# Because the cars are too slow, people just can’t stop crashing into GM’s ‘self-driving’ prototypes



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

_"Out of the 13 accidents reported to the DMV so far in 2017, 9 involved GM's Cruise Automation prototypes" (edit - link added)_

The article presents 2 cases that happened in last month.

Case 1 -_ "At the time of the collision, the Cruise AV was traveling at *4 mph*, while the Charger was traveling at approximately 12 mph. The Charger fled the scene without exchanging information. The driver of the Cruise AV* called the police to report the incident as a hit-and-run, but the police were not dispatched and no report was filed*."
_
Case 2_ - "The driver of the Cruise AV decelerated and stopped to let a pedestrian clear the crosswalk. A Ford Explorer behind the Cruise AV then impacted the rear passenger-side corner of the Cruise AV. *The police were called, but declined to respond citing the lack of any reported injury*."
_
The article shows how the cops are systematically avoiding to respond to this type of accidents.

Also *4 mph vehicle speed is a little faster than walking speed (3.1 mph*), so the driver in the passing car, considering it was in San Francisco where drivers are a little aggressive and on the limit, technically was passing a stationary vehicle, but the collision occurred because the Cruise AV moved few inches further on it's path.

The conclusion?

_"As I mentioned in my comment to preface this article, current self-driving prototypes are far from perfect and therefore,* they can have seemingly weird driving habits that could potentially have something to do with those accidents*."
"People should try to act around self-driving prototypes like they would around any other vehicle, safely with caution"._

If you ask me, I would say - "People should act around self driving cars like they would around pedestrians moving at 4 mph, and yield the right of way to those self driving cars, safely with caution." Really?

No matter how much the author wants to convince us about a bright self drivable cars future, I have to admit how this is ridiculously funny already. These prototypes will create more problems than they are meant to fix.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> _"Out of the 13 accidents reported to the DMV so far in 2017, 9 involved GM's Cruise Automation prototypes"_
> 
> The article presents 2 cases that happened in last month.
> 
> ...





jocker12 said:


> _"Out of the 13 accidents reported to the DMV so far in 2017, 9 involved GM's Cruise Automation prototypes"_
> 
> The article presents 2 cases that happened in last month.
> 
> ...


This is the great article you were touting as to why self driving cars will never work? Hmmm, I wonder why you forgot to include the link? Could it be because the article admits:

GM operates one of the biggest fleets of autonomous test vehicles and therefore, they are more likely to be involved in accidents. GM is adding hundreds of prototypes to its fleet.

Another more interesting trend is that if we are to believe the reports, the self-driving prototypes are rarely if ever responsible for the accidents.
So basically your article says human drivers suck and self driving cars rarely if ever are responsible for the accidents. Good job Einstein.

Oh, and here's the article Einstein didn't want you to see:
https://electrek.co/2017/09/26/people-cant-stop-crashing-into-gm-self-driving-prototype-cars/


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> This is the great article you were touting as to why self driving cars will never work? Hmmm, I wonder why you forgot to include the link? Could it be because the article admits:
> 
> GM operates one of the biggest fleets of autonomous test vehicles and therefore, they are more likely to be involved in accidents. GM is adding hundreds of prototypes to its fleet.
> 
> ...


Never wanted to hide the authors intention. You probably selectively missed my "No matter how much the author wants to convince us about a bright self drivable cars future..."

It is obvious the author is heavily biased, but is also clear how the more he studied the reports, the more confused he got about his and your love, the self driving cars. The end of the article simply shows his struggle. Humans simply suck at driving with no statistical data is like your childish behavior here when you cannot make your point anymore and start calling people names. Hahaha...

I see you like Einstein, so I'm going to use his words for you - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

PS - thank you for the heads up about the missing link. Figuratively, you really love your executioners...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> but is also clear how the more he studied the reports, the more confused he got about his and your love, the self driving cars.


No, it's obvious no matter how hard he tried to prove otherwise, in the end he had to admit self driving cars are far better drivers than humans could ever hope to be.

I got your stats right here:

Staggering toll: Car crashes cost $871 billion a year
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/29/steep-economic-toll-of-crashes/9715893/​P.S. 
I was going to call you a twit but softened it to Einstein so my timeout would be less severe when you tattled on me.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, it's obvious no matter how hard he tried to prove otherwise, in the end he had to admit self driving cars are far better drivers than humans could ever hope to be.
> 
> I got your stats right here:
> 
> ...



You probably believe in an alternative reality. Check the stories on that website. Nobody will write badly about technology. That IS a technology website. Hahaha... The only real things he writes about are those reports. Nothing else.

You fail to understand how bad drivers are good for the corporations because they will spend money to fix their cars or to pay for insurance. The moment you say drivers are bad out there, corporations will agree, because is their job to charge them in a way or another, for the mistakes they are making.

Your statistics show why the system won't be changed at all, because is generating profits. Hahaha...

You keep calling people names here, and sooner or later you'll get banned. Check the Terms and Rules on the bottom of the page.​


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

You scour the internet desperately looking for reasons why self driving cars will never work. The best you can do is quote some SJW writer that has to use terms like: "if we are to believe the reports" and "if the account of the event is true" in order to blame the cars getting hit from behind.

You fail to understand new technology improves society's standard of living as a whole, while some sectors are harmed, like Uber drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's statistics along with the net positive effects of self driving cars mean self driving cars can't and won't be stopped.

I called you Einstein. You can't kick someone off for comparing them to a very smart man. I never called anyone a twit. Check the record. I did say the writer was a SJW writer but I didn't call him a twit SJW writer, and plus he's not on here.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You scour the internet desperately looking for reasons why self driving cars will never work. The best you can do is quote some SJW writer that has to use terms like: "if we are to believe the reports" and "if the account of the event is true" in order to blame the cars getting hit from behind.


You are naive if you think I do that. I have specific setups on specific websites and I get all the information about very specific topics I am interested in. You thought I was not educated on the topic... hmmmm,... Probably I am better educated on this topic than most of the best educated people on the topic that are active online today. Most journalist are not well educated, but they love the technology, so they are biased, and they repeat like parrots, whatever Silicon Valley idiots are throwing at them.



tomatopaste said:


> technology improves society's standard of living as a whole


 You think like a consumer, not like a corporation. Unfortunately for you, is not the consumer that controls the society's standard of living (despite what you were told), but the corporations that have the ability to control the politicians as well. Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but your opinion means nothing to the corporations. All they need from you is your money, not your thoughts.



tomatopaste said:


> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's statistics along with the net positive effects of self driving cars mean self driving cars can't and won't be stopped.


What you read as a positive on your side, is a negative on the other side and viceversa. 871 billion a year as your loss, is 871 billion a year or more real profit for other entities, like corporations associated with specific industries. *Do you really think those forces will surrender their real profits for some fantasies?* Your constant mistake is to think small, like a loser willing to climb the mountains of cheap everything, while those corporations, after they paid to build those mountains you are only dreaming of, are making the rules for the general public on their terms, corrupting the politicians on every side of the political spectrum. The only way to survive, if you understand what they are doing, is to question every word they say and use your common sense in case you are educated enough to do so. The statistics you are showing are proof of corporations control and never ending profits, because of the stupid people that are meant to stay stupid (afraid and happy at the same time).



tomatopaste said:


> I called you Einstein. You can't kick someone off for comparing them to a very smart man. I never called anyone a twit. Check the record. I did say the writer was a SJW writer but I didn't call him a twit SJW writer, and plus he's not on here.


I know you like comedy and I respect that, but this it will get you banned. It's only a matter of time, if you continue this way. As you probably noticed, the moment you told me you half believe what the Silicon Valley idiots are saying, half want to entertain us here, you stopped me from being too harsh on you. Your honesty about those funny nerds is refreshing. That is the reason I want you to understand the Terms and Rules here - the third paragraph at the end - "Appropriate discourse confronts the idea, not the member."


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> You are naive if you think I do that. I have specific setups on specific websites and I get all the information about very specific topics I am interested in. You thought I was not educated on the topic... hmmmm,... Probably I am better educated on this topic than most of the best educated people on the topic that are active online today. Most journalist are not well educated, but they love the technology, so they are biased, and they repeat like parrots, whatever Silicon Valley idiots are throwing at them.
> 
> You think like a consumer, not like a corporation. Unfortunately for you, is not the consumer that controls the society's standard of living (despite what you were told), but the corporations that have the ability to control the politicians as well. Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but your opinion means nothing to the corporations. All they need from you is your money, not your thoughts.
> 
> ...


In the immortal words of Kurt Cobain: "it's better to burn out than to fade away."








jocker12 said:


> I know you like comedy and I respect that, but this it will get you banned. It's only a matter of time, if you continue this way. As you probably noticed, the moment you told me you half believe what the Silicon Valley idiots are saying, half want to entertain us here, you stopped me from being to harsh on you. Your honesty about those funny nerds is refreshing. That is the reason I want you to understand the Terms and Rules here - the third paragraph at the end - "Appropriate discourse confronts the idea, not the member."


Dan Patrick: "You can't stop the Tomato, you can only hope to contain him."


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> _"Out of the 13 accidents reported to the DMV so far in 2017, 9 involved GM's Cruise Automation prototypes" (edit - link added)_
> 
> The article presents 2 cases that happened in last month.
> 
> ...


The problem is simple, there are many times when driving requires an ability a machine can never do, and that
is think.



tomatopaste said:


> You scour the internet desperately looking for reasons why self driving cars will never work. The best you can do is quote some SJW writer that has to use terms like: "if we are to believe the reports" and "if the account of the event is true" in order to blame the cars getting hit from behind.
> 
> You fail to understand new technology improves society's standard of living as a whole, while some sectors are harmed, like Uber drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's statistics along with the net positive effects of self driving cars mean self driving cars can't and won't be stopped.
> 
> I called you Einstein. You can't kick someone off for comparing them to a very smart man. I never called anyone a twit. Check the record. I did say the writer was a SJW writer but I didn't call him a twit SJW writer, and plus he's not on here.


Not all technology takes hold and becomes a viable, for various reasons most ideas actually fail,which is why only 2 percent of all patents become profitable products. The verdict is not out on SDCs. People have to actually want them. Some will, many will not. It might take a generation or two for them to finally take over. We could easily have robot bartenders, but they haven't caught on for one big reason, who wants a robot bartender? Sometimes, when we are robbed of humanity, we prefer to have it restored over automation where losing our humanity in the marketplace really isn't that big of an advantage, at least for many. I really don't care if SDCs are safer. As an Uber rider, I prefer to have a driver. The odds of getting hurt are still fairly remote and I'm not seeing the sacrifice as being that big of a game changer, given that ubers are so cheap, anyway.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> The problem is simple, there are many times when driving requires an ability a machine can never do, and that
> is think.


Not true. That's what's going on now. Humans are "teaching" it how to drive. The software will have billions of miles of driving experience compared to thousands for a 16 year old that we sent out onto the road with a two thousand pound missile.



Oscar Levant said:


> The problem is simple, there are many times when driving requires an ability a machine can never do, and that
> is think.
> 
> Not all technology takes hold and becomes a viable, for various reasons most ideas actually fail,which is why only 2 percent of all patents become profitable products. The verdict is not out on SDCs. People have to actually want them. Some will, many will not. It might take a generation or two for them to finally take over. We could easily have robot bartenders, but they haven't caught on for one big reason, who wants a robot bartender? Sometimes, when we are robbed of humanity, we prefer to have it restored over automation where losing our humanity in the marketplace really isn't that big of an advantage, at least for many. I really don't care if SDCs are safer. As an Uber rider, I prefer to have a driver. The odds of getting hurt are still fairly remote and I'm not seeing the sacrifice as being that big of a game changer, given that ubers are so cheap, anyway.


If it's four times less expensive to be chauffeured every where you go than to own and drive your own car, it's a no brainer. People like to drive, people like money better.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> _"Out of the 13 accidents reported to the DMV so far in 2017, 9 involved GM's Cruise Automation prototypes" (edit - link added)_
> 
> The article presents 2 cases that happened in last month.
> 
> ...


they sure do seem to get in a shit ton of accidents for a relatively small group of cars on the road don't they?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> they sure do seem to get in a shit ton of accidents for a relatively small group of cars on the road don't they?


Here is another truth -

_"as someone who's spent many years programming computers, I can tell you there is NO 100% reliable way to assure that any program of any complexity is completely bug free. And the bug might show up only after thousands of hours of use. Also there is no way to assure that every computer chip in a system will last forever, or even be able to issue a warning in advance of failure. Yes, it's true that these systems will "learn" over time from past failures, but every new element added to any system will increase it's complexity, which in turn increases the chances for something to go wrong."_


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Here is another truth -
> 
> _"as someone who's spent many years programming computers, I can tell you there is NO 100% reliable way to assure that any program of any complexity is completely bug free. And the bug might show up only after thousands of hours of use. Also there is no way to assure that every computer chip in a system will last forever, or even be able to issue a warning in advance of failure. Yes, it's true that these systems will "learn" over time from past failures, but every new element added to any system will increase it's complexity, which in turn increases the chances for something to go wrong."_


Will I get in trouble for posting a 'hey now' gif?


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> If it's four times less expensive to be chauffeured every where you go than to own and drive your own car, it's a no brainer. People like to drive, people like money better.


How much will it cost to have a dispatched SDC in the parking lot at work exactly at noon so I can take a quick nap on lunch break?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> How much will it cost to have a dispatched SDC in the parking lot at work exactly at noon so I can take a quick nap on lunch break?


$3.27



WeirdBob said:


> How much will it cost to have a dispatched SDC in the parking lot at work exactly at noon so I can take a quick nap on lunch break?


With the money you'll save you can buy a Pause Pod. And maybe some incense.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> With the money you'll save you can buy a Pause Pod. And maybe some incense.


That thing would look pretty ridiculous in the parking lot.

And I bet it would be pretty cold in the winter time.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> That thing would look pretty ridiculous in the parking lot.
> 
> And I bet it would be pretty cold in the winter time.


Set it up in the lactation room


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> You are naive if you think I do that. I have specific setups on specific websites and I get all the information about very specific topics I am interested in. You thought I was not educated on the topic... hmmmm,... Probably I am better educated on this topic than most of the best educated people on the topic that are active online today. Most journalist are not well educated, but they love the technology, so they are biased, and they repeat like parrots, whatever Silicon Valley idiots are throwing at them.
> 
> You think like a consumer, not like a corporation. Unfortunately for you, is not the consumer that controls the society's standard of living (despite what you were told), but the corporations that have the ability to control the politicians as well. Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but your opinion means nothing to the corporations. All they need from you is your money, not your thoughts.
> 
> ...


Dude, what are you even rambling on about? $871M? Lol! That's peanuts.

The SDC TNC market is estimated to be a $14T market. Corporations are RACING to get this done.

GM has ALREADY told their stockholders it is exiting the personal automobile market and entering the SDC TNC market as their ENTIRE future automotive business model.

Seriously, you live in a make believe world. You have no idea what you're talking about. They are moving the launch dates closer, not further.



jocker12 said:


> Here is another truth -
> 
> _"as someone who's spent many years programming computers, I can tell you there is NO 100% reliable way to assure that any program of any complexity is completely bug free. And the bug might show up only after thousands of hours of use. Also there is no way to assure that every computer chip in a system will last forever, or even be able to issue a warning in advance of failure. Yes, it's true that these systems will "learn" over time from past failures, but every new element added to any system will increase it's complexity, which in turn increases the chances for something to go wrong."_


No one expects them to be 100% and redundancy is already incorporated for failures.

You make me YAWN.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Set it up in the lactation room


The lactation room is currently full of cleaning supplies. The lemon scented floor cleaner isn't too bad, but I really don't find the smell of bathroom sanitizer relaxing. Your mileage may vary!

I'm pretty happy with setting the alarm for 12:25 pm, leaning the seat back, and grabbing a quick power nap. So I'm not quite ready to give up the convenience of personal wheels for ride share, regardless of any minor financial convenience.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, what are you even rambling on about? $871M? Lol! That's peanuts.
> 
> The SDC TNC market is estimated to be a $14T market. Corporations are RACING to get this done.
> 
> ...


Nobody expects them to be perfect in testing. When they will start selling them, EVERYBODY expects them to be flawless. Are you going to get inside a car that a company says you could die inside if it?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Nobody expects them to be perfect in testing. When they will start selling them, EVERYBODY expects them to be flawless. Are you going to get inside a car that a company says you could die inside if it?


They'll never be perfect, and yes, I would absolutely ride in a vehicle that is safer but imperfect.

When these come out in the next few quarters, they won't be for sale. They will be speed governed and geo-fenced small TNCs.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> They'll never be perfect, and yes, I would absolutely ride in a vehicle that is safer but imperfect.
> 
> When these come out in the next few quarters, they won't be for sale. They will be speed governed and geo-fenced small TNCs.


Those products are manufactured by a corporation, and no corporation in its right mind, will put a FAULTY product on the market because of people like you willing to get injured in or by their product and than sue them for millions. Hahahaha...

Define "safer" please. Have you ever been involved in an accident? Well, no matter your answer, the fact that you are alive and able to post your comments here, shows what we have today. Cars and driving today are not dangerous at all.

Let me put this in perspective for you. Media tells you terrorism is dangerous, but do you really know what are the chances for you to get killed in a terrorist attack? Now look in the mirror and understand why we are laughing of your thinking here.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Those products are manufactured by a corporation, and no corporation in its right mind, will put a FAULTY product on the market because of people like you willing to get injured in or by their product and than sue them for millions. Hahahaha...
> 
> Define "safer" please. Have you ever been involved in an accident? Well, no matter your answer, the fact that you are alive and able to post your comments here, shows what we have today. Cars and driving today are not dangerous at all.
> 
> Let me put this in perspective for you. Media tells you terrorism is dangerous, but do you really know what are the chances for you to get killed in a terrorist attack? Now look in the mirror and understand why we are laughing of your thinking here.


 They don't seem to understand a simple statistics. I've posted articles explaining how safe driving really is in the context of how often people drive versus how often they end up in fatal or debilitating accidents. It's extremely rare


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Those products are manufactured by a corporation, and no corporation in its right mind, will put a FAULTY product on the market because of people like you willing to get injured in or by their product and than sue them for millions. Hahahaha...
> 
> Define "safer" please. Have you ever been involved in an accident? Well, no matter your answer, the fact that you are alive and able to post your comments here, shows what we have today. Cars and driving today are not dangerous at all.
> 
> Let me put this in perspective for you. Media tells you terrorism is dangerous, but do you really know what are the chances for you to get killed in a terrorist attack? Now look in the mirror and understand why we are laughing of your thinking here.


Wait... did you just say corporations won't sell a faulty product and cars are not dangerous at all?

What world do you live in?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Wait... did you just say corporations won't sell a faulty product and cars are not dangerous at all?
> 
> What world do you live in?


You missed the "no corporation IN ITS RiGHT MIND" bud. Or you're saying they will INTENTIONALLY put a dangerous product on the market, that could potentially get people killed ?

That's what you do with your sprinklers big boy? Install them faulty to go back and charge your customers again for the "necessary" repairs? Hahaha..,


----------

