It would be absurd to demand perfection from self-driving vehicles before they are deployed - that's an impossible standard. I haven't heard anybody suggest that as the standard, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it's my standard.
In this case, we have a company that has illegally deployed vehicles on the road - this is documented in another Guardian story that is linked from the first paragraph of the story - which is why I characterised it as a "rush to market." While I think it's encouraging that they acknowledge the problem, we only have their word for it that they are rushing to fix the issue with assignment of sufficient resources to keep the risk acceptable. It may well be that the performance of these vehicles is already better than the performance of the average driver - we cannot know. That's why there are regulators in the loop. But Uber has rejected regulation. And I think that the situation is far from ideal - for other road users, for Uber itself, and for the entire enterprise of developing self-driving vehicles should Uber's gamble turn up snake eyes. Given that they lost $8e8 last quarter, they may be willing to accept some exceptionally long odds on their gambles. Meanwhile, highway fatalities per unit of travel are starting to drift up again in the US, presumably because of increased driver distraction (or opiate intoxication?). So your point about the risks of human operators is well-taken. On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Robert Schultz via Bikies < bikies@lists.danenet.org> wrote: > Re: Self-driving Ubers -- > > On the other hand, it's great that Uber's engineers are rushing to fix the > issue. > > I'm not in a position to judge whether or not Uber's self-driving > technology is at the point where it can be reasonably road tested, however, > I think that testing in real-world traffic is necessarily a part of the > development process, and must happen at some point. Rational minds can > disagree on this, but I personally do think it is unreasonable to expect > self-driving cars to hit the roads in "perfect" form. Real-world testing > will be essential to identify issues that are difficult or impossible to > observe in controlled settings. There will be bugs and oversights. Is there > a risk inherent in that? Absolutely. But there's also risk in letting human > student drivers practice on the road. > > The potential benefits to society from self-driving technology are too > huge to ignore, and I'd hate to see one company handling self-driving tech > poorly color our expectations for the essential development track of > autonomous vehicles. > > We should also take care not to let perfect be the enemy of good. > Implemented correctly, self-driving cars will be infinitely better at > identifying and interacting with other road users -- especially cyclists > and pedestrians. Even if the cars currently perform some sketchy right-hook > maneuvers (that humans routinely do as well), I'm more inclined to trust a > computer that's appraising its surroundings hundreds of times per second > over a human who is checking for new text messages hundreds of times per > second. > > -Rob > > >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self >> -driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >> >> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >> rush >> to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle >> lane. >> >> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >> injured >> when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the roadway >> where he was cycling. >> >> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bicy >> clist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >> >> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >> outfits like Uber. >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self >> -driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >> rush to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle lane. >> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >> injured when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the >> roadway where he was cycling. >> >> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bicy >> clist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >> outfits like Uber. >> >> -- >> S. Rose >> > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > Bikies@lists.danenet.org > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > -- S. Rose
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list Bikies@lists.danenet.org http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
