# So Soon



## bobbybq (Jan 13, 2016)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...trial-company-says-employee-inside-blame.html


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

It was a human. They suspended him.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> It was a human. They suspended him.


Suuuuuurrrre it was . . . .


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Suuuuuurrrre it was . . . .


It was mr magoo


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> It was a human. They suspended him.


It was _*allegedly*_ a human. Until vehicle activity logs are posted publicly, it's he said/she said.

The "suspended" driver can't come forward publicly due to the likely insane level NDA's he/she signed when taking the job. So it's just one shady corporations word against video footage that is inconclusive.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

All i wana know is doesnt everyone agree SDCs are not healthy for society?


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Jermin8r89 said:


> All i wana know is doesnt everyone agree SDCs are not healthy for society?


I think it's an all or nothing proposition. Mixing people + SDV's is never going to be a good thing (well, mixing people with anything, lol).

If there were 100% SDV systems in place, I think it would solve a ton of problems... however, we're more than a lifetime away from that (if we make it that far).


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

andaas said:


> I think it's an all or nothing proposition. Mixing people + SDV's is never going to be a good thing (well, mixing people with anything, lol).
> 
> If there were 100% SDV systems in pledace, I think it would solve a ton of problems... however, we're more than a lifetime away from that (if we make it that far).


I think it would solve some problems but create more problems

Expect hacking to go up and a actually cuz harm
Drugs will go up in selling\buying. 
The gap between people like you and me will increase with the powerful.

Look at this paragraph

Pool is also critical for Kalanick's goal of improving the life of cities, as Uber disrupts public transportation and even urban planning. The city governments that decried Uber, and its ability to break into government-sanctioned taxi monopolies, love the idea of taking cars off roads. And Kalanick is already selling them hard on the benefits. Summit, New Jersey, for example, recently decided to subsidize Uber rides for commuters rather than build additional parking at its train station. The long-term reputational payoff--Uber suddenly becomes the good guy--is obvious.

I love how he talks about busting "monopolies". Theres alot of independent taxie servies that actually arnt bad u know what u paying and no "hidden fees". Hes turning into the biggest monopoly there ever is! You say you going to take cars off the road and u control them thats pretty meneicing.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Jermin8r89 said:


> Drugs will go up in selling\buying.


The war on drugs was a massive failure; they should just legalize/tax them and control them like alcohol and tobacco. That would cut the issues with "selling/buying drugs".


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

andaas said:


> The war on drugs was a massive failure; they should just legalize/tax them and control them like alcohol and tobacco. That would cut the issues with "selling/buying drugs".


I agree. Its good way to bring small buisnesses back cuz small buisness start up is at a low


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> It was _*allegedly*_ a human. Until vehicle activity logs are posted publicly, it's he said/she said.
> 
> The "suspended" driver can't come forward publicly due to the likely insane level NDA's he/she signed when taking the job. So it's just one shady corporations word against video footage that is inconclusive.


You're arguments are riddled with conjecture.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Very misleading how the article says the car "narrowly" missed the pedestrian. That pedestrian was not even close to being hit.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You're arguments are riddled with conjecture.


Perhaps, though have you any doubt that every person on Uber's corporate payroll is not under NDA? Especially those working in a competitive technology development area such as SDV's?

Again, let's see DATA and not a PR-fluffed response laying blame on a driver.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

And it's not a single incident; there's another report of an Uber SDV running a red light. Eyewitness stating he saw the driver, hands off wheel, facing and talking to the "passenger" with a laptop (likely the 2nd driver/employee).

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...disputing-ubers-claims?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Supposedly it was foggy out, and there were flashing yellow lights nearby for construction. So that will probably make it all OK according to RamzFanz - these things won't ever happen in the "real world".


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> Perhaps, though have you any doubt that every person on Uber's corporate payroll is not under NDA? Especially those working in a competitive technology development area such as SDV's?
> 
> Again, let's see DATA and not a PR-fluffed response laying blame on a driver.


Yes, because you can't fake zeros and ones. This would convince us. If only, if only.

If only the guberment would tell us how steel fuel melts jet beams, we would be satisfied.

News Flash: NDAs don't prevent whistleblowing or slander civil suits.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> Eyewitness stating he saw the driver, hands off wheel, facing and talking to the "passenger" with a laptop (likely the 2nd driver/employee).


So the employee with the laptop wasn't controlling the car or the driver? Or are we just assuming they weren't? Because some dude that has no idea what is going on outside of the car is pretty convincing to me.
_
Hey bro, that bro, was like, not driving, bro._


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> So the employee with the laptop wasn't controlling the car or the driver? Or are we just assuming they weren't? Because some dude that has no idea what is going on outside of the car is pretty convincing to me.
> _
> Hey bro, that bro, was like, not driving, bro._


Yeah bro, he was driving with the laptop keyboard. Sweet, I bet that's safe.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> Yeah bro, he was driving with the laptop keyboard. Sweet, I bet that's safe.


1.2M deaths a year with millions of injuries the way we do it now. Not a high bar.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> 1.2M deaths a year with millions of injuries the way we do it now. Not a high bar.


Believe it or not, I'm in favor of SDV's. However, it's an all or nothing propostion. SDV's mixed with HDV's mixed with cyclists... it's still going to be a mess. It will be a long slow process to migrate stubborn humanity to give up control. The vehicles and technology will be there before we are equipped to handle it.

This thread is really about Uber being assholes, as usual. They walk in and act like silly things like RULES and LAWS don't affect them. They are a spoiled entitled child that needs to be put in time out for an hour so they can learn to play with others.

Whether or not it was the DRIVER or the SOFTWARE that resulted in these issues (and please, MULTIPLE "trained" SDV drivers running red lights? give me a break), the fact is these cars were not legal and should not have been on the road in SF with SDV enabled. They've been removed until they get the proper permits (costs a whopping $150)... although Uber will NEVER agree to it because they are then required to share detailed information such as how frequently the drivers take control and specifics on every accident or situation the vehicles are involved in.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> Believe it or not, I'm in favor of SDV's. However, it's an all or nothing propostion. SDV's mixed with HDV's mixed with cyclists... it's still going to be a mess. It will be a long slow process to migrate stubborn humanity to give up control. The vehicles and technology will be there before we are equipped to handle it.
> 
> This thread is really about Uber being assholes, as usual. They walk in and act like silly things like RULES and LAWS don't affect them. They are a spoiled entitled child that needs to be put in time out for an hour so they can learn to play with others.
> 
> Whether or not it was the DRIVER or the SOFTWARE that resulted in these issues (and please, MULTIPLE "trained" SDV drivers running red lights? give me a break), the fact is these cars were not legal and should not have been on the road in SF with SDV enabled. They've been removed until they get the proper permits (costs a whopping $150)... although Uber will NEVER agree to it because they are then required to share detailed information such as how frequently the drivers take control and specifics on every accident or situation the vehicles are involved in.


I too would like to see an all or nothing but that's not going to happen. Instead, we are going to have far far more sophisticated SDCs than we would in a pure environment.

I like that Uber doesn't bow down to the cabals and bureaucracy. We are far too governed and, occasionally, we have to challenge them to prove themselves. So far, Uber is crushing them. You don't play well with others in a free market, you challenge the status quo.

CA is a swamp of nonsense and ridiculousness. If they were actually offered real vegetable trees, they would regulate them out of existence (see video for reference). Uber SDC is pulling out because of it, as well they should. No worries, most of the nation is embracing SDC testing and not trying to impose regulations on a technology they don't understand and in direct contradiction to historical regulation precident.

They shouldn't provide detailed information. Does Apple have to provide detailed information on their next product? It's ridiculous. They are already governed by existing product laws.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I like that Uber doesn't bow down to the cabals and bureaucracy. We are far too governed and, occasionally, we have to challenge them to prove themselves. So far, Uber is crushing them. You don't play well with others in a free market, you challenge the status quo.


We are too governed. Though Uber is beginning to lose ground in a lot of these situations. Cities are catching on to Uber's FU tactics and are starting to push back.

There is nothing wrong with disruption, but there are limits to how far things can be stretched until they break.



RamzFanz said:


> CA is a swamp of nonsense and ridiculousness. If they were actually offered real vegetable trees, they would regulate them out of existence (see video for reference). Uber SDC is pulling out because of it, as well they should. No worries, most of the nation is embracing SDC testing and not trying to impose regulations on a technology they don't understand and in direct contradiction to historical regulation precident.


