# Uber’s self-driving cars are already getting into scrapes on the streets of Pittsburgh



## KevinH

http://qz.com/798092/a-self-driving-uber-car-went-the-wrong-way-on-a-one-way-street-in-pittsburgh/









Proceed with caution. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
*SHARE
WRITTEN BY*
Alison Griswold
*OBSESSION*
Getting There
3 hours ago

Uber driver Nathan Stachelek was pulled off to the side of the road when he saw the self-driving car turn the wrong way.

It was the night of Sept. 26 and the car he had spotted, one of the autonomous Ford Fusions that Uber is testing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was heading through the city's Oakland neighborhood, just steps from the center of campus for the University of Pittsburgh. Stachelek watched the car turn off Bates Street and onto Atwood, a one-way road, going in the wrong direction. From a distance he couldn't tell whether the car was driving itself, or its human operator had made a mistake. Stachelek took out his phone in time to shoot a brief video of Uber's vehicle backing up and driving away, then uploaded it to Facebook.

"Driverless car went down a one way the wrong way," he wrote. "Driver had to turn car around."

Uber, the world's most valuable startup, with a $68 billion valuation, has rushed to be first-to-market with driverless technology. The company showed off its self-driving cars at a media event in Pittsburghlast month before putting four Ford Fusions into service for a small group of local riders. It plans to add 100 Volvo SUVs to the fleet by the end of this year. Uber is betting on truly autonomous vehicles to transform the economics of ride-hailing by eliminating its biggest cost-drivers. The company lost at least $1.2 billion in the first half of 2016, Bloomberg reported in August, with the majority of that spent on driver subsidies.

For now Uber's cars have limited operating hours and terrain, and they must travel with two humans up front-a designated "safety driver" behind the wheel and an engineer in the adjacent seat. Even so, the company is pushing this technology onto the public when it remains largely unproven and other tests of driverless cars around the US have yielded their fair share of accidents. Earlier this year a self-driving Google car hit a public bus while trying to make a right turn in Silicon Valley. In May, the driver of a Tesla Model S died in an accident while he had the autopilot function enabled. Google suffered its worst crash yetjust a few weeks ago when another driver ran a red light and barreled into its self-driving Lexus.

Stachelek isn't the only Pittsburgher to spy one of Uber's self-driving cars in an awkward spot. Late on the night of Sept. 24, another Uber driver and his two passengers encountered a self-driving Uber and a second car pulled over at the intersection of Bigelow Boulevard and Herron Avenue, about five minutes driving from the Advanced Technologies Center (ATC), Uber's research facility for driverless technologies. The second car had its hazard lights on and was being inspected by a man with a lanyard around his neck in the apparent aftermath of an accident.

"I couldn't see any of the damage," says Jason, the Uber driver, who requested Quartz withhold his last name because he feared being deactivated by the company. But "there's no reason for a self-driving Uber car to be pulled over in the way that it was, with another car right behind it with its flashers on." Amber McCann, a Pittsburgh resident and one of Jason's passengers that night, told Quartz the intersection is known as a place "where there's a ton of rear-ending accidents." Her friend and the car's other passenger, Jeanette McCulloch, provided Quartz with a photo she took while driving by.









A self-driving Uber and another car pulled over in what appears to be the aftermath of an accident in Pittsburgh. (Jeanette McCulloch)
Uber said it was aware that another car had tapped the fender of one of its self-driving Fords on the night of Sept. 24. The company said that was the only incident it had heard of involving one of its self-driving cars in Pittsburgh and that it was reported as the "lowest level"; it didn't specify whether the car was in autonomous mode at the time. The company also didn't have any record of a self-driving car turning the wrong way on a one-way street, either while in autonomous mode or because its human driver made a mistake.

While it would be easy to write these incidents off as minor mishaps, both suggest how much work Uber has left to do on its autonomous software, even as it's begun putting real passengers in the cars. One reason Uber's vehicles are currently traveling only a small area of Pittsburgh is because those are supposed to be the streets its engineers have carefully mapped and taught the cars about. If that's really the case, no self-driving car should be turning the wrong way down a one-way street-nor should its safety driver, who is in theory the final check on the car's autonomy.

Driverless vehicles also tend to operate in a cautious, hyper-logical manner and follow the rules of the road to a tee. Uber, again via its mapping efforts, has tried to prepare its cars to avoid certain tricky situations they might run into. On one street near the ATC in Pittsburgh, Uber engineers have instructed the self-driving cars to hang close to the curb because trucks making turns are more likely to swerve into the oncoming lane. By that same logic, the cars should also know certain intersections are hotspots for rear-ending accidents and be on the alert to avoid them, much as a savvy human driver would be. Uber's approach differs from that of other companies such as Nvidia, which have focused on teaching computer systems to drive in a more adaptive, human-like way-by being introduced to situations a few times, and then applying what they learn to other encounters on the road.









