Dear Uber, et al. Vehicles need human drivers

Hot Air.com ^ | March 20, 2018 | JAZZ SHAW

[ican'tbelieveit]

Nice hyperbole there: running down and killing people.

But you are OK with removing my choice and control...

[ican'tbelieveit]

So, you are still riding a horse? Growing your own food? I am curious what technology you are not about owning because I happen to see you posting to a thread on the internet that uses technology.

Do you go to the Dr? Do you drive a car? Because if you do, it is technology. And technology has made our lives MUCH better.

I would much rather enjoy what the future brings and make sure that I am part of the decision making process to ensure it maintains my freedom.

My allowing a car to drive me is no different than allowing a pilot to fly me across the country. No different than allowing a dr. to use a robot to operate on me (which I have done and the recovery was a fraction of the time of the “old free ways”).

I am grateful to technology in all areas of my life. I have access to information that I would never had had information to before. I have opportunity that I would have never had before.

[Cuttnhorse]

Gee, I must of missed where I said that all people killed by vehicles were at fault.

You might want to remove your own bias before blabbering.

[WayneS]

Read your own post. You clearly imply that people who are hit by cars are at fault. Otherwise, why did you structure the paragraph as you did?

[WayneS]

Now you are being monumentally stupid.

You obviously have not actually read a single one of my posts.

Up until now I thought maybe we were having an honest conversation, but you have proven that you are nothing but a blithering idiot and a jackass.

Good bye.

[precisionshootist]

"In this case, it is coming. You have choices: Keep your heads in the sand (which you are doing) or Own it."

The future is coming alright but I doubt it's what you think. In your mind there are people clamoring from sea to shinning see ready to give up their freedom to drive because they think they will be safer or because driving is just a mindless task. You are flat delusional. Real Americans by a huge majority sense this threat to liberty and don't want a damn thing to do with this technology. The American people will fight to the bitter end before they will be forced to accept it. Don't fall for the propaganda. There is no market demand for driverless cars, nobody wants them and nobody will buy them so they are not going to exist. (not to any extent)

[Leep]

Wow..you are delusional or a good old fashion troll?
Because I am personally not thrilled about self driving cars..which the final goal is to eliminate manually driven cars.. I am taking away your choice?
It’s not hyperbole. Its a reasonable question.
Likewise, whose responsible when a self driving cars runs someone over?

[ican'tbelieveit]

Hyperbole: There is no market demand for driverless cars, nobody wants them and nobody will buy them so they are not going to exist.

If there was no demand, then why do they exist?

[ican'tbelieveit]

In the case of this woman, she was responsible for stepping in front of a car. Sometimes it is the fault of the dumbass who does something stupid.

[ican'tbelieveit]

You do not understand younger generations. Probably because you have your head in the sand.

[raiderboy]

wow . dust? my God !! This experiment is doomed.

[precisionshootist]

The exact same reason wind farms exist and they are headed to the same fate. You are the one with your head in the sand.

[precisionshootist]

There was never a market for wind farms, solar farms, ethenol, HOV lanes and now driverless cars. All were cooked up by leftists control freaks and all will soon see the dustbin of history.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Hyperbole much?

[Cronos]

In this case there is only a slight chance that a human driver would NOT hit the woman

Autonomous driving will come, there's no doubt about that, and they will be safer than human beings driving.

we would need to change the way we interact with these vehicles but in the same way people changed the way their interacted with moving vehicles with the advent of the internal combustion engines.

[Cronos]

Persevero, I work in the AI/ML area. The driverless cabs are coming and 2030 is late. It would make sense to use this for taxis first in big cities along known paths.

I would urge you to also learn other skills at the same time (though I assume you are already doing so). If you have any questions I could help direct you to some cool stuff.

take care fellow FReeper

[Cronos]

• It wasn't a murder. At worst it was manslaughter. There was nothing pre-meditated. Responsibility: Uber. Liability: Uber (whether they bring in programmers or the backup driver, it's Uber as a company's liability)
• The automated cars have had millions of hours of driving and only one death. That's a better stat than humans so far

[Cronos]

That’s massive hyperbole. There is a market for all of these. If it wasn’t subsidised in the USA it would happen elsewhere and other countries would be leaders.

[Cronos]

Also to note that demand happens sometimes after the product is available. We're all probably of the age before mobile phones were ubiquotous (forget abotu smart phones) -- and if anyone asked you or me in 1988 if there would be a demand for a handheld computer, we'd say no.

Driverless cars are a demand for:

1. Folks who may want the car just to commute, not the joy of driving
2. Folks who may be too frail or injured or drunk to drive by themselves and don't
3. Taxi operators who want to reduce their insurance and personnel costs (taxi drivers will cost 50 to 60% of the direct costs)

[Cronos]

I love driving - and riding my motorbike - but when I am commuting to office I don't want to focus on the driving task. For that purpose I would use a self-driving taxi. And especially for dense city conditions

If I'm travelling cross country for pleasure then I would want to drive myself.

I see no problem for AVs if there is no legislation banning human driving outright. I cannot see that happening -- perhaps in some controlled environments like in cities it may be, but not otherwise.

As to those who "stick to old technology" - why not? People still ride horses and buggies, but their usage petered out over time. If people still want to drive their own cars, let them. There is no law against me riding a horse in some places -- but they are kept off highways.

To Leep - the self-driving cars are not "keep running down and killing people" - the number of fatalities per million miles driven are far far less than human drivers. That's not going to be an argument against AVs

The argument against AVs is the havoc it will cause to employment. I believe rather that we will get more and more close to self-driving cars - maybe cars with operators far away in a centralized zone for taxis, while for private cars that are in the country with a lot of tech (well they already have a lot -- think cruise control)