward part. Where will the accountability and responsibilty lie if/when these 'types' of instances occur? And they will.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  90. #190
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    But again, when that 'learning' human driver errs, he/she is pounded. Sometimes to the point that they cannot afford to drive or require advanced education etc. Channing, I think some of what we are discussing here is beyond this 'one' incident that you say we don't know the facts to. And that is true, we don't know all the details. The bigger debate is the going forward part. Where will the accountability and responsibilty lie if/when these 'types' of instances occur? And they will.
    I agree, there needs to be a good regulatory framework in place to deal with the liability issues.

  91. #191

    Default

    Take the MIT test
    Welcome to the Moral Machine!



    A platform for gathering a human perspective on moral decisions made by machine intelligence, such as self-driving cars.
    We show you moral dilemmas, where a driverless car must choose the lesser of two evils, such as killing two
    passengers or five pedestrians. As an outside observer, you judge which outcome you think is more
    acceptable. You can then see how your responses compare with those of other people.
    If you’re feeling creative, you can also design your own scenarios, for you and other users to browse, share, and discuss.

    http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #192
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,644

    Default

    I hope testing of this technology doesn't stop because of this recent incident. It should stop for Uber, but not for other companies. If this Uber vehicle was hacked the hack attempt could have come from anywhere, another country, any upset Uber user/employee or even a bored script kid mucking around with some software on a bedroom computer.

    I bring up the hacking issue because this was brought up in a recent AAIRB study commissioned earlier this month by more then a few respondents.

    Anything can be hacked connected to the Internet, Apple/PC, heck even a wifi coffee pot.
    Last edited by envaneo; 20-03-2018 at 01:05 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  93. #193
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Take the MIT test
    Welcome to the Moral Machine!
    A platform for gathering a human perspective on moral decisions made by machine intelligence, such as self-driving cars.
    We show you moral dilemmas, where a driverless car must choose the lesser of two evils, such as killing two
    passengers or five pedestrians. As an outside observer, you judge which outcome you think is more
    acceptable. You can then see how your responses compare with those of other people.
    If you’re feeling creative, you can also design your own scenarios, for you and other users to browse, share, and discuss.

    http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
    Scroll up. You're over a year behind.

  94. #194

    Default

    Your post was worth reiterating.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #195
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,644

    Default

    Herzberg was crossing outside a marked cross walk last night. If she walked on the crosswalk would the vehicle have stopped anyway? State Law protects pedestrians even on unmarked crosswalks.
    .
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  96. #196
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Herzberg was crossing outside a marked cross walk last night. If she walked on the crosswalk would the vehicle have stopped anyway? State Law protects pedestrians even on unmarked crosswalks.
    .
    Do you know what an unmarked crosswalk is?

  97. #197
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    I don't think I want to be part of their learning progress, though.
    What about the learning process of human drivers? You're a part of that process and they just need to pass a written test.
    Just a written test? Things must've changed some.

    When it comes to human drivers, with experience you can often 'sense' what another driver is going to do. They sort of telegraph their next move, not always but many times. You probably employ those senses yourself when you drive. I hope you would anyway, it's all part of situation awareness. I'm not sure the actions of a computer-directed vehicle can be read in the same way. Maybe other like species can.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Just a written test? Things must've changed some.
    Nope, same as when I got my learner's 2 decades ago. All it takes to start the learning process behind the wheel is a learner's permit & all that takes is a written test.

    E: Oh, and a vision check.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  99. #199

    Default

    I find that strange. I had to take a driver's test.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #200

    Default

    Uber car issue gets weirder.

    Police: Felon controlled self-driving Uber that killed woman
    By Sommer Brokaw
    Updated March 20, 2018 at 4:44 PM
    Self-driving Uber car hits, kills woman in Tempe
    KNXV - Phoenix, AZ

    March 20 (UPI) -- The person who controlled a self-driving Uber vehicle that killed an Arizona woman this week was a convicted felon, authorities said Tuesday.

    Tempe police spokesman Sgt. Ronald Elcock said the Uber vehicle, a Volvo, was in "autonomous mode" at the time of the accident -- though there was a human controller at the wheel. Police identified the controller as Rafaela Vasquez, 44, who had served prison time on an armed robbery conviction before her release in 2005.

    The incident is not the first in which the San Francisco-based ride-sharing company has come under fire for hiring felons.

    In November, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission company slapped Uber's parent company with an $8.9 million fine after an investigation found nearly 60 drivers had felony convictions -- violations of Colorado law.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •