# Experts say Uber self-driving vehicle should have avoided pedestrian



## jocker12

Video of a deadly self-driving vehicle crash in suburban Phoenix shows a pedestrian walking from a darkened area onto a street just moments before an Uber SUV strikes her.

The lights on the SUV didn't illuminate 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday night until a second or two before impact, raising questions about whether the vehicle could have stopped in time.

The crash Sunday night in Tempe was the first death involving a full autonomous test vehicle. The Volvo was in self-driving mode with a human backup driver at the wheel when it struck Herzberg, police said.

The video shows the human backup driver in the SUV looking down until seconds before the crash. The driver looks up and appears startled during the last moment of the clip.

Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir has told the San Francisco Chronicle that the SUV likely wouldn't be found at fault. But two experts who viewed the video told The Associated Press that the SUV's laser and radar sensors should have spotted Herzberg and her bicycle in time to brake.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."

Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.

"It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," he said. "From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian."

Smith said that from what he observed on the video, the Uber driver appears to be relying too much on the self-driving system by not looking up at the road.

"The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."

The experts were unsure if the test vehicle was equipped with a video monitor that the backup driver may have been viewing.

Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. The National Transportation Safety Board, which makes recommendations for preventing crashes, is investigating the crash.

An Uber spokeswoman, reached Wednesday night by email, did not answer specific questions about the video or the expert observations.

"The video is disturbing and heartbreaking to watch, and our thoughts continue to be with Elaine's loved ones. Our cars remain grounded, and we're assisting local, state and federal authorities in any way we can," the company said in a statement.

Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez. Court records show someone with the same name and birthdate as Vasquez spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions - for making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery - before starting work as an Uber driver.

Tempe police and the National Transportation Safety Board declined to say whether the Vasquez who was involved in the fatal crash is the same Vasquez who has two criminal convictions.

Attempts by the AP to contact Vasquez through phone numbers and social media on Wednesday afternoon weren't successful.

Local media have identified the driver as Rafaela Vasquez. Authorities would not explain the discrepancy.

The fatality has raised questions about whether Uber is doing enough to screen its drivers.

Uber said Vasquez met the company's vetting requirements.

The company bans drivers who are convicted of violent crimes or any felony within the past seven years - which Vasquez would have passed given that records show the offenses occurred in 1999 and 2000.

The company's website lists its pre-screening policies for drivers that spell out what drivers can and cannot have on their record to work for Uber.

Their driving history can't have any DUI or drug-related driving offenses within the past seven years, for instance. They also can't have more than three non-fatal accidents or moving violations within the past three years.

https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbfb0f6c8ed857465f1


----------



## heynow321

not only should it have picked her up but she was the only object around! there was nothing else going on on that road! the car should have "seen" her hundreds of meters before getting near her.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> not only should it have picked her up but she was the only object around! there was nothing else going on on that road! the car should have "seen" her hundreds of meters before getting near her.


Yes, it should have. Uber's program is a farce. Hopefully, this is the end for it.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it should have. Uber's program is a farce. Hopefully, this is the end for it.


Make sure you say something bad about Waymo amd GM before their ridiculous robots kill someone, because if you would say again you criticized them before the accident and I ask you to show where, if you don't do it now you'll be caught butt naked again...


----------



## Bart McCoy

Whenever you try to avoid something like this, normally it means you're making another dangerous action , which could endanger others. Slamming on brakes, swerving, you can hit somebody else, another car, or even property. Think if cars are behind you or to the side of you when you're making this miraculous attempt to avoid hitting somebody who should not be in the roadway


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> Whenever you try to avoid something like this, normally it means you're making another dangerous action , which could endanger others. Slamming on brakes, swerving, you can hit somebody else, another car, or even property. Think if cars are behind you or to the side of you when you're making this miraculous attempt to avoid hitting somebody who should not be in the roadway


Yeah, it's a bad thing to try to avoid something like that. Nothing amazingly moronic about that, right?


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, it's a bad thing to try to avoid something like that. Nothing amazingly moronic about that, right?


well if you could read or comprehend, you would know that it would be a bad thing if you swerved to miss this personal illegally crossing in front of you and hitting a child instead from making a rash quick swerve maneuver. You'd like that, yeah, that closer to moronic


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> well if you could read or comprehend, you would know that it would be a bad thing if you swerved to miss this personal illegally crossing in front of you and hitting a child instead from making a rash quick swerve maneuver. You'd like that, yeah, that closer to moronic


Yeah, because the road had kids all along the roadside. Brilliant.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, because the road had kids all along the roadside. Brilliant.


So because you Monday morning quarterback, you want people to think you're a genius? smh

Watch the video
The driver has a split second to react
there could be a child on either side, there could be cars, there could be property, you should get the point....
Now I know you're a superhero, but normal people won't scan 360 degrees around them to make sure if they make an emergency move they won't endanger anyone or destroy property, us normal folks will: just do whatever as to avoid hitting the person in front of us, and find out that we hit a child later. Again, normal people, not super heroes


----------



## Linux Geek

Bart McCoy said:


> So because you Monday morning quarterback, you want people to think you're a genius? smh
> 
> Watch the video
> The driver has a split second to react
> there could be a child on either side, there could be cars, there could be property, you should get the point....
> Now I know you're a superhero, but normal people won't scan 360 degrees around them to make sure if they make an emergency move they won't endanger anyone or destroy property, us normal folks will: just do whatever as to avoid hitting the person in front of us, and find out that we hit a child later. Again, normal people, not super heroes


Yes, it just takes too much energy to scan your mirrors and know your surroundings. Much better to mow down those illegal jaywalkers.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Linux Geek said:


> Yes, it just takes too much energy to scan your mirrors and know your surroundings. Much better to mow down those illegal jaywalkers.


The driver at some point did see the pedestrian. he had pretty much no time to make an evasive maneuver when he did. Yet, ,you saying scan your mirrors, know your surroundings, and THEN make an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting pedestrian. Maybe you didn't read, but I said WE ARE NOT SUPERHEROES, apparently you are, to be able do all of that, in a split second. Because that's how accidents happen, not in 10min time, but in split seconds...


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> The driver at some point did see the pedestrian. he had pretty much no time to make an evasive maneuver when he did. Yet, ,you saying scan your mirrors, know your surroundings, and THEN make an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting pedestrian. Maybe you didn't read, but I said WE ARE NOT SUPERHEROES, apparently you are, to be able do all of that, in a split second. Because that's how accidents happen, not in 10min time, but in split seconds...


It was dark.... other cars visual cues? Lights behind or ahead.... hmmmmm.... if you don't know this and do Uber, please quit for your own good.


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> It was dark.... other cars visual cues? Lights behind or ahead.... hmmmmm.... if you don't know this and do Uber, please quit for your own good.


So you just ignore what I wrote? Nobody thinks about all that. When they see an accident about to happen, they just try to avoid it, that's it. Save me the mumbo jump about visual cues,nobody is doing a full multi-sweep visual investigation of their surrounds before making an evasive action to avoid a split second accident. We are talking real life, not the Simpsons.

If everybody did what you said, there would be no accidents at all huh? sounds way too simple


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> So you just ignore what I wrote? Nobody thinks about all that. When they see an accident about to happen, they just try to avoid it, that's it. Save me the mumbo jump about visual cues,nobody is doing a full multi-sweep visual investigation of their surrounds before making an evasive action to avoid a split second accident. We are talking real life, not the Simpsons.
> 
> If everybody did what you said, there would be no accidents at all huh? sounds way too simple


When you are driving you are constantly aware of your surroundings (key word - constantly). That includes what I've mentioned in my previous comment. A driver would have slightly changed direction towards left were the gap was getting bigger, while the pedestrian was moving towards drivers right.

Again, if you have a hard time thinking about this, just quit because sooner or later you will be in the same situation and you wont like the outcome of it.


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> When you are driving you are constantly aware of your surroundings (key word - constantly). That includes what I've mentioned in my previous comment. A driver would have slightly changed direction towards left were the gap was getting bigger, while the pedestrian was moving towards drivers right.
> 
> Again, if you have a hard time thinking about this, just quit because sooner or later you will be in the same situation and you wont like the outcome of it.


If a pedestrian jumps out in front of me and I hit them, I'm not worried about that outcome AT ALL


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> If a pedestrian jumps out in front of me and I hit them, I'm not worried about that outcome AT ALL


Nobody was jumping here..... By the way....


----------



## Linux Geek

jocker12 said:


> When you are driving you are constantly aware of your surroundings (key word - constantly). That includes what I've mentioned in my previous comment. A driver would have slightly changed direction towards left were the gap was getting bigger, while the pedestrian was moving towards drivers right.
> 
> Again, if you have a hard time thinking about this, just quit because sooner or later you will be in the same situation and you wont like the outcome of it.


There are always some fleas a dog can't reach.


----------



## jocker12

Linux Geek said:


> There are always some fleas a dog can't reach.


People get their driver licenses with only 80% driving skills out of 100%, and that is a problem. Uber took advantage of this glitch and allowed them to transport strangers for money, giving those drivers the impression they are good enough to do the job well. They are not!



Bart McCoy said:


> If a pedestrian jumps out in front of me and I hit them, I'm not worried about that outcome AT ALL


And I am not sure you understand me well enough. The monitor in the car was NOT driving that vehicle. Was only monitoring. Nobody can possible believe, experienced drivers will overlook self driving cars tests for $11-$12 per hour. The monitors are NOT there to drive. That is the reason Uber hired such an individual.... to monitor the system. Of course there will be certain situations that will need monitors intervention, like the car hesitating to make a left turn, or being confused by a bicyclist on the side of the road. Ridiculous stuff like that, will require the monitor to take over, but the most part of the driving (99%) is supposed to be done by the robot.

I hope this helps, because I don't want you to believe I blame the monitor in the car. Reaction time when you are not effectively controlling the car with your hands on the wheel, feet on the pedals and eyes on the road, is far longer than most people think. If you are disconnected from the driving process, as a monitor, it takes 3 to 5 seconds only to understand what it's going on, 1 second to make a decision and 2 seconds to make sure you hit the correct pedal and steer in the correct direction. *That is 6 to 8 seconds in total*.