Uber's self-driving Ford Fusions lined up at the Advanced Technologies Center. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
The safety guidelines for autonomous vehicles (.pdf) recently released by the US Department of Transportation list "Detect and Respond to Access Restrictions (One-Way, No Turn, Ramps, etc.)" among the "normal driving" expectations of a driverless car. Chelsea Kohler, an Uber spokeswoman, told Quartz late last month that the company considers its self-driving cars to be at "level four with the driver" on the DOT's six-level scale for automation. The DOT defines level four as when "an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the human need not take back control &#8230; in certain environments and under certain conditions."

Uber is taking advantage of a regulatory void in Pennsylvania, which has yet to enact autonomous vehicle legislation. Its self-driving cars are insured for up to $5 million per incident, in line with pending legislation in the state. Uber has repeatedly declined to specify to Quartz who would be held liable were one its self-driving cars involved in an accident, saying it doesn't deal in hypotheticals. The company also doesn't have an ethics board and is reluctant to discuss "trolley problem" scenarios, in which a car might have to protect one group of people (say, its passengers) at the cost of another (i.e., pedestrians). The DOT cautions in its guidelines that self-driving cars will inevitably have to be programmed to make "ethical judgements."

Sonya Toler, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, said in an email that no traffic incidents involving Uber's self-driving cars have been reported to the bureau. She added that there are "no agreements between the Police Bureau and Uber regarding information sharing, mishaps or protocols." Katie O'Malley, a spokeswoman for Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto, said in an email that she is "not aware of incidents involving self-driving vehicles but it's certainly possible," and that the city has no formal agreements with Uber on what information about its autonomous vehicles needs to be shared. Google releases monthly reports on the activities of its self-driving cars, including collisions in either manual or autonomous mode.

Uber is in the process of hiring safety drivers to man its self-driving cars (technically "development vehicle operators") and last month emailed Pittsburgh-area drivers suggesting they apply. Stachelek was among those who submitted an application. He hasn't heard back yet and worries that self-driving technology like Uber's will "cost more jobs than it's going to create"-but not anytime soon. "We are a long way away from the driverless cars taking over, or at least I hope we are," he says. "I don't think the technology is ready yet."


----------



## RamzFanz

KevinH said:


> Earlier this year a self-driving Google car hit a public bus while trying to make a right turn in Silicon Valley.


...with the right of way. The car had right of way. These click bait articles always seem to miss that point.



KevinH said:


> In May, the driver of a Tesla Model S died in an accident while he had the autopilot function enabled.


Not an SDC.



KevinH said:


> Google suffered its worst crash yet just a few weeks ago when another driver ran a red light and barreled into its self-driving Lexus.


Human caused.



KevinH said:


> Uber said it was aware that another car had tapped the fender of one of its self-driving Fords on the night of Sept. 24.


So the breathless mystery of the Uber car was actually already explained and was only inserted, why? Oh yeah, drama.



KevinH said:


> Driverless vehicles also tend to operate in a cautious, hyper-logical manner and follow the rules of the road to a tee.


Completely untrue. Another article by an author who has done zero research.



KevinH said:


> By that same logic, the cars should also know certain intersections are hotspots for rear-ending accidents and be on the alert to avoid them, much as a savvy human driver would be.


I don't care how good of a driver and aware of the situation you are, avoiding a rear end collision is next to impossible and rife with liabilities.



KevinH said:


> The company also doesn't have an ethics board and is reluctant to discuss "trolley problem" scenarios, in which a car might have to protect one group of people (say, its passengers) at the cost of another (i.e., pedestrians).


Because the "trolly problem" is an ethics class exercise, not a real world problem.



KevinH said:


> "We are a long way away from the driverless cars taking over, or at least I hope we are," he says. "I don't think the technology is ready yet."


It's not ready yet. At least 3-5 years in the US is my guess, but it's close.


----------



## Flarpy

Of course the local SDC fanboy comes in to defend his precious machines.

But RamzFanz predictable opinions aren't what's interesting here. What's interesting is the media's increasingly negative tone regarding Uber and the gig economy in general.

This is what happened during the dot-com bust. In the late 90s everything you read about dot-com startups was "These wonderful companies are going to revolutionize business and the world." Then in 2000 it was "These companies aren't making money for their investors." Then in late 2000 and 2001 it became "These companies are a mess, their business plans are not viable and they will fail." And fail they did, en masse.

I'm not saying the media tone brought down these companies, but there was a correlation. I see the same pattern happening here.


----------



## tohunt4me

KevinH said:


> http://qz.com/798092/a-self-driving-uber-car-went-the-wrong-way-on-a-one-way-street-in-pittsburgh/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proceed with caution. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
> *SHARE
> WRITTEN BY*
> Alison Griswold
> *OBSESSION*
> Getting There
> 3 hours ago
> 
> Uber driver Nathan Stachelek was pulled off to the side of the road when he saw the self-driving car turn the wrong way.
> 
> It was the night of Sept. 26 and the car he had spotted, one of the autonomous Ford Fusions that Uber is testing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was heading through the city's Oakland neighborhood, just steps from the center of campus for the University of Pittsburgh. Stachelek watched the car turn off Bates Street and onto Atwood, a one-way road, going in the wrong direction. From a distance he couldn't tell whether the car was driving itself, or its human operator had made a mistake. Stachelek took out his phone in time to shoot a brief video of Uber's vehicle backing up and driving away, then uploaded it to Facebook.
> 
> "Driverless car went down a one way the wrong way," he wrote. "Driver had to turn car around."
> 
> Uber, the world's most valuable startup, with a $68 billion valuation, has rushed to be first-to-market with driverless technology. The company showed off its self-driving cars at a media event in Pittsburghlast month before putting four Ford Fusions into service for a small group of local riders. It plans to add 100 Volvo SUVs to the fleet by the end of this year. Uber is betting on truly autonomous vehicles to transform the economics of ride-hailing by eliminating its biggest cost-drivers. The company lost at least $1.2 billion in the first half of 2016, Bloomberg reported in August, with the majority of that spent on driver subsidies.
> 
> For now Uber's cars have limited operating hours and terrain, and they must travel with two humans up front-a designated "safety driver" behind the wheel and an engineer in the adjacent seat. Even so, the company is pushing this technology onto the public when it remains largely unproven and other tests of driverless cars around the US have yielded their fair share of accidents. Earlier this year a self-driving Google car hit a public bus while trying to make a right turn in Silicon Valley. In May, the driver of a Tesla Model S died in an accident while he had the autopilot function enabled. Google suffered its worst crash yetjust a few weeks ago when another driver ran a red light and barreled into its self-driving Lexus.
> 
> Stachelek isn't the only Pittsburgher to spy one of Uber's self-driving cars in an awkward spot. Late on the night of Sept. 24, another Uber driver and his two passengers encountered a self-driving Uber and a second car pulled over at the intersection of Bigelow Boulevard and Herron Avenue, about five minutes driving from the Advanced Technologies Center (ATC), Uber's research facility for driverless technologies. The second car had its hazard lights on and was being inspected by a man with a lanyard around his neck in the apparent aftermath of an accident.
> 
> "I couldn't see any of the damage," says Jason, the Uber driver, who requested Quartz withhold his last name because he feared being deactivated by the company. But "there's no reason for a self-driving Uber car to be pulled over in the way that it was, with another car right behind it with its flashers on." Amber McCann, a Pittsburgh resident and one of Jason's passengers that night, told Quartz the intersection is known as a place "where there's a ton of rear-ending accidents." Her friend and the car's other passenger, Jeanette McCulloch, provided Quartz with a photo she took while driving by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A self-driving Uber and another car pulled over in what appears to be the aftermath of an accident in Pittsburgh. (Jeanette McCulloch)
> Uber said it was aware that another car had tapped the fender of one of its self-driving Fords on the night of Sept. 24. The company said that was the only incident it had heard of involving one of its self-driving cars in Pittsburgh and that it was reported as the "lowest level"; it didn't specify whether the car was in autonomous mode at the time. The company also didn't have any record of a self-driving car turning the wrong way on a one-way street, either while in autonomous mode or because its human driver made a mistake.
> 
> While it would be easy to write these incidents off as minor mishaps, both suggest how much work Uber has left to do on its autonomous software, even as it's begun putting real passengers in the cars. One reason Uber's vehicles are currently traveling only a small area of Pittsburgh is because those are supposed to be the streets its engineers have carefully mapped and taught the cars about. If that's really the case, no self-driving car should be turning the wrong way down a one-way street-nor should its safety driver, who is in theory the final check on the car's autonomy.
> 
> Driverless vehicles also tend to operate in a cautious, hyper-logical manner and follow the rules of the road to a tee. Uber, again via its mapping efforts, has tried to prepare its cars to avoid certain tricky situations they might run into. On one street near the ATC in Pittsburgh, Uber engineers have instructed the self-driving cars to hang close to the curb because trucks making turns are more likely to swerve into the oncoming lane. By that same logic, the cars should also know certain intersections are hotspots for rear-ending accidents and be on the alert to avoid them, much as a savvy human driver would be. Uber's approach differs from that of other companies such as Nvidia, which have focused on teaching computer systems to drive in a more adaptive, human-like way-by being introduced to situations a few times, and then applying what they learn to other encounters on the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uber's self-driving Ford Fusions lined up at the Advanced Technologies Center. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
> The safety guidelines for autonomous vehicles (.pdf) recently released by the US Department of Transportation list "Detect and Respond to Access Restrictions (One-Way, No Turn, Ramps, etc.)" among the "normal driving" expectations of a driverless car. Chelsea Kohler, an Uber spokeswoman, told Quartz late last month that the company considers its self-driving cars to be at "level four with the driver" on the DOT's six-level scale for automation. The DOT defines level four as when "an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the human need not take back control &#8230; in certain environments and under certain conditions."
> 
> Uber is taking advantage of a regulatory void in Pennsylvania, which has yet to enact autonomous vehicle legislation. Its self-driving cars are insured for up to $5 million per incident, in line with pending legislation in the state. Uber has repeatedly declined to specify to Quartz who would be held liable were one its self-driving cars involved in an accident, saying it doesn't deal in hypotheticals. The company also doesn't have an ethics board and is reluctant to discuss "trolley problem" scenarios, in which a car might have to protect one group of people (say, its passengers) at the cost of another (i.e., pedestrians). The DOT cautions in its guidelines that self-driving cars will inevitably have to be programmed to make "ethical judgements."
> 
> Sonya Toler, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, said in an email that no traffic incidents involving Uber's self-driving cars have been reported to the bureau. She added that there are "no agreements between the Police Bureau and Uber regarding information sharing, mishaps or protocols." Katie O'Malley, a spokeswoman for Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto, said in an email that she is "not aware of incidents involving self-driving vehicles but it's certainly possible," and that the city has no formal agreements with Uber on what information about its autonomous vehicles needs to be shared. Google releases monthly reports on the activities of its self-driving cars, including collisions in either manual or autonomous mode.
> 
> Uber is in the process of hiring safety drivers to man its self-driving cars (technically "development vehicle operators") and last month emailed Pittsburgh-area drivers suggesting they apply. Stachelek was among those who submitted an application. He hasn't heard back yet and worries that self-driving technology like Uber's will "cost more jobs than it's going to create"-but not anytime soon. "We are a long way away from the driverless cars taking over, or at least I hope we are," he says. "I don't think the technology is ready yet."


