# Why self driving cars will fail sooner than you think. Driving is a privilege, not a right.



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/18952/this-is-the-human-driving-manifesto

Do you like driving? I do. It's not about speed. It's about freedom. It's about choice. Car in the garage. Keys in hand. Hands on wheel. We choose where we go and when we go, and we choose how we get there. With the rise of self-driving cars, an army of experts would have us believe freedom and choice are a bad thing. From behind the banner of safety, they claim autonomous technology will save us from the tyranny and danger of human control. *Their strategy is to claim that autonomous technology creates an either/or scenario where human driving is in conflict with safety.*

*That strategy is based on a lie.*

Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans. We don't know what "safe" or "safer" means. There is no government regulation defining a safety standard, nor has any self-driving car maker declared what that standard might be.

Unless self-driving car technology is demonstrably safer than humans-_and even if it is-_human freedom and choice must come first. We don't need to sacrifice safety for freedom. The same technology that enables self-driving cars will allow humans to retain control _within_ the safe confines of automation. Those that say otherwise s*eek to profit from reducing our freedoms, rather than make us safer while protecting them.*

If our safety was the experts' first principle, the billions invested in self-driving cars would have gone to subsidizing free professional driving school, raising licensing standards, and making critical safety technologies like seat belts, airbags, ABS and automatic emergency braking (AEB) standard as soon as they were invented.

The banner of "safety" may fly on the flagpole of autonomy, but *it is raised by the hands of profit.* Ironically, we already have autonomy, but it is organic autonomy, which isn't as easy to monetize as machine autonomy. Organic autonomy-which is 100% human control over machines-has been increasingly exploited for profit in the form of onerous speed and traffic enforcement and discriminatory court fees, both of which are taxation by other means. Cloaked in the propaganda of self-driving cars, The War On Driving has now unzipped its pants to reveal its next phase: the frictionless monetization of autonomy by elimination of its organic component-that's us.

The very language of self-driving is slavery, not only to the idea that machines will be better than humans, but that we have nothing to add to the safety equation until they are. That language-as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)-also assumes that there is no cathartic value to our safe and responsible control over a car, anywhere, at any speed.

The perfect car of the future isn't one without a steering wheel. The perfect car of the future _is self-driving when we allow it_, and-_if and when we choose to take the wheel-_won't let us harm anyone else.

"Perfect" systems are fallible, but so are we, which is why the best system must combine the best of human and machine intelligence. If self-driving cars demonstrably safer than humans ever arrive, they will do so in fits and starts, over many decades, which is why we must deploy partial automation, as it manifests, _in harmony with human nature_.

There are two schools of partial automation: the increasingly popular Series, which temporarily substitutes for humans without any demonstrable safety benefit _and almost certainly reduces safety over time_, and Parallel, which augments our abilities while protecting our freedoms.

In the meantime, we are free to start saving lives tomorrow, for far less than the billions (if not trillions) invested in a distant self-driving utopian future, if we choose to.

We choose to.

We cannot escape the march of technology, but *we can channel it toward paths that strengthen rather than weaken us, expand our horizons rather than limit them, and guarantee that the car-once and still a symbol of freedom-doesn't become a tool of the tyranny we seek to avoid.*

To that end, I propose the following manifesto. We need to defend what we believe in while we have the chance. If we don't, we will surely lose the opportunity to have a voice at the table.

*THE HUMAN DRIVING MANIFESTO*


*We Are Pro-Human*, in pursuit of life, liberty and freedom of movement, by any means that does not infringe upon the safety of others.

*We Are Pro-Technology, but only as a means, not an end*. Technology is only as good as our understanding of it, and an incremental approach will save more lives in the near _and_ long term while mitigating the second order consequences of an all-or-nothing approach.

*We Are Pro-Safety*, through a combination of improved drivers education, deployment of Advanced Drivers Assistance Systems (ADAS)-such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) & Forward Collision Warning (FCW) Systems-and Parallel automation.

*We Support Raising Driver Licensing Standards*. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Earn it, keep it. Abuse it, lose it. Periodic retesting is essential. Education must include familiarization with the capabilities and limitations of new safety technologies.

*We Support Defined Safety Standards & Transparency*. "Safe" and "safer" must be defined, and claims by autonomous vehicle manufacturers and providers must be backed up by data shared publicly. If and when self-driving cars meet a regulatory safety standard, their deployment cannot infringe the public's freedom of movement.

*We Are Pro-Steering Wheel*. No vehicle should be deployed without a steering wheel, _and the Parallel automation to prevent a human driver from making a mistake_.

*We Are Pro-Choice and Pro-Life*. Pro-Choice in how people get from A to B, Pro-Life in the deployment of safety technologies that both save lives _and_preserve freedom, without which there is no quality of life.