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> So because you Monday morning quarterback, you want people to think you're a genius? smh
> 
> Watch the video
> The driver has a split second to react
> there could be a child on either side, there could be cars, there could be property, you should get the point....
> Now I know you're a superhero, but normal people won't scan 360 degrees around them to make sure if they make an emergency move they won't endanger anyone or destroy property, us normal folks will: just do whatever as to avoid hitting the person in front of us, and find out that we hit a child later. Again, normal people, not super heroes


Look, you thinking there was only a split second to react says enough.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Look, you thinking there was only a split second to react says enough.


Looking at the video, that's all there was.
Again, normal people reaction time, not superheroes like yourself


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> Looking at the video, that's all there was.
> Again, normal people reaction time, not superheroes like yourself


wrong.


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> Looking at the video, that's all there was.
> Again, normal people reaction time, not superheroes like yourself


Please read
Human Driver Could Have Avoided Fatal Uber Crash, Experts Say


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> Please read
> Human Driver Could Have Avoided Fatal Uber Crash, Experts Say


so because some self proclaimed Monday morning quarterbacker said it, it must be true huh?


----------



## transporter007

Bart McCoy I've known u for over 3 years, you're one of the most respected 
contributors to all forums using logic, intelligence, ur formal education and experience as ur guide.

The group you're engaging are self loathing and take No responsibility for their decisions in life. They Blame Uber for all their problems including, but not limited to, their own inability to secure gainful employment. Their first thought of the day & last thought @ night are Hate Uber.

Their Hate of Uber manifests itself to every level of their lives and functionality including cognitive & mental defect

As members of society They're as useful as Ann Frank's Drum Set.

Subsequently your logic and reason are useless in debates. Sad

Enjoy the show as they now attack with the imagination and ability of a 5th grade playground


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> so because some self proclaimed Monday morning quarterbacker said it, it must be true huh?


Can you explain why those experts opinion cannot be trusted, please?


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> Can you explain why those experts opinion cannot be trusted, please?


They are just guessing
They can't predict what would have happened
If you believe they can then you believe they can pick the winning lottery numbers too


----------



## Linux Geek

transporter007 said:


> Bart McCoy I've known u for over 3 years, you're one of the most respected
> contributors to all forums using logic, intelligence, ur formal education and experience as ur guide.
> 
> The group you're engaging are self loathing and take No responsibility for their decisions in life. They Blame Uber for all their problems including, but not limited to, their own inability to secure gainful employment. Their first thought of the day & last thought @ night are Hate Uber.
> 
> Their Hate of Uber manifests itself to every level of their lives and functionality including cognitive & mental defect
> 
> As members of society They're as useful as Ann Frank's Drum Set.
> 
> Subsequently your logic and reason are useless in debates. Sad
> 
> Enjoy the show as they now attack with the imagination and ability of a 5th grade playground


Do you think it is intelligent not to practice defensive driving? Do you think it is reasonable not to slam on the brakes if you see you will strike a pedestrian?


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> They are just guessing
> They can't predict what would have happened
> If you believe they can then you believe they can pick the winning lottery numbers too


Because is their job to do it, that's why they are considered experts, they do analysis on accidents in terms of numbers, locations, time of the day, location demographics, and so forth.

Their opinion is based on expertise not guessing.

You tend to trivialize what they say, and consider they are "guessing".

If you study Chinese and hear somebody speaking Chinese, you are not guessing what they say. You know because you studied it.

Don't you think?


----------



## Bart McCoy

Linux Geek said:


> Do you think it is intelligent not to practice defensive driving? Do you think it is reasonable not to slam on the brakes if you see you will strike a pedestrian?


Do you even consider people OTHER than the illegal negligent pedestrian crossing? Slam on brakes - so the car behind you can end up in your trunk. Swerve - so you can avoid the guilty negligent pedestrian,but hit an innocent bystander or property



jocker12 said:


> Because is their job to do it, that's why they are considered experts, they do analysis on accidents in terms of numbers, locations, time of the day, location demographics, and so forth.
> 
> Their opinion is based on expertise not guessing.
> 
> You tend to trivialize what they say, and consider they are "guessing".
> 
> If you study Chinese and hear somebody speaking Chinese, you are not guessing what they say. You know because you studied it.
> 
> Don't you think?


I say guess because there is NO such expert that knows for sure what WOULD have happened. NONE. If so you believe in ghosts and Santa Claus. Its nothing more than their HUNCH that it could have been avoided. There's no way for them to accurately see what a human driver could have seen, only a good guess. Their findings are NOT fact

In short, they say a human could have avoided the accident. COULD HAVE. So bascially they made a whole article, I guess TV segment too, just to say "anything is possible". Smh, of course anything is possible,we knew that off break


----------



## WeirdBob

Bart McCoy said:


> so because some self proclaimed Monday morning quarterbacker said it, it must be true huh?


At least one of the Monday morning quarterbacks (Sam Abulsamid) is an experienced automotive engineer who has been professionally following the development of autonomous vehicle technology for several years. He definitely knows a lot more about it than you do.



Bart McCoy said:


> Do you even consider people OTHER than the illegal negligent pedestrian crossing? Slam on brakes - so the car behind you can end up in your turnk. Swere - so you can avoid the guilty negligent pedestrian,but hit an innocent bystander or property
> 
> I say guess becuase there is NO such expert that knows for sure what WOULD have happened. NONE. If so you believe in ghosts and Santa Claus. Its nothing more than their HUNCH that it could have been avoided. There's no way for them to accurately see what a human driver could have seen, only a good guess. Their findings are NOT fact
> 
> In short, they say a human could have avoided the accident. COULD HAVE. So bascially they made a whole article, I guess TV segment too, just to say "anything is possible". Smh, of course anything is possible,we knew that off break


Turnk? Swere? Becuase?

Day drinking again?


----------



## Bart McCoy

WeirdBob said:


> At least one of the Monday morning quarterbacks (Sam Abulsamid) is an experienced automotive engineer who has been professionally following the development of autonomous vehicle technology for several years. He definitely knows a lot more about it than you do.


I can careless about how experienced he is, NOTHING takes away from the fact that the pedestrian either willingly committed suicide, or neglected to look for oncoming traffic. That's what caused the accident.Uber did NOT cause the accident in the least bit. Y'all blaming Uber for not being able to avoid an accident caused by an irresponsible individual.

Just imagine if this was you, and a pedestrian just popped up in the road, you hit and kill them. You now have to live with killing somebody because that somebody didn't do the simple act of looking before you cross the road. How do you not see a truck at night with headlights? How do the headlights not stand out at night????? Nobody wants to address that, they just want to blame UBER for this pedestrian's negligence!!!!!



WeirdBob said:


> Turnk? Swere? Becuase?
> 
> Day drinking again?


Yeah, so your best defense of the pedestrian making a terrible decision in crossing are my spelling errors? How rich


----------



## WeirdBob

Bart McCoy said:


> Yeah, so your best defense of the pedestrian making a terrible decision in crossing are my spelling errors? How rich


----------



## LA_Native

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
*YouTube videos give a different impression of the site of a deadly Uber crash.*



Bart McCoy said:


> Just imagine if this was you, and a pedestrian just popped up in the road


Yeah a woman walking about 2 mph across a two-lane highway can be rightfully be described as "popping" out onto the road. The only thing slower than her walk, is the mind who'd actually believe that BS. lol


----------



## goneubering

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it should have. Uber's program is a farce. Hopefully, this is the end for it.


I think we can all agree about that!!


----------



## heynow321

Bart McCoy said:


> I can careless about how experienced he is, NOTHING takes away from the fact that the pedestrian either willingly committed suicide, or neglected to look for oncoming traffic. That's what caused the accident.Uber did NOT cause the accident in the least bit. Y'all blaming Uber for not being able to avoid an accident caused by an irresponsible individual.
> 
> Just imagine if this was you, and a pedestrian just popped up in the road, you hit and kill them. You now have to live with killing somebody because that somebody didn't do the simple act of looking before you cross the road. How do you not see a truck at night with headlights? How do the headlights not stand out at night????? Nobody wants to address that, they just want to blame UBER for this pedestrian's negligence!!!!!
> 
> Yeah, so your best defense of the pedestrian making a terrible decision in crossing are my spelling errors? How rich


Oh you can care less? Then why don't you? The expression is I "can't" care less genius. Learn English.


----------



## Bart McCoy

heynow321 said:


> Oh you can care less? Then why don't you? The expression is I "can't" care less genius. Learn English.


Actually its not. "Genius". And its not about English, its about grammar. Know what you're talking about, I was clearly speaking english

But what a typical weak defense tactic to use, when you know you're defeated. You can't win the topic/debate, so you resort to spelling and grammatical errors.


----------



## transporter007

WeirdBob said:


>


CLASSIC FLICK

March cadence was great: " I don't know what I've been told, jocker12 and iheartuber are the lowest of the low, sound off 1 2, sound off 3 4.."


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> I can careless about how experienced he is, NOTHING takes away from the fact that the pedestrian either willingly committed suicide, or neglected to look for oncoming traffic. That's what caused the accident.Uber did NOT cause the accident in the least bit. Y'all blaming Uber for not being able to avoid an accident caused by an irresponsible individual.
> 
> Just imagine if this was you, and a pedestrian just popped up in the road, you hit and kill them. You now have to live with killing somebody because that somebody didn't do the simple act of looking before you cross the road. How do you not see a truck at night with headlights? How do the headlights not stand out at night????? Nobody wants to address that, they just want to blame UBER for this pedestrian's negligence!!!!!
> 
> Yeah, so your best defense of the pedestrian making a terrible decision in crossing are my spelling errors? How rich


It is the law and this is not guessing.

The Arizona code states that at all times, drivers must, "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."

28-794. Drivers to exercise due care

Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:

1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.

2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.

3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> It is the law and this is not guessing.
> 
> The Arizona code states that at all times, drivers must, "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."
> 
> 28-794. Drivers to exercise due care
> 
> Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:
> 
> 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.
> 
> 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.
> 
> 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.


Now, if you can put aside your hate for Uber
Post some code that says pedestrians may legally walk out in front of a moving vehicle who has the right of way without looking, and lay blame on the driver that hits him.

I'll wait............


