Post: #76

(03-22-2018 12:13 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  Yes the pedestrian was foolish to be casually walking across the street like that.

But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.

In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk

Yes, I think you're right. The video may in fact be misleading due to the limitations of the camera. Uber could be in deep shit here, as well as the driver. An engineer who advises Google on self-driving cars wrote that the car's LIDAR and other systems should have detected the woman crossing and stopped:

http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber

Quote:On this empty road, the LIDAR is very capable of detecting her. If it was operating, there is no way that it did not detect her 3 to 4 seconds before the impact, if not before. She would have come into range just over 5 seconds before impact.

Post: #77

(03-21-2018 08:12 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  We've had "driving is a privilege not a right" for as long as we've had cars, and it's worked out pretty fine so far. You have to do a lot to lose your right to drive.

Maybe it's time to revisit that.

Having a gun is a right - but if I walk around cocking it all the time because it makes me feel like a bad ass, I'll be arrested for brandishing and that right will be revoked.

The right to own a car is really the right of travel. You cannot walk between towns; nor can you ride a horse. Free movement requires a vehicle, and the convenience of a centrally-controlled autonomous rent-a-ride offers a way to undermine this freedom indirectly.

This wouldn't be the first time the Bugmen have restricted movement. During the Cold War, you had to have an Internal Visa with you to travel anywhere outside of your jurisdiction. The autonomous car could be used in a similar manner: prove that it's 'safer' through rigged statistics, then put a Carbon Tax on real vehicles because of bad science, and soon enough you have even more docile soyboys who jump onto the transit, pre-screen themselves at airports, and grow nervous whenever you discussion of rights starts to sound like lack of party loyalty.

And don't tell me this is the Slippery Slope fallacy: the past fifty years have been nothing but Slippery Slope reality!

Aurini hits the nails in the head.

Google the massive bunch of bullshit that is Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Guess what, they love driverless cars: https://www.madd.org/blog/press-release/...ving-cars/

Anyone who wants a dose of "driving is a priveledge" here's what you do:

1) get 5000 dollars
2) fly to Hawaii
3) get rip shit wasted
4) go through a DUI checkpoint
5) buy your way out of said DUI through the courts

Take look at what a bunch of bullshit the system is. It will blow your mind. If you can't afford the right lawyer, lose your lisence for however long some fat Samoan woman hopped up on mountain dew feels like. Its all a sham and they all know it.

Aloha!

Post: #78

(03-22-2018 12:29 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  An interesting fact about the proliferation of uber etc is that such services have increased traffic and vehicles and pollution in cities.

One of the big claims of these "ridesharing" companies was that it would reduce vehicle congestion and pollution. Well that has been found to be not only bullshit, in fact they have increased the problem.

Studies* found that the people who use these service most are people who were previously taking the bus, train, walking, or riding a bike. Uber, Lyft etc have pulled millions of people off of public transport and non-motorized transport and put them each in (usually) their own vehicle. Turns out that given a choice between a piss smelling bus and quiet ride in a Prius, people go with the car. What a surprise!

They also found that not only are there millions more people now riding in cars who weren't before, those cars are sitting empty idling for long stretches waiting for the next passenger. So you have a multiple times effect on emissions than you would with someone driving their own car and parking it, let alone the effect of pulling millions off public transport and add those car trips to the "carbon footprint".

*Sources:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/uber-lyft-...dies-find/
http://kdvr.com/2018/02/25/studies-sugge...ongestion/
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2...es/548798/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyreg...g-nyc.html

Fascinating info, I had no idea about this. Thanks for posting it!

In hindsight, it totally makes sense and I can confirm it with my own lifestyle - before Uber appeared I've used a cab maybe twice in my entire life, and maybe a friend or family member's car once a month. Nowadays I routinely make use of Uber once or twice a week!

Post: #79

(03-21-2018 08:09 PM)Lampwick Wrote:  Video of the collision. It's unlikely that any driver, computer or human, could have avoided this. Although the driver does seem to be distracted by something.

The pedestrian woman was sure foolish to cross street at night at slow speed without light reflecting gear and she was not even looking sideways.

But look at that driver - a double chin, unrecognizable gender slob with face buried in his phone till the last moment. This is to what autonomous cars and overabundance of automation in general will devolve humans.

Concerning the idea that a car could/should have reacted faster due to having infrared sensors - apparently it didn't work. Also until the car also has biologically harmful x-ray sensors it won't be able to detect people coming behind objects as well so it isn't fool proof either. Also could infrared sensor be tricked by various hot objects, like lamps or fires?