----------



## tohunt4me

RamzFanz said:


> ...with the right of way. The car had right of way. These click bait articles always seem to miss that point.
> 
> Not an SDC.
> 
> Human caused.
> 
> So the breathless mystery of the Uber car was actually already explained and was only inserted, why? Oh yeah, drama.
> 
> Completely untrue. Another article by an author who has done zero research.
> 
> I don't care how good of a driver and aware of the situation you are, avoiding a rear end collision is next to impossible and rife with liabilities.
> 
> Because the "trolly problem" is an ethics class exercise, not a real world problem.
> 
> It's not ready yet. At least 3-5 years in the US is my guess, but it's close.


Driverless cars will NEVER have human premonition. They are forever third eye blind.


----------



## UberSolo

Flarpy said:


> Of course the local SDC fanboy comes in to defend his precious machines.
> 
> But RamzFanz predictable opinions aren't what's interesting here. What's interesting is the media's increasingly negative tone regarding Uber and the gig economy in general.
> 
> This is what happened during the dot-com bust. In the late 90s everything you read about dot-com startups was "These wonderful companies are going to revolutionize business and the world." Then in 2000 it was "These companies aren't making money for their investors." Then in late 2000 and 2001 it became "These companies are a mess, their business plans are not viable and they will fail." And fail they did, en masse.
> 
> I'm not saying the media tone brought down these companies, but there was a correlation. I see the same pattern happening here.


Quite Frankly it all doesn't matter. Powerful People, Corporations, Politicians and Government want Driverless Period. And Driverless they shall have no matter how many blood sacks are killed or hurt in the process. The price of evolution


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou

"It's biggest cost, DRIVERS". Are you fing kidding me, we are ubers biggest cost, we provide our own vehicles at no cost to uber, we slave away at low low rates, use our own insurance and take all the risks while paying uber 25-28% plus booking fee and we are the BIGGEST COSTS TO UBER. Maybe they mean the incentives uber is forced to give us BECAUSE OF THE LOW LOW RATES.


----------



## tohunt4me

UberSolo said:


> Quite Frankly it all doesn't matter. Powerful People, Corporations, Politicians and Government want Driverless Period. And Driverless they shall have no matter how many blood sacks are killed or hurt in the process. The price of evolution


I would not bet the farm on that.
The PEOPLE eliminated the Carbon Tax in Australia.
The PEOPLE got out of the European Union in Great Brittain
The PEOPLE still react to being pushed too far.
There may be hope yet.
I do my part to showcase the manipulations.
I will not answer to the future how "I let this happen" because I will not sit idle .


----------



## UberSolo

tohunt4me said:


> I would not bet the farm on that.
> The PEOPLE eliminated the Carbon Tax in Australia.
> The PEOPLE got out of the European Union in Great Brittain
> The PEOPLE still react to being pushed too far.
> There may be hope yet.


young sir, SDC is not a voting issue. Trillions of dollars to be made by the movers and shakers of the world.
Blood Sacks are expendable


----------



## UberSolo

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> "It's biggest cost, DRIVERS". Are you fing kidding me, we are ubers biggest cost, we provide our own vehicles at no cost to uber, we slave away at low low rates, use our own insurance and take all the risks while paying uber 25-28% plus booking fee and we are the BIGGEST COSTS TO UBER. Maybe they mean the incentives uber is forced to give us BECAUSE OF THE LOW LOW RATES.


Blood Sacks will be replaced by an Intel Chip


----------



## andaas

RamzFanz said:


> Earlier this year a self-driving Google car hit a public bus while trying to make a right turn in Silicon Valley.
> 
> 
> 
> ...with the right of way. The car had right of way. These click bait articles always seem to miss that point.
Click to expand...

The SDC merged into the lane to it's left, which was occupied by an oncoming bus; that is hardly having the right of way. The article you link even said that both the SDC and bus driver made the wrong assumption - that the other would yield.

Typically, when it comes to right of way, I defer to any vehicle that weighs 9x more than my vehicle.