----------



## Taxi2Uber

LA_Native said:


> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
> 
> *YouTube videos give a different impression of the site of a deadly Uber crash.*
> 
> Yeah a woman walking about 2 mph across a two-lane highway can be rightfully be described as "popping" out onto the road. The only thing slower than her walk, is the mind who'd actually believe that BS. lol


Cant wait to hear the Police Chief's revised comments.
Hopefully somebody will do a reenactment with the more realistic view as well.


----------



## heynow321

Bart McCoy said:


> Actually its not. "Genius". And its not about English, its about grammar. Know what you're talking about, I was clearly speaking english
> 
> But what a typical weak defense tactic to use, when you know you're defeated. You can't win the topic/debate, so you resort to spelling and grammatical errors.


Kiddo you need to learn to read. Go back to elementary school and try again.


----------



## transporter007

Bart McCoy said:


> Now, if you can put aside your hate for Uber
> Post some code that says pedestrians may legally walk out in front of a moving vehicle who has the right of way without looking, and lay blame on the driver that hits him.
> 
> I'll wait............


*UBER killed my DOG!.......well not really, I put her down.....But UBER could've killed her!!!! Damn U Dara Khosrowshahi with ya funny name and $95ml annual salary +++
Who do u think u are!?, some sort of CEO !?*



heynow321 said:


> Kiddo you need to learn to read. Go back to elementary school and try again.


That's right Bart McCoy "Kiddo" U should give your Master's Degree in Urban & Regional Planning back to Georgetown University.

You HACK!


----------



## getawaycar

I hope Uber is sued into bankruptcy. 

Someone should file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona as well. Using humans as guinea pigs, without each person's express written consent, should be against the law.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Its obvious Uber bought the cheapest "As seen on TV" infomercial dash cam.
I guess they bought the cheapest sensors too.


----------



## transporter007

Taxi2Uber said:


> Cant wait to hear the Police Chief's revised comments.
> Hopefully somebody will do a reenactment with the more realistic view as well.


U volunteering to play the roll of Elaine Herzberg



Taxi2Uber said:


> Its obvious Uber bought the cheapest "As seen on TV" infomercial dash cam.
> I guess they bought the cheapest sensors too.


Yes "obvious" . Radio Shack close outs.
So basically u just type to type. No research, no proof no nothing, just off the top of ur head.
Cool!

Bwahahahaha


----------



## heynow321

transporter007 said:


> *UBER killed my DOG!.......well not really, I put her down.....But UBER could've killed her!!!! Damn U Dara Khosrowshahi with ya funny name and $95ml annual salary +++
> Who do u think u are!?, some sort of CEO !?*
> 
> That's right Bart McCoy "Kiddo" U should give your Master's Degree in Urban & Regional Planning back to Georgetown University.
> 
> You HACK!


Christ, how embarrassing for Georgetown! A graduate yet can't correctly use a very common idiom. Almost as pathetic as greg.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

transporter007 said:


> U volunteering to play the roll of Elaine Herzberg
> 
> Yes "obvious" . Radio Shack close outs
> 
> Bwahahahaha


Yup. As long as SDC is not driving


----------



## transporter007

Taxi2Uber said:


> Yup. As long as SDC is not driving


Great, one convicted felon texting behind the wheel Coming Up !


----------



## Taxi2Uber

transporter007 said:


> Great, one convicted felon texting behind the wheel Coming Up !


Or a millennial with a beer in one hand and a hamburger in the other. Either one would perform better than this SDC.


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> Now, if you can put aside your hate for Uber
> Post some code that says pedestrians may legally walk out in front of a moving vehicle who has the right of way without looking, and lay blame on the driver that hits him.
> 
> I'll wait............


This is not about love or hate.

The posted article it is not about what* a human driver* would have done. You mistaken the parallel comparison between what the robot did and what a human driver should have done, which at this point is almost irrelevant, and highly speculative. And I will explain how you make the mistake to speculate/guess and not the experts from the article.

What experts are saying is *about the robot*, NOT about a potential human driver... Read the story again.

Besides the law, you are ignoring the fact that the robot had Lidar sensors capable and meant to detect ANY obstacle in the cars path or the surroundings, and the software was supposed to react to the sensors input, but it failed.

For some reason, you shifted your focus to an imaginary issue - The experts said *A* human driver would have avoided the accident. Do you see that anywhere in the article ?

Here are the references to the experts:

_"But two *experts* who viewed the video told The Associated Press that the SUV's laser and radar sensors should have spotted Herzberg and her bicycle in time to brake."

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said *Bryant Walker Smith*, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."

*Sam Abuelsmaid, *an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.

"It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," he said. "From what I see in the video it sure looks like* the car is at fault*, not the pedestrian."

Smith said that from what he observed on the video, the Uber driver appears to be relying too much on the self-driving system by not looking up at the road.

"The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."

*The experts* were unsure if the test vehicle was equipped with a video monitor that the backup driver may have been viewing."_

They refer to the "safety driver" but I've already told you my opinion - the safety driver, which in fact is a monitor, was NOT driving the car, so it would have been very difficult for her to properly react, considering how she was entirely disconnected from the context. (comment #18 above)









Where are you getting the


Bart McCoy said:


> There's no way for them to accurately see what *a human driver could have seen*, only a good guess.


 from?

edit - here is your comment #29


----------



## transporter007

Taxi2Uber said:


> Or a millennial with a beer in one hand and a hamburger in the other. Either one would perform better than this SDC.


Gee if Taxi2Uber types it, it MUST be true

Bwahahahaha


----------



## Bart McCoy

jocker12 said:


> This is not about love or hate.
> 
> The posted article it is not about what* a human driver* would have done. You mistaken the parallel comparison between what the robot did and what a human driver should have done, which at this point is almost irrelevant, and highly speculative. And I will explain how you make the mistake to speculate/guess and not the experts from the article.
> 
> Where are you getting the
> from?


You're missing my point, and obviously haven't read my responses about the Uber truck technology. My point is simply the cause of the accident is because of the negligence of the pedestrian. That has NOTHING to do with whether a human was driving, a computer was driving, or both. My debate is about the sole reason the accident happened in the first place: the pedestrian was at fault.

So like I said, you must haven't read my many responses on the issue, because I clearly said the Uber's technology possibly failed (I can't say for sure because I haven't seen final data from the trucks computer that says the truck "did nothing"). I never debated or argued that Uber's autonomous system WORKED LIKE IT SHOULD. Never.

As for the quote, I stand buy it. Nobody can positivly say that a human driver could have avoided the accident. Its all pure hunches and guesses, whether its by regular folk like myself, or so called experts. All people are doing is Monday morning quarterbacking


----------



## jocker12

Bart McCoy said:


> You're missing my point, and obviously haven't read my responses about the Uber truck technology. My point is simply the cause of the accident is because of the negligence of the pedestrian. That has NOTHING to do with whether a human was driving, a computer was driving, or both. My debate is about the sole reason the accident happened in the first place: the pedestrian was at fault.
> 
> So like I said, you must haven't read my many responses on the issue, because I clearly said the Uber's technology possibly failed (I can't say for sure because I haven't seen final data from the trucks computer that says the truck "did nothing"). I never debated or argued that Uber's autonomous system WORKED LIKE IT SHOULD. Never.
> 
> As for the quote, I stand buy it. Nobody can positivly say that a human driver could have avoided the accident. Its all pure hunches and guesses, whether its by regular folk like myself, or so called experts. All people are doing is Monday morning quarterbacking


Are those comments about uber truck technology on this thread?


----------



## Yam Digger

jocker12 said:


> Can you explain why those experts opinion cannot be trusted, please?


Dude: Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## jocker12

Yam Digger said:


> Dude: Don't feed the trolls.


I don't think there are so many trolls here.

What I think is this:


jocker12 said:


> People get their driver licenses with only 80% driving skills out of 100%, and that is a problem. Uber took advantage of this glitch and allowed them to transport strangers for money, giving those drivers the impression they are good enough to do the job well. They are not!


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> You're missing my point, and obviously haven't read my responses about the Uber truck technology. My point is simply the cause of the accident is because of the negligence of the pedestrian. That has NOTHING to do with whether a human was driving, a computer was driving, or both. My debate is about the sole reason the accident happened in the first place: the pedestrian was at fault.
> 
> So like I said, you must haven't read my many responses on the issue, because I clearly said the Uber's technology possibly failed (I can't say for sure because I haven't seen final data from the trucks computer that says the truck "did nothing"). I never debated or argued that Uber's autonomous system WORKED LIKE IT SHOULD. Never.
> 
> As for the quote, I stand buy it. Nobody can positivly say that a human driver could have avoided the accident. Its all pure hunches and guesses, whether its by regular folk like myself, or so called experts. All people are doing is Monday morning quarterbacking


Your sole point in the many, many posts you've made is, there would be no accident had the pedestrian not crossed illegally. Right?
While most others say that there would no accident if the SDC performed as it should.
While you hang your hat on this:

_*28-793*. Crossing at other than crosswalk
A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk._

you conveniently ignore this, because it doesn't fit in your argument:

_*28-794*. Drivers to exercise due care
Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:
1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.
2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.
3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway._

The point that I, and most are making, is that unexpected things happen all the time, and regardless of the "hows" and "whys" the crosser got in that position, the SDC was put in a position to make a decision. The SDC failed.

If the exact event occurred but the crosser was in the cross walk, then you would say, "Oh, then its the SDC fault"
To that I would say, "Again. That's not the point." The SDC did not perform as it should. It failed and a death was a result of it.
Even if the crosser was found 100% responsible, you would say "I told you so", and again I would say "Ok, but that's not the point." The SDC still failed.

You are strangely very accepting of the actions, or lack of actions, of the SDC. You agree that the SDC DID NOT perform as it should, and you have even said that given the exact situation and you were the driver, you would have no problem AT ALL if you performed exactly as the SDC. Scary. Your value system is different than mine.


----------



## jocker12

Taxi2Uber said:


> Your sole point in the many, many posts you've made is, there would be no accident had the pedestrian not crossed illegally. Right?
> While most others say that there would no accident if the SDC performed as it should.
> While you hang your hat on this:
> 
> _*28-793*. Crossing at other than crosswalk
> A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
> B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
> C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk._
> 
> you conveniently ignore this, because it doesn't fit in your argument:
> 
> _*28-794*. Drivers to exercise due care
> Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:
> 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.
> 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.
> 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway._
> 
> The point that I, and most are making, is that unexpected things happen all the time, and regardless of the "hows" and "whys" the crosser got in that position, the SDC was put in a position to make a decision. The SDC failed.
> 
> If the exact event occurred but the crosser was in the cross walk, then you would say, "Oh, then its the SDC fault"
> To that I would say, "Again. That's not the point." The SDC did not perform as it should. It failed and a death was a result of it.
> Even if the crosser was found 100% responsible, you would say "I told you so", and again I would say "Ok, but that's not the point." The SDC still failed.
> 
> You are strangely very accepting of the actions, or lack of actions, of the SDC. You agree that the SDC DID NOT perform as it should, and you have even said that given the exact situation and you were the driver, you would have no problem AT ALL if you performed exactly as the SDC. Scary. Your value system is different than mine.


Here is a very good explanation for this situation (from https://uberpeople.net/threads/disg...ber-is-the-theranos-of-self-driving-i.249406/)


jocker12 said:


> _The Victim_
> Elaine Herzberg was jaywalking. It was dark. She was struck and killed by a car at or near the speed limit. Had it been any other car driven by a human, legal responsibility would almost certainly fall on the victim.
> 
> But that's not what happened. Elaine Herzberg was killed by a machine *presumed to meet a higher standard, a standard its creators refuse to divulge, and its supporters take on faith.*


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> Make sure you say something bad about Waymo amd GM before their ridiculous robots kill someone, because if you would say again you criticized them before the accident and I ask you to show where, if you don't do it now you'll be caught butt naked again...


I have stated many times SDCs will kill people. Just as I have pointed out many times that Uber's program was infantile. You only hear what you want to hear.



heynow321 said:


> Oh you can care less? Then why don't you? The expression is I "can't" care less genius. Learn English.


Actually, it's _I couldn't care less_. Also, your punctuation is all wrong. You need a comma after "Oh" and your quotes should enclose the entire quote, not a single word. Learn English.


----------



## Whistler

Bart McCoy said:


> Now, if you can put aside your hate for Uber
> Post some code that says pedestrians may legally walk out in front of a moving vehicle who has the right of way without looking, and lay blame on the driver that hits him.
> 
> I'll wait............


It doesn't matter if a pedestrian crosses the street legally or illegally - the pedestrian HAS the right of way. Now granted this is CA Law, but I'd bet it's the pretty close as AZ law.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/right_of_way

*"Respect *the right-of-way of pedestrians. Always stop for any pedestrian crossing at corners or other crosswalks, even if the crosswalk is in the middle of the block, at corners with or without traffic signal lights, whether or not the crosswalks are marked by painted lines."

Also:

"Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions."

Now it's true that if you hit a pedestrian crossing the street illegally you may not be held responsible, but there's no guarantee of that. If a pedestrian jumps out in the middle of the street without giving you a chance to stop and you have dash cam video to prove it - then you're likely ok. If you don't have dash cam ... or a witness ... you might be held responsible.

But in the case of the AZ woman who got killed - Uber will definitely be held at fault in the end. (ie: Uber will PAY). It was an older slow moving pedestrian crossing a big wide street with no other obstructions around, and that probably would have been spotted by a human paying attention (the released video doesn't show enough light on the street to see the pedestrian). Look at the other videos showing how much light there is on the street where the pedestiran got hit.

And if you understand how LIDAR works then you'd know the car DEFINITELY should have spotted the pedestrian, and stopped for the pedestrian. (This is why Uber will be at fault in this accident.) LIDAR is radar - ever see a cop only radaring cars within 20 feet of them ? That's right they can radar a truck upto 1 mile away. If you don't understand how LIDAR works ... then I can't really help you.


----------



## transporter007

RamzFanz said:


> I have stated many times SDCs will kill people. Just as I have pointed out many times that Uber's program was infantile. You only hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Actually, it's _I couldn't care less_. Also, your punctuation is all wrong. You need a comma after "Oh" and your quotes should enclose the entire quote, not a single word. Learn English.



I've stated many times air travel will kill people
100 years after the first commercial airline flight people are still dying
Yet we continue to book tickets
I've stated many time that Ship travel will kill people
Hundreds of years after the first ship sailed people & sailor are still dying
Yet ships still transverse the globe 
I've stated many time that travel by automobile will kill people 
133 years after Carl Benz invention of the motorized tricycle people are still dying 
Yet we continue to travel by automobile 
 if Uber discovered a cure for cancer RamzFanz jocker12 and iheartuber would Denounce it
Their respective pathological hatred & loathing of uber and themselves eliminates any possible rational argument.
Yet we continue to engage these malcontents


----------



## RamzFanz

transporter007 said:


> I've stated many times air travel will kill people
> 100 years after the first commercial airline flight people are still dying
> Yet we continue to book tickets
> I've stated many time that Ship travel will kill people
> Hundreds of years after the first ship sailed people & sailor are still dying
> Yet ships still transverse the globe
> I've stated many time that travel by automobile will kill people
> 133 years after Carl Benz invention of the motorized tricycle people are still dying
> Yet we continue to travel by automobile
> if Uber discovered a cure for cancer RamzFanz jocker12 and iheartuber would Denounce it
> Their respective pathological hatred & loathing of uber and themselves eliminates any possible rational argument.
> Yet we continue to engage these malcontents


I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps you can smarten it up for me?


----------



## transporter007

RamzFanz said:


> I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps you can smarten it up for me?


Correction: U mean dumb it down 4 u. Sad

I'll bet u drive 12-20 hrs a day.

*Driving for more than two hours a day makes you less intelligent, study finds*
*Researchers investigating how sedentary behaviour affects brainpower found IQ scores fell faster for RamzFanz who drove long distances every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/driving-more-than-two-hours-day-less-intelligent-iq-watching-tv-computer-study-university-of-a7855416.html*


----------



## iheartuber

transporter007 said:


> I've stated many times air travel will kill people
> 100 years after the first commercial airline flight people are still dying
> Yet we continue to book tickets
> I've stated many time that Ship travel will kill people
> Hundreds of years after the first ship sailed people & sailor are still dying
> Yet ships still transverse the globe
> I've stated many time that travel by automobile will kill people
> 133 years after Carl Benz invention of the motorized tricycle people are still dying
> Yet we continue to travel by automobile
> if Uber discovered a cure for cancer RamzFanz jocker12 and iheartuber would Denounce it
> Their respective pathological hatred & loathing of uber and themselves eliminates any possible rational argument.
> Yet we continue to engage these malcontents


Tomato, tell your real estate developer bosses that they may have to find other ways to squeeze a few extra bucks out of their projects than eliminating parking lots in high rise buildings.



RamzFanz said:


> I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps you can smarten it up for me?


Don't fight with the Tomato- he's on your side


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> I have stated many times SDCs will kill people. Just as I have pointed out many times that Uber's program was infantile. You only hear what you want to hear.


I've asked you to show us your criticizing Uber self driving cars program words before the accident, and you panicked into deflection, changing the topic or ignored my simple requests. If you don't know how to cut and paste or post a link here, I can show you.

But let me explain you the complications of self driving cars from now forward.

Today, all the companies involved in self driving cars development try to distance from Uber, like you do, but all the developers are frozen scared. There is no difference between all the companies in terms of lying the general public about their farce. *All of them tried to cut corners* in order to put primitive robots on the public roads, hoping to bank more miles and report safety or convince the public how amazing the self driving cars technology is.

The developers also had the nerve to ask regulators and legislators to hold the robots to the same standards the ordinary people, in this case drivers, are. That is the most ridiculous and tormenting aspect of this pathetic circus.

You keep repeating a stupidity about how self driving cars are not supposed to be perfect if launched commercially, and how, during their testing on the public roads, they will continue to kill people, like this should be OK and simply ignored.

Well, if they continue to test, I'll assure you a potential next fatality will shut this BS down. *All of it*. If you don't believe it, take off your dark blind shades and open the internet. This accident buried self driving ridiculously rudimentary robots and opened a necessary discussion about developers lies and robots impotency.

I told you, these self driving cars could be imperfect during testing, because that is what testing is all about - tweaking and twisting back and forth to achieve development progress, but this tragedy put all developers heads in the guillotine. If they continue lying, the blade will fall to stop the nonsense.

Now going back to the "same standards" cacophony. It is INSANE to pretend a computerized sensorized robot/machine, capable to 360 degrees vision, around the corner obstacle detection, laser surroundings scanner not impaired by darkness, advanced frontal and posterior sonar detection, and high speed data processing power, could be compared with a human... correct. That was your entire thesis around self driving cars obvious and dominant superiority over a simple boring human driver. Well, what you miss is how with more capabilities comes more responsibility, or in other words, *the more advanced the self driving cars will look on the paper, promised by their developers, the higher the standards they will be kept to, will be*.

This simple but obvious progression will force the developers to push further in order to reach their projections, which will delay everything, increasing the overall costs and overloading the systems. This will create inconsistencies in the software and the hardware, disruptions of the projected systems dynamic, and ultimately more failures. This happened before. The autonomy trend was studied by the Department of Defense and their conclusions are similar to what I am telling you here. The military needs automation in their supply or combat missions, a lot more than you need a self driving car to play with, but complete automation, what mentally challenged autonomous cars developers promise, is impossible.

I know you dream about self driving cars with your loved ones in mind. I appreciate you continue to defend your dreams while others already abandoned ship, but if you'll open your eyes and search for the logic of all this self driving cars nonsense, you'll understand what I am saying here.

When a Waymo or GM robot will be involved in fatal accident don't have a heart attack. I can tell you that, if those robots remain on the public roads, is 100% certain another person will be killed. And unlike your defensively demented opinion that a human death by a robot is OK, I am telling you how a next possible fatality will delete your dreams in an instant.