I imagine an autonomous car would get confused and would leave you to burn should you ever require to escape a burning forest:

Post: #80

(03-22-2018 12:13 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  Yes the pedestrian was foolish to be casually walking across the street like that.

But the car had ample time to hit the breaks, even if we assume that its software could only see the exact same imagery that we see in the video, subject to limitations of the camera's visible light sensor. Not enough time to actually avoid hitting the pedestrian but maybe enough to slow down enough to make the collision non-fatal.

In reality the car's sensors should have been able to sense a person even in the dark, without being limited to the visible light spectrum. Check out an example of LIDAR footage here: http://archive.is/rfeDk

Average reaction time for humans is 3 seconds. He only had 2 seconds and that assumes a good driver who swerves.

But if you plopp even not a fat tranny in front of a self-driving car, then you will have 99%+ of folk barely watch what is going on in the road. The tranny was texting or watching xir's phone most of the time, but in this case I can hardly blame him. Before xir would make a move, then it was already too late.

Still - the case remains, that the sensors should not have been affected by it. If I had their vision, then I would have seen the woman a long time before. What probably confused the computere was that the person was still on the other side of the road and I guess the programming did not count that as an inconvenience.

Of course any human would react to that if he saw it.

I might add that I do believe that self-driving cars will be safer and much better in the future. I only distrust our unethical shitheads to be he masters of that system. That is why I think that it will be abused tremendously - not that not a good idea.

This case - I blame the machine because it should have seen the woman coming, though many humans would have driven over her as well. The programming should include foreign people or objects coming from the other lane as well. If a kid on an open road drives across to the other side, then most humans would react long in advance with full visibility. You cannot have the machine ignore that kid and only attempt to stop when the child crosses your lane.

On second thought - I did not see the machine attempt to break. The reaction time of the car should have been under one second. My guess is that the sensors did not even notice the person - even with full visibility the car would have driven over the woman when 99% of humans would have managed to stop.

Post: #81

After watching that video, I agree that an alert human driver would have killed this careless pedestrian too. Some people just seem to be begging to get killed.

That said, why didn't the car use those 2 seconds when the pedestrian became visible to at least attempt swerving or breaking? Was it busy loading tranny porn for its passenger or what?

What is the point of digital anything if it's not faster and more precise than a human? It's already dumber and less able to think outside the box, so to compensate it MUST be able to have faster and more reliable reflexes for simple tasks. This car is the equivalent of a Mac computer not only being unable to understand queries about philosophy (totally normal, no one expects that), but also taking several seconds to tell you how much 3x3 is (if that much lag happened when using the calculator, we'd call the computer unusable and format or return it).

Post: #82

(03-22-2018 02:25 AM)Mage Wrote:  [quote='Lampwick' pid='1755131' dateline='1521680955']
But look at that driver - a double chin, unrecognizable gender slob with face buried in his phone till the last moment. This is to what autonomous cars and overabundance of automation in general will devolve humans.

"His" name is Rafaela Vazquez. He's got a girl's name, lol

Post: #83

(03-22-2018 04:57 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:25 AM)Mage Wrote:  [quote='Lampwick' pid='1755131' dateline='1521680955']
But look at that driver - a double chin, unrecognizable gender slob with face buried in his phone till the last moment. This is to what autonomous cars and overabundance of automation in general will devolve humans.

"His" name is Rafaela Vazquez. He's got a girl's name, lol

Everytime I imagine a liberal raging on the internet this is exactly what I expect to see. Jesus Christ could you be more unattractive.

Post: #84

(03-22-2018 05:37 AM)Putin Closes Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 04:57 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:25 AM)Mage Wrote:  [quote='Lampwick' pid='1755131' dateline='1521680955']
But look at that driver - a double chin, unrecognizable gender slob with face buried in his phone till the last moment. This is to what autonomous cars and overabundance of automation in general will devolve humans.

"His" name is Rafaela Vazquez. He's got a girl's name, lol

Everytime I imagine a liberal raging on the internet this is exactly what I expect to see. Jesus Christ could you be more unattractive.

While this was not xir's fault and bored Chad with a Trump cap might have sifted through Tinder at the same time, it's still ironic to see a fat ugly Transgender sit behind the wheels of the Orwellian driving test vehicle. It's a wonderful symbol of our times.

Post: #85

BTW, even though it looks like she is sleeping, she is actually moments away from running down a pedestrian.

Post: #86

(03-22-2018 03:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  ...The programming should include foreign people or objects
...

Post: #87

(03-22-2018 03:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Average reaction time for humans is 3 seconds.