----------



## tohunt4me

UberSolo said:


> young sir, SDC is not a voting issue. Trillions of dollars to be made by the movers and shakers of the world.
> Blood Sacks are expendable


The people will not give up their rights in this blatent Agenda 21 end play regarding private vehicle ownership. It will not happen.
G.M.& Chrysler WILL NOT BE BAILED OUT AGAIN.
WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PRODUCTION VEHICLES MADE COST PROHIBITIVE BY UNEEDED ROBOT PARTS !
THOSE WHO SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR " SAFETY " DESERVE NEITHER!
It is PAST time to reign in runaway Govt. & legislation.
I will buy a 65 Chevy and rebuild it Robot & airbag free untill the end of time if need be.


----------



## tohunt4me

UberSolo said:


> Blood Sacks will be replaced by an Intel Chip


Blood sacks or Goldman Sachs ?


----------



## tohunt4me

UberSolo said:


> young sir, SDC is not a voting issue. Trillions of dollars to be made by the movers and shakers of the world.
> Blood Sacks are expendable


If you do not see nor sense the Wall of public opposition mounting against these Globalist campaigns run amuk,you need to look around.


----------



## byrdman

tohunt4me said:


> If you do not see nor sense the Wall of public opposition mounting against these Globalist campaigns run amuk,you need to look around.


i once did look around. it aint pretty


----------



## byrdman

tohunt4me said:


> Blood sacks or Goldman Sachs ?


Well lets see:

Blood Sack: an uber driver soon to be replaced by an intel micro chip

Goldman Sachs: is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified non blood sack client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world.

Both about the same


----------



## tohunt4me

andaas said:


> The SDC merged into the lane to it's left, which was occupied by an oncoming bus; that is hardly having the right of way. The article you link even said that both the SDC and bus driver made the wrong assumption - that the other would yield.
> 
> Typically, when it comes to right of way, I defer to any vehicle that weighs 9x more than my vehicle.





byrdman said:


> i once did look around. it aint pretty


NEITHER one of them are.
Time for both of these political parties to die out. They have outlived their usefulness. Make the Robber Barons run around trying to buy the next political parties from scratch
It will be good for the economy.
This was the best they could offer. It's an insult ! Both parties.
Hillary will have us in Globalist wars in Africa for the duration of her term. I paid attention when she was secretary of state. Weakly orchestrated. It will not fly with the world. Globalist are dying to carve up Africa. It will not be pretty.
( Goldman Sachs charges too much on trades has non specific funds and charges maintenance fees on retirement funds.Constant leakage of funds with them. I used to prefer ING out of the Netherlands.$6.00 computer trades,flat fee. Could have stock certificates mailed anywhere in the world without interference in case I wanted to get out of Dodge with my assets . one way of getting more than $10 K out hassle free.Capital One basically bought them out.They would front trades also,allowing a day to secure & send funds.)


----------



## RamzFanz

andaas said:


> The SDC merged into the lane to it's left, which was occupied by an oncoming bus; that is hardly having the right of way. The article you link even said that both the SDC and bus driver made the wrong assumption - that the other would yield.
> 
> Typically, when it comes to right of way, I defer to any vehicle that weighs 9x more than my vehicle.


I know this is the storyline being peddled out there, but it's not what happened. It was one single lane. The Google car was changing its position in the one single lane and the bus tried to squeeze through instead of yielding right of way.

The car and driver made their assumption based on traffic laws, the bus based his on being a human that assumed he could bully his way through. Both were wrong in their assumptions, but the bus was at fault.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Only 452 days til 2018


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Only 452 days til 2018


818 days until Monday, December 31, 2018

Unless you read somewhere they would show on New Year's day 2018, you should adjust your numbers to a drop-dead date.

Keep me posted.


----------



## Fireguy50

Shocked!


----------



## ChortlingCrison

must be those pot holes


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

So what I got out of this is that everyone else is having their SDCs LEARN, but Uber, in typical fashion, is trying to control everything about what they do?

They're even going to micromanage their cars.


----------



## BaitNSwitch

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> "It's biggest cost, DRIVERS". Are you fing kidding me, we are ubers biggest cost, we provide our own vehicles at no cost to uber, we slave away at low low rates, use our own insurance and take all the risks while paying uber 25-28% plus booking fee and we are the BIGGEST COSTS TO UBER. Maybe they mean the incentives uber is forced to give us BECAUSE OF THE LOW LOW RATES.


This just further proves their rates are unsustainable. Why don't they just call a truce with Lyft and raise rates to acceptable levels. The customers will still be thrilled if it's the same price as taxi or slightly lower.

They'd rather gamble on self driving cars and possibly lose everything in the process. Can't say they aren't bold, but man when this doesn't work out, Uber will be the next Enron. I think the management is idiotic. GIVE ME THE COMPANY INSTEAD< i will turn a profit in 10 days!


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou

BaitNSwitch said:


> This just further proves their rates are unsustainable. Why don't they just call a truce with Lyft and raise rates to acceptable levels. The customers will still be thrilled if it's the same price as taxi or slightly lower.
> 
> They'd rather gamble on self driving cars and possibly lose everything in the process. Can't say they aren't bold, but man when this doesn't work out, Uber will be the next Enron. I think the management is idiotic. GIVE ME THE COMPANY INSTEAD< i will turn a profit in 10 days!