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> I've asked you to show us your criticizing Uber self driving cars program words before the accident, and you panicked into deflection, changing the topic or ignored my simple requests. If you don't know how to cut and paste or post a link here, I can show you.
> 
> But let me explain you the complications of self driving cars from now forward.
> 
> Today, all the companies involved in self driving cars development try to distance from Uber, like you do, but all the developers are frozen scared. There is no difference between all the companies in terms of lying the general public about their farce. *All of them tried to cut corners* in order to put primitive robots on the public roads, hoping to bank more miles and report safety or convince the public how amazing the self driving cars technology is.
> 
> The developers also had the nerve to ask regulators and legislators to hold the robots to the same standards the ordinary people, in this case drivers, are. That is the most ridiculous and tormenting aspect of this pathetic circus.
> 
> You keep repeating a stupidity about how self driving cars are not supposed to be perfect if launched commercially, and how, during their testing on the public roads, they will continue to kill people, like this should be OK and simply ignored.
> 
> Well, if they continue to test, I'll assure you a potential next fatality will shut this BS down. *All of it*. If you don't believe it, take off your dark blind shades and open the internet. This accident buried self driving ridiculously rudimentary robots and opened a necessary discussion about developers lies and robots impotency.
> 
> I told you, these self driving cars could be imperfect during testing, because that is what testing is all about - tweaking and twisting back and forth to achieve development progress, but this tragedy put all developers heads in the guillotine. If they continue lying, the blade will fall to stop the nonsense.
> 
> Now going back to the "same standards" cacophony. It is INSANE to pretend a computerized sensorized robot/machine, capable to 360 degrees vision, around the corner obstacle detection, laser surroundings scanner not impaired by darkness, advanced frontal and posterior sonar detection, and high speed data processing power, could be compared with a human... correct. That was your entire thesis around self driving cars obvious and dominant superiority over a simple boring human driver. Well, what you miss is how with more capabilities comes more responsibility, or in other words, *the more advanced the self driving cars will look on the paper, promised by their developers, the higher the standards they will be kept to, will be*.
> 
> This simple but obvious progression will force the developers to push further in order to reach their projections, which will delay everything, increasing the overall costs and overloading the systems. This will create inconsistencies in the software and the hardware, disruptions of the projected systems dynamic, and ultimately more failures. This happened before. The autonomy trend was studied by the Department of Defense and their conclusions are similar to what I am telling you here. The military needs automation in their supply or combat missions, a lot more than you need a self driving car to play with, but complete automation, what mentally challenged autonomous cars developers promise, is impossible.
> 
> I know you dream about self driving cars with your loved ones in mind. I appreciate you continue to defend your dreams while others already abandoned ship, but if you'll open your eyes and search for the logic of all this self driving cars nonsense, you'll understand what I am saying here.
> 
> When a Waymo or GM robot will be involved in fatal accident don't have a heart attack. I can tell you that, if those robots remain on the public roads, is 100% certain another person will be killed. And unlike your defensively demented opinion that a human death by a robot is OK, I am telling you how a next possible fatality will delete your dreams in an instant.


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

It matters not what you ask as you are an asshat. I will never devolve to what you demand. I have been clear and concise for years on here and anyone can see this. I have also spoonfed you links that you summarily ignored. You're boring and uninformed.

Your response is both laughably incoherent and clownish. No sensible person could take you or your moronic edited posts seriously. I don't know why you try so hard to present yourself as a knowledgeable person, but no casual observer would see you that way.

You lie, omit, alter, misconstrue, misinterpret, misrepresent, and take any opportunity you have to mislead people. You deceive people using every chance.

You're inarticulate and demonstrably wrong. I _will_ myself to not ever judge a person like you by their vocabulary or grammar, but by their thoughts alone, and you consistently fail in all regards.

Let me boil my years-long explanation on here down to the most simple terms I can: Uber was faking. Self-driving cars are already here and are not faking. If you don't like it and deny it, that sucks for you.

This incident will mean nothing in the test of time because it was the amateur pretending to be something it wasn't.

You really do sicken me. It dismays me that anyone would ever agree with you. It saddens me that so many are that uneducated and susceptible to a Charleton with such a low IQ and unawareness of this subject.

Seriously, I respect many of the nay-sayers on here, but you're just a harmful poison. You have no idea what you are even talking about. You make an ass of them when they have potential to learn.

We aren't advesaries, you can't live up to that roll. You are an idiot, our Simple Jack, ruining our collective hope of being well informed.

In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn, headed off to demand that the earth is flat. But, but, the earth LOOKS flat in all these 2D photos!

This is my final goodbye to you. I hope you seek help.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
> 
> It matters not what you ask as you are an asshat. I will never devolve to what you demand. I have been clear and concise for years on here and anyone can see this. I have also spoonfed you links that you summarily ignored. You're boring and uninformed.
> 
> Your response is both laughably incoherent and clownish. No sensible person could take you or your moronic edited posts seriously. I don't know why you try so hard to present yourself as a knowledgeable person, but no casual observer would see you that way.
> 
> You lie, omit, alter, misconstrue, misinterpret, misrepresent, and take any opportunity you have to mislead people. You deceive people using every chance.
> 
> You're inarticulate and demonstrably wrong. I _will_ myself to not ever judge a person like you by their vocabulary or grammar, but by their thoughts alone, and you consistently fail in all regards.
> 
> Let me boil my years-long explanation on here down to the most simple terms I can: Uber was faking. Self-driving cars are already here and are not faking. If you don't like it and deny it, that sucks for you.
> 
> This incident will mean nothing in the test of time because it was the amateur pretending to be something it wasn't.
> 
> You really do sicken me. It dismays me that anyone would ever agree with you. It saddens me that so many are that uneducated and susceptible to a Charleton with such a low IQ and unawareness of this subject.
> 
> Seriously, I respect many of the nay-sayers on here, but you're just a harmful poison. You have no idea what you are even talking about. You make an ass of them when they have potential to learn.
> 
> We aren't advesaries, you can't live up to that roll. You are an idiot ruining our collective hope of being well informed.
> 
> In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn, headed off to demand that the earth is flat. This is my final goodbye to you. I hope you seek help.


Coming from you, that is a compliment You just started to understand the lie and panicked. Take a deep breath bud. Everything is gonna be allright .


----------



## transporter007

jocker12 said:


> Coming from you, that is a compliment You just started to understand the lie and panicked. Take a deep breath bud. Everything is gonna be allright .


U do understand jocker12 and iheartuber that society and the business community have relegated U to low skill low wage uber driver for a reason. Your self-loathing and destructive behavior manifests itself into the premise of all ur poisoned posts.

We don't expect u to be capable of anything other than sitting on ur brains 18 hrs a day 
shuttling Uber's clients for $4 hourly.

Ur not expected, nor encouraged to express ur emotional bygone era psychotic opinions

Throughout ur lives you've embarrassed yourselves and your families.

jocker12 and iheartuber accept their public humiliation, however their posts continue to embarrass their families and friends

Their mental defects go way beyond uber

Sad 



RamzFanz said:


> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
> 
> It matters not what you ask as you are an asshat. I will never devolve to what you demand. I have been clear and concise for years on here and anyone can see this. I have also spoonfed you links that you summarily ignored. You're boring and uninformed.
> 
> Your response is both laughably incoherent and clownish. No sensible person could take you or your moronic edited posts seriously. I don't know why you try so hard to present yourself as a knowledgeable person, but no casual observer would see you that way.
> 
> You lie, omit, alter, misconstrue, misinterpret, misrepresent, and take any opportunity you have to mislead people. You deceive people using every chance.
> 
> You're inarticulate and demonstrably wrong. I _will_ myself to not ever judge a person like you by their vocabulary or grammar, but by their thoughts alone, and you consistently fail in all regards.
> 
> Let me boil my years-long explanation on here down to the most simple terms I can: Uber was faking. Self-driving cars are already here and are not faking. If you don't like it and deny it, that sucks for you.
> 
> This incident will mean nothing in the test of time because it was the amateur pretending to be something it wasn't.
> 
> You really do sicken me. It dismays me that anyone would ever agree with you. It saddens me that so many are that uneducated and susceptible to a Charleton with such a low IQ and unawareness of this subject.
> 
> Seriously, I respect many of the nay-sayers on here, but you're just a harmful poison. You have no idea what you are even talking about. You make an ass of them when they have potential to learn.
> 
> We aren't advesaries, you can't live up to that roll. You are an idiot, our Simple Jack, ruining our collective hope of being well informed.
> 
> In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn, headed off to demand that the earth is flat. But, but, the earth LOOKS flat in all these 2D photos!
> 
> This is my final goodbye to you. I hope you seek help.


_"In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn_"

I disagree, I'm confident jocker12 and iheartuber next life chapter is incarceration from pedephilia charges, followed by inmate justice
http://abcnews.go.com/US/prison-living-hell-pedophiles/story?id=90004


----------



## iheartuber

transporter007 said:


> U do understand jocker12 and iheartuber that society and the business community have relegated U to low skill low wage uber driver for a reason. Your self-loathing and destructive behavior manifests itself into the premise of all ur poisoned posts.
> 
> We don't expect u to be capable of anything other than sitting on ur brains 18 hrs a day
> shuttling Uber's clients for $4 hourly.
> 
> Ur not expected, nor encouraged to express ur emotional bygone era psychotic opinions
> 
> Throughout ur lives you've embarrassed yourselves and your families.
> 
> jocker12 and iheartuber accept their public humiliation, however their posts continue to embarrass their families and friends
> 
> Sad
> 
> _"In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn_"
> 
> I disagree, I'm confident jocker12 and iheartuber next life chapter is incarceration from pedephilia charges, followed by inmate justice
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/prison-living-hell-pedophiles/story?id=90004


Think of robo cars as a three-legged stool.

One leg is their tech
The next leg is the companies being able to handle the logistics
The last leg is the public going bananas for this

If any of those legs are weak the stool will topple over.

The death in Phoenix proves leg #1 isn't so strong

Leg #2 & 3 cannot be proved until the service officially launches

Within decades I'm sure all three legs will get strong, but right now at least one if not all are weak.

Go ahead... roll this out within weeks. All that will happen is the stool will topple over.