3 seconds is too much. In my country the theoretical exam for driving states that average reaction time of a driver is about 1 second. Maybe Americans are slower, dunno.

It can't be 3 seconds - 3 seconds is a almost a pregnant pause in conversation.

The car stopping time however is always longer and is a sum of driver reaction time and car deacceleration time, where the latter depends on the speed of the car.

Rewind the video - the woman appears at 0:07 at collision takes place already at 0:08. You did manage to see her before collision right? So you reacted in 1 second but the brake mechanism would barely started to work be it operated by human leg or automatic mechanism.

Post: #88

(03-22-2018 08:19 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 03:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Average reaction time for humans is 3 seconds.

3 seconds is too much. In my country the theoretical exam for driving states that average reaction time of a driver is about 1 second. Maybe Americans are slower, dunno.

It can't be 3 seconds - 3 seconds is a almost a pregnant pause in conversation.

The car stopping time however is always longer and is a sum of driver reaction time and car deacceleration time, where the latter depends on the speed of the car.

Rewind the video - the woman appears at 0:07 at collision takes place already at 0:08. You did manage to see her before collision right? So you reacted in 1 second but the brake mechanism would barely started to work be it operated by human leg or automatic mechanism.

You are right - it's one second. (Read somewhere that it's more 1.2 seconds for the majority while some react within 0,2 seconds.) The guy had a bit more than one second if he were looking forward and reacting like a champ. IN this case most folk would not have reacted well. Some excellent drivers would have been able to swerve and break at the same time, but you need automatic reflexes for that to make it. And this would either necessitate competitive driving skills or a yearly extreme conditions training to get the reflexes in order. I did that once early on as a driver and the teachers said that you lose those reflexes within 1-2 years.

Xir was innocent more or less, but the car sensors should have been able to pick it up way before 2 seconds. The woman caused her own death in any case.

Post: #89

Just saw the video on YT. One of the comments stood out:

Quote:the driver is a hideous yank monstrosity - whichever gender they are - as if jabba the hut crawled out of a sewer - a disgusting, overfed, underexercised sexless blob - the future of mankind as envisaged by Wall-E and coming to a city near you further facilitated by totally passive car transportation

Post: #90

(03-22-2018 01:27 AM)Kona Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 08:12 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  We've had "driving is a privilege not a right" for as long as we've had cars, and it's worked out pretty fine so far. You have to do a lot to lose your right to drive.

Maybe it's time to revisit that.

Having a gun is a right - but if I walk around cocking it all the time because it makes me feel like a bad ass, I'll be arrested for brandishing and that right will be revoked.

The right to own a car is really the right of travel. You cannot walk between towns; nor can you ride a horse. Free movement requires a vehicle, and the convenience of a centrally-controlled autonomous rent-a-ride offers a way to undermine this freedom indirectly.

This wouldn't be the first time the Bugmen have restricted movement. During the Cold War, you had to have an Internal Visa with you to travel anywhere outside of your jurisdiction. The autonomous car could be used in a similar manner: prove that it's 'safer' through rigged statistics, then put a Carbon Tax on real vehicles because of bad science, and soon enough you have even more docile soyboys who jump onto the transit, pre-screen themselves at airports, and grow nervous whenever you discussion of rights starts to sound like lack of party loyalty.

And don't tell me this is the Slippery Slope fallacy: the past fifty years have been nothing but Slippery Slope reality!

Aurini hits the nails in the head.

Google the massive bunch of bullshit that is Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Guess what, they love driverless cars: https://www.madd.org/blog/press-release/...ving-cars/

Anyone who wants a dose of "driving is a priveledge" here's what you do:

1) get 5000 dollars
2) fly to Hawaii
3) get rip shit wasted
4) go through a DUI checkpoint
5) buy your way out of said DUI through the courts

Take look at what a bunch of bullshit the system is. It will blow your mind. If you can't afford the right lawyer, lose your lisence for however long some fat Samoan woman hopped up on mountain dew feels like. Its all a sham and they all know it.

Aloha!

Here's a great explanation of what BS Drunk Driving and MADD are by a professional motorist association.

Regarding the footage: do these vehicles not have thermal vision? I see that advertised on all the new iDildo vehicles with the touchscreens that remind you to be a pussy ever time you get in.

I'm pretty sure I would have braked and swerved even without thermal vision - possibly destroying my axle in the process when I hit the curb, but the stupid woman would have lived.

EDIT: Also, even a bit of braking - even if was too late to fully stop the vehicle - very likely could have prevented the damage from being lethal.