It's not even management. It's CEO Travis k. He is a control freak, everything his way, no matter how wrong his way is, he pushed for the uber logos to change to crap, and he has all his employees scared of speaking up against him so they are just "yes men" to all of his ideas, 99% of which are stupid money losing ideas.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> 818 days until Monday, December 31, 2018
> 
> Unless you read somewhere they would show on New Year's day 2018, you should adjust your numbers to a drop-dead date.
> 
> Keep me posted.


No.
"By 2018" means on Jan 1 2018 they will have fully autonomous cars or its just a bluff.
Of course it's just a bluff.
Politicians lie all the time.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

BaitNSwitch said:


> This just further proves their rates are unsustainable. Why don't they just call a truce with Lyft and raise rates to acceptable levels. The customers will still be thrilled if it's the same price as taxi or slightly lower.
> 
> They'd rather gamble on self driving cars and possibly lose everything in the process. Can't say they aren't bold, but man when this doesn't work out, Uber will be the next Enron. I think the management is idiotic. GIVE ME THE COMPANY INSTEAD< i will turn a profit in 10 days!


They could care less about Lyft.
They want taxis and limos dead, and busses on their last breath.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Can you program a self driving car to say "No, Occifer, and I did not see the Indian, either."?


----------



## MikesUber

RamzFanz said:


> ...with the right of way. The car had right of way. These click bait articles always seem to miss that point.
> 
> Not an SDC.
> 
> Human caused.
> 
> So the breathless mystery of the Uber car was actually already explained and was only inserted, why? Oh yeah, drama.
> 
> Completely untrue. Another article by an author who has done zero research.
> 
> I don't care how good of a driver and aware of the situation you are, avoiding a rear end collision is next to impossible and rife with liabilities.
> 
> Because the "trolly problem" is an ethics class exercise, not a real world problem.
> 
> It's not ready yet. At least 3-5 years in the US is my guess, but it's close.


Thank you for providing facts to this weakly researched article.

"From a distance he couldn't tell whether the car was driving itself, or its human operator had made a mistake." - Person just _assuming _it's in autonomous mode = let's write an entire article about it. That's why no major news group is reporting on this false report lol

I see these all the time and have spoken directly/face-to-face with engineers working in the autonomous sector at the Advanced Technologies Center (did not disclose any confidential information)


----------



## andaas

RamzFanz said:


> I know this is the storyline being peddled out there, but it's not what happened. It was one single lane. The Google car was changing its position in the one single lane and the bus tried to squeeze through instead of yielding right of way.
> 
> The car and driver made their assumption based on traffic laws, the bus based his on being a human that assumed he could bully his way through. Both were wrong in their assumptions, but the bus was at fault.


This is straight from Google (page 2 of report):



Google SDC Reports: February 2016 said:


> ...The Google AV then moved to the right-hand side of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight. However, the Google AV had to come to a stop and go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later, as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane it made contact with the side of the bus.


The Google vehicle had already yielded it's right of way by moving to the right-hand side of the lane for a right turn. It then needed to merge back toward the center of the lane (the lane with traffic going straight) to pass the sand bags. What is not stated is whether or not the Google AV indicated the intention to merge left with a left signal - the omission of this fact leads me to believe that it did not - but either way, the Google AV yielded it's rights to through traffic once it moved to the right-hand side of the lane as stated.

From my perspective, fault falls on the Google AV for an unsafe lane change. Yes, a wide right lane to accommodate traffic going both straight and turning right in tandem is *two* lanes in the eyes of the law.


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> No.
> "By 2018" means on Jan 1 2018 they will have fully autonomous cars or its just a bluff.
> Of course it's just a bluff.
> Politicians lie all the time.


Who said "by" 2018? I've never heard that. You would do well learning to ignore clickbait headlines.

_The Lion City is expected to *introduce* a fully self-driving taxi fleet *as soon as 2018*, while carmaker Volvo has announced plans to launch a self-driving experiment in mainland China involving up to 100 cars._


----------



## RamzFanz

andaas said:


> This is straight from Google (page 2 of report):
> 
> The Google vehicle had already yielded it's right of way by moving to the right-hand side of the lane for a right turn. It then needed to merge back toward the center of the lane (the lane with traffic going straight) to pass the sand bags. What is not stated is whether or not the Google AV indicated the intention to merge left with a left signal - the omission of this fact leads me to believe that it did not - but either way, the Google AV yielded it's rights to through traffic once it moved to the right-hand side of the lane as stated.
> 
> From my perspective, fault falls on the Google AV for an unsafe lane change. Yes, a wide right lane to accommodate traffic going both straight and turning right in tandem is *two* lanes in the eyes of the law.


Please show me where it says it is considered 2 lanes by law. It's not.

As I've said, we will see if they ever make a determination of fault. It's fair to assume Google knows the laws pretty well and they are not taking legal responsibility.

In this video at 21:38 he explains the incident. He's saying the car predicted the bus would not try to squeeze through because there wasn't enough space in the lane even with the car stopped. The bus driver felt like he could squeeze through. The bus driver was right, by a foot, which isn't enough that the car thought he would do it. I don't know if the car signaled or if that wouldn't happen because it was a single lane.