----------



## transporter007

iheartuber said:


> Think of robo cars as a three-legged stool.
> 
> One leg is their tech
> The next leg is the companies being able to handle the logistics
> The last leg is the public going bananas for this
> 
> If any of those legs are weak the stool will topple over.
> 
> The death in Phoenix proves leg #1 isn't so strong
> 
> Leg #2 & 3 cannot be proved until the service officially launches
> 
> Within decades I'm sure all three legs will get strong, but right now at least one if not all are weak.
> 
> Go ahead... roll this out within weeks. All that will happen is the stool will topple over.


_"All that will happen is the stool will topple over"_
Sort of like all your self loathing demented uniformed arguments_

Sad 
_
Stick to what you're good at, chauffeuring Uber's clients @ 4 bucks an hour


----------



## iheartuber

transporter007 said:


> _"All that will happen is the stool will topple over"_
> Sort of like all your self loathing demented uniformed arguments_
> 
> Sad
> _
> Stick to what you're good at, chauffeuring Uber's clients @ 4 bucks an hour


Tomato, my words from last month still stand:

Six months...

A year...
Two years will pass

And robot taxis will not take very many customers from Uber human drivers

For a variety of reasons

Keep saying I'm wrong
Keep saying I'm slow

I don't care

I'll wait the allotted time, show you how what you're saying has not happened and then I'll let the truth speak for itself.

PS- if you're so "right" and I'm so "wrong" then why did you retire the "Tomatopaste" handle?

You made a lot of bold predictions as Tomatopaste, and by retiring the handle it sure looks like you are trying to distance yourself from those comments.


----------



## transporter007

iheartuber said:


> Tomato, my words from last month still stand:
> 
> Six months...
> 
> A year...
> Two years will pass
> 
> And robot taxis will not take very many customers from Uber human drivers
> 
> For a variety of reasons
> 
> Keep saying I'm wrong
> Keep saying I'm slow
> 
> I don't care
> 
> I'll wait the allotted time, show you how what you're saying has not happened and then I'll let the truth speak for itself.
> 
> PS- if you're so "right" and I'm so "wrong" then why did you retire the "Tomatopaste" handle?
> 
> You made a lot of bold predictions as Tomatopaste, and by retiring the handle it sure looks like you are trying to distance yourself from those comments.


Uber will do anything to remove the human driver.
If autonomous is delays
This will be the next step









Like I've posted numerous times, the federal government wants AND supports SDC
jocker12 iheartuber RamzFanz

*Federal spending bill includes $100 million for SDC research*
*http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ing-bill-includes-100-million-for-av-research

It is the first time Congress has appropriated money for the program since the Department of Transportation designated 10 proving ground pilot sites to encourage testing, validation and information sharing related to self-driving technologies.*


----------



## goneubering

transporter007 said:


> U do understand jocker12 and iheartuber that society and the business community have relegated U to low skill low wage uber driver for a reason. Your self-loathing and destructive behavior manifests itself into the premise of all ur poisoned posts.
> 
> We don't expect u to be capable of anything other than sitting on ur brains 18 hrs a day
> shuttling Uber's clients for $4 hourly.
> 
> Ur not expected, nor encouraged to express ur emotional bygone era psychotic opinions
> 
> Throughout ur lives you've embarrassed yourselves and your families.
> 
> jocker12 and iheartuber accept their public humiliation, however their posts continue to embarrass their families and friends
> 
> Their mental defects go way beyond uber
> 
> Sad
> 
> _"In the end, you will slink away quietly, wrong at every turn_"
> 
> I disagree, I'm confident jocker12 and iheartuber next life chapter is incarceration from pedephilia charges, followed by inmate justice
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/prison-living-hell-pedophiles/story?id=90004


What a disgusting troll. It's time to Ignore you. Goodbye.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

I've been reading so many articles on the SDC topics lately.
I didn't know that Uber was also testing Autonomous 18-wheeler Volvo big rigs in AZ.
Yikes!


----------



## transporter007

Taxi2Uber said:


> I've been reading so many articles on the SDC topics lately.
> I didn't know that Uber was also testing Autonomous 18-wheeler Volvo big rigs in AZ.
> Yikes!
> View attachment 216816


_"I didn't know that Uber was also testing Autonomous 18-wheeler Volvo big rigs in AZ."_
That ain't all u don't know

Sad


----------



## Taxi2Uber

transporter007 said:


> _"I didn't know that Uber was also testing Autonomous 18-wheeler Volvo big rigs in AZ."_
> That ain't all u don't know
> 
> Sad


You're funny

Happy


----------



## RamzFanz

Just so you all know, I regret some of my remarks on here. I lowered myself for personal gratification.

I have been personally attacked over and over. My family has been disparaged. My history and knowledge have been misconstrued.

However, I am better than this and I let myself down.

I will do my best to allow their words speak for themselves.

You are all intelligent enough to judge what we express without the flame wars.



transporter007 said:


> Correction: U mean dumb it down 4 u. Sad
> 
> I'll bet u drive 12-20 hrs a day.
> 
> *Driving for more than two hours a day makes you less intelligent, study finds*
> *Researchers investigating how sedentary behaviour affects brainpower found IQ scores fell faster for RamzFanz who drove long distances every day.
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/driving-more-than-two-hours-day-less-intelligent-iq-watching-tv-computer-study-university-of-a7855416.html*


I barely drive for Uber anymore.

I spend most hours of my days investing.

Thanks for the warning.


----------



## transporter007

RamzFanz said:


> Just so you all know, I regret some of my remarks on here. I lowered myself for gratification.
> 
> I have been personally attacked over and over. My family has been disparaged. My history and knowledge have been misconstrued.
> 
> However, I am better than this and I let myself down.
> 
> I will do my best to allow their words speak for themselves.
> 
> You are all intelligent enough to judge what we express without the flame wars.
> 
> I barely drive for Uber anymore.
> 
> I spend most hours of my days investing.
> 
> Thanks for the warning.


*I'd like to invest, however most of my assets are tied-up in Loose Change *


----------



## RamzFanz

transporter007 said:


> Uber will do anything to remove the human driver.
> If autonomous is delays
> This will be the next step
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've posted numerous times, the federal government wants AND supports SDC
> jocker12 iheartuber RamzFanz
> 
> *Federal spending bill includes $100 million for SDC research*
> *http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ing-bill-includes-100-million-for-av-research
> 
> It is the first time Congress has appropriated money for the program since the Department of Transportation designated 10 proving ground pilot sites to encourage testing, validation and information sharing related to self-driving technologies.*


I agree. Any thought that the Government is going to stand in the way of SDCs is a misstep. The government will do as they are told. This is bigger than the US government, like it or not. Plebs like politicians do not stand in the way of a $14T market.

Ever.

They will not.


----------



## Driver Ed

One pedestrian death will not create a ripple of public sentiment. Uber can afford to create simulation roadways and not use public streets to experiment with their model. But why spend the money when statistics indicate a potential for only a few deaths?


----------



## transporter007

Driver Ed said:


> One pedestrian death will not create a ripple of public sentiment. Uber can afford to create simulation roadways and not use public streets to experiment with their model. But why spend the money when statistics indicate a potential for only a few deaths?


Outdoor Laboratories already exist worldwide
Here's one https://mcity.umich.edu/

US Federal gov also included in recently approved $1.3trillion budget funds for autonomous testing http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ing-bill-includes-100-million-for-av-research

Federal spending bill includes $100 million for AV research
One-fifth earmarked to fund proving grounds


----------



## Karl Marx

heynow321 said:


> not only should it have picked her up but she was the only object around! there was nothing else going on on that road! the car should have "seen" her hundreds of meters before getting near her.


This event reminds me of the short story by Isaac Asimov, Sally. A tale of an autonomous car that commits murder to protect itself (herself) and her other autonomous brethren from being repurposed for a new market of refurbished auto-matics. 
This is 'fast' moving new technology. That the human driver was not paying attention means that until we have realized the newest danger of inattention we will need to have a back up video monitored by an additional human. There was no need for this woman to have been killed.

In the Jetsons, George Jetson had but one job function, that was to press a button. The human driver monitoring the Uber self driving function failed at his one duty as a monitor, to press a button. Peripheral vision and future anticipation planning is obviously a weak area in AI systems.

Blame game is pointless. We didn't lose a machine but rather lost our collective soul to another large greedy corporation. Uber has exploited weak regulations, gutless politicians and now a needless human tragedy.


----------



## nomad_driver

Bart McCoy said:


> Whenever you try to avoid something like this, normally it means you're making another dangerous action , which could endanger others. Slamming on brakes, swerving, you can hit somebody else, another car, or even property. Think if cars are behind you or to the side of you when you're making this miraculous attempt to avoid hitting somebody who should not be in the roadway


Nothing miraculous about it I have swerved to avoid impacts dozens of times. It helps to be trained in doing such things.


----------



## goneubering

nomad_driver said:


> Nothing miraculous about it I have swerved to avoid impacts dozens of times. It helps to be trained in doing such things.


In the past week I've swerved twice to avoid idiots stumbling and crossing the street in the dark and they were way outside the crosswalk. It's what good drivers do in heavily populated areas.


----------



## NoPooPool

Bart McCoy said:


> Looking at the video, that's all there was.
> Again, normal people reaction time, not superheroes like yourself


Yep, that would be true, if you are merely looking at the video's last two seconds. But, No. 1). The robo car's system failed in not recognizing a pedestrian crossing ahead. No. 2). Your failure to consider or acknowledge the human monitor is looking down, eyes totally off of the roadway ahead, intermittently for no less than 7-8 seconds of the final 13-14 seconds before impact. There was much more reaction time to avoid the crash, if the human driver was actually paying attention with eyes focused ahead and scanning the roadway ahead, and GETTING THE BIG PICTURE, which is one of the five Seeing Habits that is taught in any defensive driving course.

I just went to the link posted by Jocker12 in this thread. That analysis states that the human driver shown in the video was looking DOWN for no less than 10 seconds of the final 13 seconds prior to the impact. I guess that reinforces my layman's unprofessional forensic analysis of the crash. Hmm!


----------



## Bart McCoy

nomad_driver said:


> Nothing miraculous about it I have swerved to avoid impacts dozens of times. It helps to be trained in doing such things.





goneubering said:


> In the past week I've swerved twice to avoid idiots stumbling and crossing the street in the dark and they were way outside the crosswalk. It's what good drivers do in heavily populated areas.