Post: #91

(03-22-2018 08:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Some excellent drivers would have been able to swerve and break at the same time, but you need automatic reflexes for that to make it.

Actually, swerving/braking at the same time is almost always a bad decision. The tire only has so much ability to do either. Your tires only have so much traction and when you turn you are using some amount of that in order for the car to change direction, complicated by the fact that the position/angle of the tire relative to the ground changes which in most cases is a decrease to the tire's contact patch/traction.

This is why any driving school instructor will tell you that in order to come to a stop in the fastest manner you need to brake in a straight line without turning the wheel.

There are some racing situations where braking and turning can be a strategy, but for the most part mixing the two is going to hurt you, not help you.

Post: #92

(03-22-2018 02:53 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 08:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Some excellent drivers would have been able to swerve and break at the same time, but you need automatic reflexes for that to make it.

Actually, swerving/braking at the same time is almost always a bad decision. The tire only has so much ability to do either. Your tires only have so much traction and when you turn you are using some amount of that in order for the car to change direction, complicated by the fact that the position/angle of the tire relative to the ground changes which in most cases is a decrease to the tire's contact patch/traction.

This is why any driving school instructor will tell you that in order to come to a stop in the fastest manner you need to brake in a straight line without turning the wheel.

There are some racing situations where braking and turning can be a strategy, but for the most part mixing the two is going to hurt you, not help you.

That's not what I meant. I personally learned it old-school. Of course you don't swerve and break at the same time. Default reflex is to change course and then brake, if course correction needed, release the brakes, then move some more in a better direction and then brake again.

Modern ABS actually increases braking distance and that is why pro-drivers turn off ABS since they can do it better. But usually you learn in your extreme conditions training to focus on changing directions first and only later apply the brakes. I used to drive fast in the past and I noticed that the reflexes went out the door sometime later. Then one day I had one such accident that I could have prevented by doing my training once every 2 years.

Though as noted - most normal drivers would have hit that lady and in a self-driving vehicle the likelihood goes down even more.

Post: #93

Sort of an interesting footnote to this story, the governor of Arizona has now intervened to bar Uber's self-driving cars from the state after information has come to light about just how bad their program is actually going. They were reportedly struggling to simply give their own CEO a ride around Phoenix without a safety driver having to take over, a benchmark they had labelled "Milestone 1: Confidence".

https://jalopnik.com/uber-s-autonomous-t...1824047353

Quote:Google’s autonomous vehicle project, was able to drive almost 5,600 miles last year without driver intervention, Uber’s self-driving cars weren’t able to meet its target goal of 13 miles per intervention

Arizona is preferred for testing because they have a plentiful supply of tech workers, reliable weather, some of the country's best roads, and a hands-off regulatory environment: Uber moved their project after California forced them out over permitting problems. I would not be surprised if the governor has effectively euthanized Uber's project.

Post: #94

Not directly related to self-driving cars; rather the blind rush to embrace technology without considering ways said tech can be circumvented.
The old military maxim - for every measure there is a counter measure; being in effect for many generations now :

Britain's keyless car crime epidemic: Thefts triple in the worst hit areas as thieves exploit the technology now used in family cars

Thefts triple in worst hit areas as thieves exploit the tech now used in family cars
Thefts up 189 per cent in Warwickshire and 59 per cent in Hampshire in 3 years
This week Cleveland Police said 90 keyless cars were stolen since December

Warning to check doors are really locked

Thieves are targeting car parks with devices that block key fob signals, fooling drivers into believing their cars are locked, police say.
When the victim thinks they are securing their car by pressing the fob, the jamming gadget intercepts the signal, ensuring the vehicle remains unlocked.
The owner would spot this only if they physically checked by trying to open the car door.
But if they walk away without noticing, the thieves can jump in and steal whatever’s inside.
In some car models, the criminals can also start the vehicle using another device.
Detectives say thieves will often take the stolen cars – particularly cheaper models such as Ford Fiestas – straight to illegal ‘chop’ houses.
These are illicit garages where the cars are taken to bits so the spare parts can be sold on.
Car manufacturers have urged owners of keyless cars to double check their cars are locked before walking away.
One device which can be used to steal keyless cars – the HackRF One – is on sale on Amazon for £260.29 and available on eBay for £278.77.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z5BkvXMqXH

Post: #95

(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Not directly related to self-driving cars; rather the blind rush to embrace technology without considering ways said tech can be circumvented.
The old military maxim - for every measure there is a counter measure; being in effect for many generations now :

Britain's keyless car crime epidemic: Thefts triple in the worst hit areas as thieves exploit the technology now used in family cars