Even if at fault, it's a next to meaningless incident over 2,000,000 miles (200 years of typical human driving) and they corrected the logic.


----------



## andaas

RamzFanz said:


> Please show me where it says it is considered 2 lanes by law. It's not.


It may or may not be 2 lanes. However, right of way still belongs to traffic in the primary portion of the lane - not traffic hugging the curb for a right turn.



RamzFanz said:


> As I've said, we will see if they ever make a determination of fault. It's fair to assume Google knows the laws pretty well and they are not taking legal responsibility.
> 
> In this video at 21:38 he explains the incident. He's saying the car predicted the bus would not try to squeeze through because there wasn't enough space in the lane even with the car stopped. The bus driver felt like he could squeeze through. The bus driver was right, by a foot, which isn't enough that the car thought he would do it. I don't know if the car signaled or if that wouldn't happen because it was a single lane.


The presenter did not seem to place blame on the bus. This particular incident, for insurance, etc., would likely be struck as no fault with each parties own insurance covering any expense.



RamzFanz said:


> Even if at fault, it's a next to meaningless incident over 2,000,000 miles (200 years of typical human driving) and they corrected the logic.


I never said otherwise, it was a minor incident that resulted in more damage to the Google AV than the bus (as one would expect when a 30,000 pound vehicle is struck by a 2,700 pound vehicle).

Most bus drivers are very sure of their space - 12 inches of room is more than enough for them to move by. And if there was no indication that the Google AV had an intention of merging back left (again, why would it if it was planning to turn right?), the bus driver likely assumed the car was parked and/or had zero intention of returning to the lane.

As the presenter stated, they have added a boatload of new rules to prevent such a situation in the future. This is all good stuff, and I will happily bow down to our robot overlords when they rise up.


----------



## RamzFanz

andaas said:


> It may or may not be 2 lanes. However, right of way still belongs to traffic in the primary portion of the lane - not traffic hugging the curb for a right turn.


Fair enough assumption. I know I would have assumed the car would not move unless it was signaling, right or wrong, but I also wouldn't pass a car within a foot at 15MPH because I don't trust people to not open the door. It looks to me the bus was too aggressive and the car too assumptive, logical, and trusting.



andaas said:


> The presenter did not seem to place blame on the bus. This particular incident, for insurance, etc., would likely be struck as no fault with each parties own insurance covering any expense.


He didn't place blame. He also didn't take blame. Could be that it's a no fault, I'm interested to see what they find.



andaas said:


> I never said otherwise, it was a minor incident that resulted in more damage to the Google AV than the bus (as one would expect when a 30,000 pound vehicle is struck by a 2,700 pound vehicle).
> 
> Most bus drivers are very sure of their space - 12 inches of room is more than enough for them to move by. And if there was no indication that the Google AV had an intention of merging back left (again, why would it if it was planning to turn right?), the bus driver likely assumed the car was parked and/or had zero intention of returning to the lane.
> 
> As the presenter stated, they have added a boatload of new rules to prevent such a situation in the future. This is all good stuff, and I will happily bow down to our robot overlords when they rise up.


Didn't mean to assume you were saying it was anything but a minor incident. I was just making a general statement that way too much has been made of this.

Not related but I was on a bus once on a road that had been widened leaving the utility poles at the edge of the road. In the bus ahead a girl from New Zealand had her arm out the window. The bus was inches from the pole and swayed as it slowed pinching her arm right off. We pulled up and the arm was directly out my window. We were across from the police station and in front of a grocery store. A cop ran over and saw the arm and instead of going into the grocery store and getting a cooler and ice to save it, he went and got a stick and started poking it. It laid there in the hot sun for the half hour I was there and she lost the arm.


----------



## observer

The bus was clearly closest to the lane markers/dashes. If the Google car was in it's lane properly, why did it turn on its LEFT TURN SIGNAL showing its intent to move into the lane?


----------



## RamzFanz

observer said:


> The bus was clearly closest to the lane markers/dashes. If the Google car was in it's lane properly, why did it turn on its LEFT TURN SIGNAL showing its intent to move into the lane?


So it did signal. We weren't sure.

Why use an indicator signal? To indicate intentions?

Looking at that video, clearly, the car and human driver were not making a good choice, right of way or not. It's all water under the bridge, though.


----------



## andaas

observer said:


> The bus was clearly closest to the lane markers/dashes. If the Google car was in it's lane properly, why did it turn on its LEFT TURN SIGNAL showing its intent to move into the lane?


Ok at least we know the Google AV signaled! LOL.

From the dashcam footage, the Google AV only showed a minimal amount of movement to merge left before leaving the frame. The footage also shows an abundance of room for the bus in my opinion.

This is basically the cause of many minor accidents - two drivers assuming the other will do what they think they will do. Obviously if both cars were SDV's *and* were communicating intentions, it may not have happened. Two SDV's that are not communicating? Very same problem could have occurred.


----------



## RamzFanz

andaas said:


> Obviously if both cars were SDV's *and* were communicating intentions, it may not have happened. Two SDV's that are not communicating? Very same problem could have occurred.