I'm pretty sure yall swerves scared other drivers. Swerving means you're going off the normal path, crossing the while or yellow lines, which would look odd for other drivers. Other drivers don't know your intent for swerving , they just see swerving. They don't always know you're swerving to avoid something else, some think you just can't driver.

If you guys are going to sit up here and act like your swerving can't endanger others then I'll bow out of this convo, I'll be back when you return to reality.


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> I'll be back when you return to reality.


Says the guy who said a woman walking a bike at approximately 2 mph across a two-lane road just "popped out of nowhere."


----------



## NoPooPool

heynow321 said:


> Oh you can care less? Then why don't you? The expression is I "can't" care less genius. Learn English.


You are correct heynow321. I say the same thing to myself every time I hear some moron completely state that expression wrong.

If they "could care less", then they are probably caring way too much. The expression is actually as you state, "I couldn't care less", to actually mean what the statement is trying to convey. Unfortunately, probably 95% of folks that use that expression, say it incorrectly.


----------



## goneubering

Bart McCoy said:


> I'm pretty sure yall swerves scared other drivers. Swerving means you're going off the normal path, crossing the while or yellow lines, which would look odd for other drivers. Other drivers don't know your intent for swerving , they just see swerving. They don't always know you're swerving to avoid something else, some think you just can't driver.
> 
> If you guys are going to sit up here and act like your swerving can't endanger others then I'll bow out of this convo, I'll be back when you return to reality.


Don't be silly. Other drivers swerve to avoid pedestrians. If you text while you drive then you might not swerve in time and then you end up hurting or killing someone.


----------



## NoPooPool

jocker12 said:


> It is the law and this is not guessing.
> 
> The Arizona code states that at all times, drivers must, "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."
> 
> 28-794. Drivers to exercise due care
> 
> Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:
> 
> 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.
> 
> 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.
> 
> 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.


Hmm! Uber robo car and the human "safety"driver neglected to carry out even one of those listed. Umm!


----------



## heynow321

NoPooPool said:


> You are correct heynow321. I say the same thing to myself every time I hear some moron completely state that expression wrong.
> 
> If they "could care less", then they are probably caring too much. The expression is actually as you state, "I couldn't care less", to actually mean what the statement is trying to convey. Unfortunately, probably 95% of films that use that expression, say it incorrectly.


I know. It's just another example of the gross incompetence and low-level illiterates we have running around these days.


----------



## Bart McCoy

NoPooPool said:


> You are correct heynow321. I say the same thing to myself every time I hear some moron completely state that expression wrong.
> 
> If they "could care less", then they are probably caring too much. The expression is actually as you state, "I couldn't care less", to actually mean what the statement is trying to convey. Unfortunately, probably 95% of films that use that expression, say it incorrectly.


right, because only you guys would nitpick, when the rest of the world understand what they are trying to say
usually people point something like this out when they are on the losing end of a debate.............


----------



## Hail Macbeth

I'm upset the experts concluded she should've not been hit. I was waiting on expert opinion to determine if I should be upset about her dying, and now I have to be.


----------



## heynow321

Bart McCoy said:


> right, because only you guys would nitpick, when the rest of the world understand what they are trying to say
> usually people point something like this out when they are on the losing end of a debate.............


no i was just pointing out your ineptitude. you would do yourself well to learn to communicate in the same manner as educated adults if you want to be taken seriously. Also, it would probably be a good idea to stop publicly embarrassing Georgetown.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Hail Macbeth said:


> I'm upset the experts concluded she should've not been hit. I was waiting on expert opinion to determine if I should be upset about her dying, and now I have to be.


did they conclude she shouldn't have been hit because she should have looked before crossing the road? or they determined Uber is a superhero and should have saved her from her own negligence



heynow321 said:


> no i was just pointing out your ineptitude. you would do yourself well to learn to communicate in the same manner as educated adults if you want to be taken seriously. Also, it would probably be a good idea to stop publicly embarrassing Georgetown.


nope, you couldn't supply a good reason in the debate so you chose the easy way out, picking on spelling and grammar that has nothing to do with the issue. Nice try, but you failed. Miserably


----------



## NoPooPool

Bart McCoy said:


> I'm pretty sure yall swerves scared other drivers. Swerving means you're going off the normal path, crossing the while or yellow lines, which would look odd for other drivers. Other drivers don't know your intent for swerving , they just see swerving. They don't always know you're swerving to avoid something else, some think you just can't driver.
> 
> If you guys are going to sit up here and act like your swerving can't endanger others then I'll bow out of this convo, I'll be back when you return to reality.


Then you should bow out, because again, the swerving or evasive action is another of the five seeing habits taught by all commercial transport companies such as FedEx, and UPS. That falls under #4 of the five seeing habits, which is LEAVE YOURSELF AN OUT. The video looks to be a mostly light traffic deserted road. I would take my chances on the braking or swerving, rather than mow down a human, without any sort of braking or evasive maneuvers.



Bart McCoy said:


> right, because only you guys would nitpick, when the rest of the world understand what they are trying to say
> usually people point something like this out when they are on the losing end of a debate.............


WRONG!


----------



## Bart McCoy

NoPooPool said:


> Then you should bow out, because again, the swerving or evasive action is another of the five seeing habits taught by all commercial transport companies such as FedEx, and UPS. .


Why are you referencing commercial driving training, when most normal folks don't have this?



NoPooPool said:


> WRONG!


INCORRECT!!!


----------



## nomad_driver

Bart McCoy said:


> I'm pretty sure yall swerves scared other drivers. Swerving means you're going off the normal path, crossing the while or yellow lines, which would look odd for other drivers. Other drivers don't know your intent for swerving , they just see swerving. They don't always know you're swerving to avoid something else, some think you just can't driver.
> 
> If you guys are going to sit up here and act like your swerving can't endanger others then I'll bow out of this convo, I'll be back when you return to reality.


Yes officer I could have avoided the jay walking pedestrian but you see I might have "scared" other drivers so I didn't. We really don't want to startle people when they are checking their tweets.
The reality is that swerving is a basic driving skill that everyone should know how to execute when the need arrives.



Bart McCoy said:


> Why are you referencing commercial driving training, when most normal folks don't have this?


I used to teach the basic riders course for the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. Swerving was one of the basics skills taught in the class. But perhaps people who ride motorcycles are not normal people.


----------



## NoPooPool

Bart McCoy said:


> Why are you referencing commercial driving training, when most normal folks don't have this?
> 
> INCORRECT!!!


I am referencing that, because that is a National Safety Council method to defensive driving, and anyone exercising their privilege to operate a motor vehicle is responsible to employ that skill, whether they have that proper training or not. That goes hand in hand of the old adage, "ignorance is no excuse for the law."


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> Video of a deadly self-driving vehicle crash in suburban Phoenix shows a pedestrian walking from a darkened area onto a street just moments before an Uber SUV strikes her.
> 
> The lights on the SUV didn't illuminate 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday night until a second or two before impact, raising questions about whether the vehicle could have stopped in time.
> 
> The crash Sunday night in Tempe was the first death involving a full autonomous test vehicle. The Volvo was in self-driving mode with a human backup driver at the wheel when it struck Herzberg, police said.
> 
> The video shows the human backup driver in the SUV looking down until seconds before the crash. The driver looks up and appears startled during the last moment of the clip.
> 
> Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir has told the San Francisco Chronicle that the SUV likely wouldn't be found at fault. But two experts who viewed the video told The Associated Press that the SUV's laser and radar sensors should have spotted Herzberg and her bicycle in time to brake.
> 
> "The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.
> 
> Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."
> 
> Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.
> 
> "It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," he said. "From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian."
> 
> Smith said that from what he observed on the video, the Uber driver appears to be relying too much on the self-driving system by not looking up at the road.
> 
> "The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."
> 
> The experts were unsure if the test vehicle was equipped with a video monitor that the backup driver may have been viewing.
> 
> Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. The National Transportation Safety Board, which makes recommendations for preventing crashes, is investigating the crash.
> 
> An Uber spokeswoman, reached Wednesday night by email, did not answer specific questions about the video or the expert observations.
> 
> "The video is disturbing and heartbreaking to watch, and our thoughts continue to be with Elaine's loved ones. Our cars remain grounded, and we're assisting local, state and federal authorities in any way we can," the company said in a statement.
> 
> Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez. Court records show someone with the same name and birthdate as Vasquez spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions - for making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery - before starting work as an Uber driver.
> 
> Tempe police and the National Transportation Safety Board declined to say whether the Vasquez who was involved in the fatal crash is the same Vasquez who has two criminal convictions.
> 
> Attempts by the AP to contact Vasquez through phone numbers and social media on Wednesday afternoon weren't successful.
> 
> Local media have identified the driver as Rafaela Vasquez. Authorities would not explain the discrepancy.
> 
> The fatality has raised questions about whether Uber is doing enough to screen its drivers.
> 
> Uber said Vasquez met the company's vetting requirements.
> 
> The company bans drivers who are convicted of violent crimes or any felony within the past seven years - which Vasquez would have passed given that records show the offenses occurred in 1999 and 2000.
> 
> The company's website lists its pre-screening policies for drivers that spell out what drivers can and cannot have on their record to work for Uber.
> 
> Their driving history can't have any DUI or drug-related driving offenses within the past seven years, for instance. They also can't have more than three non-fatal accidents or moving violations within the past three years.
> 
> https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbfb0f6c8ed857465f1


The People agree.
Robo Cars should Not be on Our streets !


----------



## transporter007

tohunt4me said:


> The People agree.
> Robo Cars should Not be on Our streets !


Thank u people. However Big business, Big Money and the federal government WANT SDC on the streets.
Maybe u can organize a march on Washington DC.

That's of course, if u walk the walk and not only talk it.


----------



## Leo.




----------



## transporter007

Like I said iheartuber jocker12 & goneubering
Full Speed Ahead.
U can't stop technology
Try, and get run over

*The deal, potentially worth more than $1 billion, comes a day after Arizona's governor suspended testing of Uber's autonomous vehicles in the state*

*Waymo Orders Up to 20,000 Jaguar SUVs for Driverless Fleet*
*https://www.wsj.com/articles/waymo-orders-up-to-20-000-jaguar-suvs-for-driverless-fleet-1522159944*


----------



## goneubering

nomad_driver said:


> Nothing miraculous about it I have swerved to avoid impacts dozens of times. It helps to be trained in doing such things.