Thefts triple in worst hit areas as thieves exploit the tech now used in family cars
Thefts up 189 per cent in Warwickshire and 59 per cent in Hampshire in 3 years
This week Cleveland Police said 90 keyless cars were stolen since December

Warning to check doors are really locked

Thieves are targeting car parks with devices that block key fob signals, fooling drivers into believing their cars are locked, police say.
When the victim thinks they are securing their car by pressing the fob, the jamming gadget intercepts the signal, ensuring the vehicle remains unlocked.
The owner would spot this only if they physically checked by trying to open the car door.
But if they walk away without noticing, the thieves can jump in and steal whatever’s inside.
In some car models, the criminals can also start the vehicle using another device.
Detectives say thieves will often take the stolen cars – particularly cheaper models such as Ford Fiestas – straight to illegal ‘chop’ houses.
These are illicit garages where the cars are taken to bits so the spare parts can be sold on.
Car manufacturers have urged owners of keyless cars to double check their cars are locked before walking away.
One device which can be used to steal keyless cars – the HackRF One – is on sale on Amazon for £260.29 and available on eBay for £278.77.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z5BkvXMqXH

This is why I vastly prefer analog systems, wherever and whenever possible. Kindle can't 'take back' my copy of 1984 if it's in paper, and while popping the doors on my car is easy if you know how, getting the engine to turn over is another thing entirely (automatic lock on the steering column; either put a key in the ignition, or attack it with a power drill).

Post: #96

Not all technological advances are bad - future car safety systems have some merit:



Non-lethal version:

Post: #97

(03-20-2018 10:15 AM)Arado Wrote:  I don't understand why people think self-driving cars are some globalist conspiracy.

Because you are worried about an iRobot scenario where some totalitarian government turns cars into tools of control? Perhaps, but even in "non-globalist" places like China, India, and Japan, self-driving cars are going to be even more popular than in the U.S.

Non-Globalist countries like China, India and Japan?

China, a quasi-Communist country with no elections, which executes 10,000 people per year for crimes as harmless as monetary fraud, is suspected of organ-farming convicts and Falun Gong practitioners they've kept in secret concentration camps, prevents the free movement of it's citizens within China, and is encouraging the general adoption of an app called Sesame that rates you based on how "good" you are, like who you associate with, if you say good or bad things about the government, if you've got a good degree, have a good family, good friends etc etc.

India whose leader Narendra Modi banned overnight the 500 and 1000 rupee note in a supposed "crack down on corruption and terrorism" but instead just fucked up the lives of millions of normal Indians.

Japan whose Bank of Japan now owns 75% of all the ETFs on the Nikkei, thus completely distorting the nature of private ownership and price discovery, just like the Fed's 0% interest rate policy has done the same to the S&P...

How are these countries not "globalists"? It's all the same shit, they're all talking to each other behind the scenes at their little summits. The whole point of globalism is that it is concerned with "the entire globe".

Post: #98

An example of why self-driving cars will never be ideal.
Said devices will simply never 'know' enough about the real world.

Post: #99

Uber car's 'safety' driver streamed TV show before fatal crash: police

Quote:The safety driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber car in Tempe, Arizona, was streaming a television show on her phone until about the time of a fatal crash, according to a police report that deemed the March 18 incident “entirely avoidable.”
[...]
Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming TV shows and movies, which showed Vasquez’s account was playing the TV talent show “The Voice” for about 42 minutes on the night of the crash, ending at 9:59 p.m., which “coincides with the approximate time of the collision,” the report said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-...SKBN1JI0LB

(03-20-2018 10:16 PM)MidJack Wrote:  Operator of Self-Driving Uber Vehicle Is A Tranny With A Prior Felony Conviction For Armed Robbery

Quote:Vasquez has felony convictions for attempted armed robbery after plot with Blockbuster video store co-worker to seize their own shop's taking's at gunpoint

Quote:Vasquez was convicted under her original name Rafael but now identifies as a woman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...r-car.html

Post: #100

Largely because of how they treat employees, I decided to download the Lyft app on my phone. I stand by that now. Uber is into this bullshit, while Lyft is not.

Here are questions for anyone who drives a car: how many decisions do you make during a ten-minute drive? How many of those decisions are correct decisions? I suspect you make hundreds of decision in those ten minutes, and most of your decisions are correct.

The jackasses who promote self-driving cars are claiming that these cars are perfect and infallible. Well, what happens when these cars approach a situation for which they have not been programmed? What are the self-driving cars going to do?