Hopefully, soon, V2V will apply to human-driven cars too. That bus could have been auto-braked. Still, at some point well before impact, the car should have known from the bus proximity and speed, it was not going to yield.


----------



## tohunt4me

Beware the Transhumanists.


----------



## Gung-Ho

This topic is like arguing about which team is going to win the game next week. All opinion speculation and educating guess but in the end it's WHEN it happens that the results are known. This discussion can't be won until we see for sure when these automated death wagons start hitting the streets.


----------



## andaas

Gung-Ho said:


> This discussion can't be won until we see for sure when these automated death wagons start hitting the streets.


Automated death wagons! I love it!

Waiting for someone to release that movie like the old drivers ed film Red Asphalt!

Disclaimer: Follow the YouTube link above at your own risk. However, this film was shown in driver's ed classes as recently as 10 years ago lol.


----------



## tohunt4me

andaas said:


> Automated death wagons! I love it!
> 
> Waiting for someone to release that movie like the old drivers ed film Red Asphalt!
> 
> Disclaimer: Follow the YouTube link above at your own risk. However, this film was shown in driver's ed classes as recently as 10 years ago lol.


----------



## Abraxas79

UberSolo said:


> Quite Frankly it all doesn't matter. Powerful People, Corporations, Politicians and Government want Driverless Period. And Driverless they shall have no matter how many blood sacks are killed or hurt in the process. The price of evolution


That is my feeling on the matter. It has little to do with making money or how profitable self driving cars will be, although for companies such as Ford or GM this would be paramount. It has everything to do with control. Controlling people's movements 24/7. Governments will love them. I can see a time where it will be a criminal offence to own a private passenger vehicle that is not self-driving. The only human drivers out there I suppose will be police, until they find a way to replace them too. Of course the cities will lose a lot of money on tickets. No more speeding tickets, reckless driving, etc Then again, what they lose on infractions they may regain on income gained from firing all the traffic cops. No more need to pay someone 90k a year to write tickets as a glorified highway janitor.


----------



## tohunt4me

Abraxas79 said:


> That is my feeling on the matter. It has little to do with making money or how profitable self driving cars will be, although for companies such as Ford or GM this would be paramount. It has everything to do with control. Controlling people's movements 24/7. Governments will love them. I can see a time where it will be a criminal offence to own a private passenger vehicle that is not self-driving. The only human drivers out there I suppose will be police, until they find a way to replace them too. Of course the cities will lose a lot of money on tickets. No more speeding tickets, reckless driving, etc Then again, what they lose on infractions they may regain on income gained from firing all the traffic cops. No more need to pay someone 90k a year to write tickets as a glorified highway janitor.


Pedestrians will pay the tickets.
Tickets will never stop.
The legal system is a hungry Beast.
It must be fed


----------



## NFIH

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> "It's biggest cost, DRIVERS". Are you fing kidding me, we are ubers biggest cost, we provide our own vehicles at no cost to uber, we slave away at low low rates, use our own insurance and take all the risks while paying uber 25-28% plus booking fee and we are the BIGGEST COSTS TO UBER. Maybe they mean the incentives uber is forced to give us BECAUSE OF THE LOW LOW RATES.


I believe Uber is referring to the 75%-80% of the fare they currently don't get (because it goes to the driver). Theoretically, that number could be reduced if they go driverless and realize some other efficiencies of scale. I don't think that's what they're going to discover, for reasons that have been pointed out many times by other posters around here, but for now it sure helps them pull more money out of investors and increase the company's valuation ahead of any IPO.


----------



## UberSolo

Abraxas79 said:


> That is my feeling on the matter. It has little to do with making money or how profitable self driving cars will be, although for companies such as Ford or GM this would be paramount. It has everything to do with control. Controlling people's movements 24/7. Governments will love them. I can see a time where it will be a criminal offence to own a private passenger vehicle that is not self-driving. The only human drivers out there I suppose will be police, until they find a way to replace them too. Of course the cities will lose a lot of money on tickets. No more speeding tickets, reckless driving, etc Then again, what they lose on infractions they may regain on income gained from firing all the traffic cops. No more need to pay someone 90k a year to write tickets as a glorified highway janitor.


it all leads back to the big picture for this or anything: money. mobility restrictions of citizenry is a byproduct and welcomed by the government.
Try to rob a bank with a SDC. Probably drive you to the local Police Precinct for arrest. All the fun is gone!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

UberSolo said:


> Powerful People, Corporations, Politicians and Government want Driverless Period.


Says who exactly? Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Requiring breathalizers in every car combined with requiring driver-assist technology is all you need to cut down on most of the accidents.

Only idiots want sdc's on the road.


----------



## UberSolo

uberdriverfornow said:


> Says who exactly? Where are you getting this nonsense from?
> 
> Requiring breathalizers in every car combined with requiring driver-assist technology is all you need to cut down on most of the accidents.
> 
> Only idiots want sdc's on the road.


Says Who u ask? Powerful Wealthy People, Corporations, Politicians and Government


----------



## uberdriverfornow

UberSolo said:


> Says Who u ask? Powerful Wealthy People, Corporations, Politicians and Government


I'm still waiting.


----------