I swerved and braked this week to avoid an idiot driver who suddenly came into my lane. It did scare the driver behind me but my swerving avoided a two-car or maybe even a multiple-car crash. I reacted in less than a second.


----------



## Sydney Uber

LA_Native said:


> Look, you thinking there was only a split second to react says enough.


There were systems turned off to avoid "erratic Manoeuvers", the drivers head was down till a couple of seconds before impact, the person did walk out in front of an oncoming car and was found to be drug affected. A confluence of circumstances which caused a tragedy.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez. Court records show someone with the same name and birthdate as Vasquez spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions - for making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery - before starting work as an Uber driver.
> 
> Tempe police and the National Transportation Safety Board declined to say whether the Vasquez who was involved in the fatal crash is the same Vasquez who has two criminal convictions.
> 
> Attempts by the AP to contact Vasquez through phone numbers and social media on Wednesday afternoon weren't successful.
> 
> Local media have identified the driver as Rafaela Vasquez. Authorities would not explain the discrepancy.


This is a huge article.

As I've stated a few times now, the person driving is a guy wearing drag.

This article basically confirms it but still there's something seriously wrong.

How does Uber not know this was a man ?


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> This is a huge article.
> 
> As I've stated a few times now, the person driving is a guy wearing drag.
> 
> This article basically confirms it but still there's something seriously wrong.
> 
> How does Uber not know this was a man ?


I see what you are saying but I guess that is not relevant for drivers ability to monitor the car and take control if that is required. Do you think the robot didn't react because wanted the world to know Uber has no clue that is a man, and killed the poor woman?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> Do you think the robot didn't react because wanted the world to know Uber has no clue that is a man, and killed the poor woman?


Why would you think that ?


----------



## transporter007

jocker12 said:


> I see what you are saying but I guess that is not relevant for drivers ability to monitor the car and take control if that is required. Do you think the robot didn't react because wanted the world to know Uber has no clue that is a man, and killed the poor woman?


"_And killed the poor woman" _one thing is for sure, that "poor woman's" family ain't poor no more baby!


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> Why would you think that ?


It was a joke about the robot and an inappropriate/cynical joke about the victim. I simply think your observation is funny but not relevant for what happened, no offence.

Let me put it this way. Why do you think is worth focusing on the fact that the driver could be a drag or not and figure if Uber knew or not?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> It was a joke about the robot and an inappropriate/cynical joke about the victim. I simply think your observation is funny but not relevant for what happened, no offence.
> 
> Let me put it this way. Why do you think is worth focusing on the fact that the driver could be a drag or not and figure if Uber knew or not?


The fact that I've noted many articles are outright fabrications that Uber has found the need to corroborate and that Uber is not a company that can be trusted and that the Freemasons that run the world have put a lot of lies out there as they push for the New World Order that their boy George Bush Sr was always talking about in his speeches.






Are you saying that Uber stating that the driver is a woman when they know it's a man is not creepy at all to you ? Or do you simply believe everything in the news without thinking for yourself whether it's a complete lie or a lie in part ?


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> The fact that I've noted many articles are outright fabrications that Uber has found the need to corroborate and that Uber is not a company that can be trusted and that the Freemasons that run the world have put a lot of lies out there as they push for the New World Order that their boy George Bush Sr was always talking about in his speeches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Uber stating that the driver is a woman when they know it's a man is not creepy at all to you ? Or do you simply believe everything in the news without thinking for yourself whether it's a complete lie or a lie in part ?


I'll go backwards in addressing your comment.

When it comes to information/news (and believe me, I know what I am talking about) you need to act like a fox. NOT like FoxNews. Like a real fox. There is information even in misinformation, and you need to be capable to filter it out by being aware of the context and by listening to the sources. Essentially, I agree there are many lies (which is propaganda), mistakes or is simply reporting the official statements (also propaganda) with no journalistic value at all. However, if you learn how to resolve "the puzzle", as a media consumer you can stay correctly informed well above the average of the rest of the population. It's not easy but is doable.

I've mentioned above how bad journalism comes out (besides other reasons) of mistakes. That is the reason I think the driver is mistakenly considered a man or a woman, but the fact that nobody (in the media) bothers to clarify that (other than the authorities, Uber and maybe Elaine Herzberg's relatives), shows you how nobody considers that relevant enough to the accident. IMO you tend to look too far from the topic, which is the accident, caused by a badly designed system, that was under monitoring, done by an individual inside the vehicle. If you can make a connection between that individual (possibly a drag) and his performance (potentially poor) as a monitor, you have my full attention. Otherwise, I cannot understand how a driver being a possible drag could be relevant to the self driving system not performing as promised by its developers.

The video underlines strong terminology meant to intimidate the audiences by overinflating (in some cases) or by cosmeticizing/disguising (in other cases) the reality of American international policy. You ask me if I think for myself and I give you a straight answer about this video - Demagogic BS about (see min.2:20) "_a world order in which the principles of justice and fair play *protect the weak against the strong*_". What President Bush is doing there is threatening the rest of the world and ignoring how the US is the STRONGEST nation in the history of humankind.

I agree Uber, like any other corporation, cannot be trusted, but I fail to understand (that's why I am asking) why the Freemasons would try to create confusion about Rafael or Rafaela Vasquez in this specific situation.

Edit
"Vasquez was in prison for three years and 10 months for convictions related to attempted armed robbery and unsworn falsification, AZ Central reported. The unsworn falsification charge was based on Vasquez giving false information while applying for government benefits. The attempted armed robbery happened in July 2000. According to police, she and an accomplice conspired to rob her employer, Blockbuster, and a co-worker of a $2,782.98 work deposit. According to court records, a probation officer said that Vasquez realized she had surrounded herself with people who encouraged her to take those actions, and she needed to change the people she allowed in her life.

She was released in 2005. Her criminal record was under a different legal name of Rafael Vasquez. She has had a clean record since her release."
https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-self-driving-crash-killed-pedestrian/

S/he tried to rob a Blockbuster..... hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## uberdriverfornow

jocker12 said:


> I'll go backwards in addressing your comment.
> 
> When it comes to information/news (and believe me, I know what I am talking about) you need to act like a fox. NOT like FoxNews. Like a real fox. There is information even in misinformation, and you need to be capable to filter it out by being aware of the context and by listening to the sources. Essentially, I agree there are many lies (which is propaganda), mistakes or is simply reporting the official statements (also propaganda) with no journalistic value at all. However, if you learn how to resolve "the puzzle", as a media consumer you can stay correctly informed well above the average of the rest of the population. It's not easy but is doable.
> 
> I've mentioned above how bad journalism comes out (besides other reasons) of mistakes. That is the reason I think the driver is mistakenly considered a man or a woman, but the fact that nobody (in the media) bothers to clarify that (other than the authorities, Uber and maybe Elaine Herzberg's relatives), shows you how nobody considers that relevant enough to the accident. IMO you tend to look too far from the topic, which is the accident, caused by a badly designed system, that was under monitoring, done by an individual inside the vehicle. If you can make a connection between that individual (possibly a drag) and his performance (potentially poor) as a monitor, you have my full attention. Otherwise, I cannot understand how a driver being a possible drag could be relevant to the self driving system not performing as promised by its developers.
> 
> The video underlines strong terminology meant to intimidate the audiences by overinflating (in some cases) or by cosmeticizing/disguising (in other cases) the reality of American international policy. You ask me if I think for myself and I give you a straight answer about this video - Demagogic BS about (see min.2:20) "_a world order in which the principles of justice and fair play *protect the weak against the strong*_". What President Bush is doing there is threatening the rest of the world and ignoring how the US is the STRONGEST nation in the history of humankind.
> 
> I agree Uber, like any other corporation, cannot be trusted, but I fail to understand (that's why I am asking) why the Freemasons would try to create confusion about Rafael or Rafaela Vasquez in this specific situation.
> 
> Edit
> "Vasquez was in prison for three years and 10 months for convictions related to attempted armed robbery and unsworn falsification, AZ Central reported. The unsworn falsification charge was based on Vasquez giving false information while applying for government benefits. The attempted armed robbery happened in July 2000. According to police, she and an accomplice conspired to rob her employer, Blockbuster, and a co-worker of a $2,782.98 work deposit. According to court records, a probation officer said that Vasquez realized she had surrounded herself with people who encouraged her to take those actions, and she needed to change the people she allowed in her life.
> 
> She was released in 2005. Her criminal record was under a different legal name of Rafael Vasquez. She has had a clean record since her release."
> https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-self-driving-crash-killed-pedestrian/
> 
> S/he tried to rob a Blockbuster..... hahahahahahahahaha


Whether or not the Freemasons have a hand in a particular incident doesn't mean I don't pay attention to a particular lie. But don't forget that they love their Baphomet and have put many trannies in plain sight today in the entertainment world, that you wouldn't know are there unless you were looking for them.

https://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/whoisbaphomet/


----------



## jocker12

uberdriverfornow said:


> Whether or not the Freemasons have a hand in a particular incident doesn't mean I don't pay attention to a particular lie. But don't forget that they love their Baphomet and have put many trannies in plain sight today in the entertainment world, that you wouldn't know are there unless you were looking for them.
> 
> https://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/whoisbaphomet/


I'll strongly encourage anyone to pay attention to details, and probably possible lies.

One mention though (about the details) - "Drag queens are men that use a combination of makeup, clothing, and sometimes many other things to create the illusion of the female form. This doesn't make them actual women. On the opposite hand, transgender women are just women; nothing more, nothing less." - https://www.theodysseyonline.com/trans-women-drag-queen

and

"RuPaul said: "Drag is really making fun of identity. We are shapeshifters. We're like 'okay, today I'm this, now I'm a cowboy, now I'm this'.
"Transgender people take identity very seriously - their identity is who they are. "I come from the school of I will do whatever I want to do, at any time, and change - whatever!" - https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/...e-between-drag-queens-and-transgender-people/


----------



## uberdriverfornow

i already said this one was in drag

but drag, ******, same thing to them, rebelling against God


----------