Uber's SDV's are pulling out because the DMV forced their hand by invalidating the vehicle registration for these vehicles. The regulations in place are currently far from crippling - they simply require that data be provided for every instance the human drivers need to take back control - as well as any traffic incidents (e.g., accidents) - the vehicles are involved in.

Uber's cars aren't nearly as capable, as it seems from many reports, and the human drivers take control very frequently. They are probably scared to show the public how far behind they are.

Notice how many YouTube videos exist of non-press passengers riding in Uber SDV's. I've yet to find one... you would think once the tech went live in Pittsburgh that a few videos from inside the vehicle would have popped up. There are simply none. This makes me believe that the rides taking place are very limited to insiders and press.



RamzFanz said:


> They shouldn't provide detailed information. Does Apple have to provide detailed information on their next product? It's ridiculous. They are already governed by existing product laws.


Apple's next product doesn't self propel and have the potential to kill instantly. When Apple begins testing SDV's, they will report the necessary information that the state requires for said testing.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> Though Uber is beginning to lose ground in a lot of these situations. Cities are catching on to Uber's FU tactics and are starting to push back.


Very very few. Uber is like 500 - 3 in the US for wins and the 3 will eventually come on board from popular demand.



andaas said:


> Uber's SDV's are pulling out because the DMV forced their hand by invalidating the vehicle registration for these vehicles. The regulations in place are currently far from crippling - they simply require that data be provided for every instance the human drivers need to take back control - as well as any traffic incidents (e.g., accidents) - the vehicles are involved in.
> 
> Uber's cars aren't nearly as capable, as it seems from many reports, and the human drivers take control very frequently. They are probably scared to show the public how far behind they are.
> 
> Notice how many YouTube videos exist of non-press passengers riding in Uber SDV's. I've yet to find one... you would think once the tech went live in Pittsburgh that a few videos from inside the vehicle would have popped up. There are simply none. This makes me believe that the rides taking place are very limited to insiders and press.


The regulations in place are cumbersome, unprecedented, and unnecessary. The former liability laws suffice to govern SDC testing. The government stifles innovation and they should step in only when they have a reason to believe they should based on actual results. Stepping in early is almost always about power and control.

I agree, Uber cars are lacking and lagging. So what? If they want to piss away money and embarrass themselves, it's supposed to be a free country.

I agree, they are limiting who rides/records in their SDCs. I would too. It's a 14 trillion dollar market they are chasing.



andaas said:


> Apple's next product doesn't self propel and have the potential to kill instantly. When Apple begins testing SDV's, they will report the necessary information that the state requires for said testing.


Actually, one of Apple's next products does self propel and have the potential to kill (or save) instantly. They too are working on SDCs.

Regardless, you are mixing "Apple" and oranges. These regulations over a new auto technology being tested fully within historical laws are unprecedented and probably illegal. I hope the corporations sue CA into submission. We didn't get cruise control, anti-lock brakes, and airbags by first submitting proprietary data to the government. We got them through innovation in a free market. If they have legitimate issues with a new technology after it's introduced, _then_ they should regulate. Until then, we _already _have liability laws.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Actually, one of Apple's next products does self propel and have the potential to kill (or save) instantly. They too are working on SDCs.


And as I said above, they (Apple) will report the necessary information that the state requires for said testing - when that time comes.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

This is good convo. I dont know if im against it or not. I know if u gonna have a grid of self driveing id say i wouldnt want it with uber. Google has got it right as they r in arizona paying people to test drive their protect. Google is more authoritarian id trust a self driveing system threw them instead of uber. For DMV to regulate this is actually good. Its a system its completely new where its like an elavator as its needs to have certin tests and regulations to be deemed safe to 99.9%. Also u baseically going to take stairs out of all places and just have elavators if thats what they truely want. I kinda want these to have designated roads so u can have both. If they trying to make this 100% take over then all stairs should be taken out for elavators too


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

andaas said:


> And as I said above, they (Apple) will report the necessary information that the state requires for said testing - when that time comes.


If they're smart they will avoid CA and leave them as the SDC desert they deserve to be.


----------