*We Support Fairness and Due Process *in the creation and enforcement of traffic laws. Human drivers have the right to a fair trial, to discovery, to confront their accuser, to a trial by jury, and are innocent until proven guilty. We are opposed to arbitrary traffic stops, indiscriminate license plate data collection and retention, unwarranted search and seizure, and incentive-driven speed and safety enforcement.

*We Support Freedom of Movement and Traffic Neutrality*, guaranteeing free and open access to all transportation infrastructure regardless of income level, whether for human or self-driven cars, guaranteeing freedom of movement for all Americans, by whatever means.

*We Are Pro-Privacy*. All connected services should be opt-in, not opt-out. All vehicles, whatever the level of automation, must be capable of operating completely independent of any communications network. If and when connectivity is required - i.e. within a clearly defined geofence - any and all driver/passenger information should be automatically anonymized.

*We Support New Classification Standards For Autonomous Vehicles*, clarifying safety capabilities vs. human drivers, standardizing terminology for common functionalities, and the replacement of the SAE automation levels with a system whose language allows for alternative human-centric R&D paths.

*We Are Pro-Constitutional Amendment*, creating a right to drive, within the limits of safety technologies that do not infringe upon our freedom of movement.
Times are changing, and we must change with them. If we fail to embrace and control technologies that support our freedom, we will become slaves to those who would turn it against us.

We need an organization to lobby to defend human driving.

Want to join the fight? Join the Human Driving Association mailing list and help us defend freedom, choice and safety the right way. You can also follow the HDA on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

Want to learn more about why self-driving ubiquity isn't around the corner? Come to my SXSW presentation "Why Humans Won't Ride Shotgun with Robo-Taxis" on Friday March 9.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

despite what old man ramz bloviates, we do not have a statistical sample size large enough to even begin to compare the two. fantasy robot cars will need to drive trillions of miles in all conditions before we can even begin to compare them to human drivers. and no, man made simulators with man made inputs with man made environments don't count worth shit.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> despite what old man ramz bloviates, we do not have a statistical sample size large enough to even begin to compare the two. fantasy robot cars will need to drive trillions of miles in all conditions before we can even begin to compare them to human drivers. and no, man made simulators with man made inputs with man made environments don't count worth shit.


The article raises legitimate issues. This is not about an old man and a troll. If we want to have a serious discussion about this, I am afraid we need to ignore the noise coming from those 2.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> The article raises legitimate issues. This is not about an old man and a troll. If we want to have a serious discussion about this, I am afraid we need to ignore the noise coming from those 2.


oh I know. it's extremely common in seattle for people to own a cheap outdoorsy car (subaru) specifically for weekend/vacation use to get to the coast or the mountains. they otherwise never use that car. if you ask them why they don't just get rid of it they always say b/c they like the freedom they have to just pick up and go wherever they want whenever they want in any conditions. not to mention a ton of these granola people also use their cars to camp in as well.

it's a matter of freedom and choice. imagine getting a surprise day off on a friday and deciding you want to take an impromptu road/camping trip to the remote wilderness. is one of googles minivans going to take you there? lol of course not.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> oh I know. it's extremely common in seattle for people to own a cheap outdoorsy car (subaru) specifically for weekend/vacation use to get to the coast or the mountains. they otherwise never use that car. if you ask them why they don't just get rid of it they always say b/c they like the freedom they have to just pick up and go wherever they want whenever they want in any conditions. not to mention a ton of these granola people also use their cars to camp in as well.
> 
> it's a matter of freedom and choice. imagine getting a surprise day off on a friday and deciding you want to take an impromptu road/camping trip to the remote wilderness. is one of googles minivans going to take you there? lol of course not.


"Yes, cars are "inefficient"-used only 5% of the time for example. But so is art. And so is jewelry, and I've yet to convince my wife to rent it. So are golf clubs but we still buy them. Toothbrushes are used less than 1% of the day, and a perfect app I'll develop called Gumbuddy could find neighbors willing to share for a modest fee. I'd argue that automobiles in the American tradition fall closer to a personal and emotional item." - Bob Brackett of Sanford Bernstein argued that the world may not be making a massive shift to ride-sharing. Brackett, who has a record of dry contrarianism that he calls realism, suggested that, in invoking a cognitive connection between autonomy and ride-sharing, fellow analysts are committing a "conjunction fallacy," invalidly linking one trend to another.
US Census data, Brackett said, shows carpooling in the US plunging over the last three and a half decades, from 19.7% of all commuters in 1980 to 9.4% in 2013. If Americans are so prepared to share cars with other human beings, why are fewer of them doing so now than a generation ago?"

I don't believe in the conclusion of the posted article on how we need to organize and lobby for our "driving" rights following an NRA model, because this charade will implode itself pretty soon. The sooner they want to put the robots on the streets, the faster the general public will understand the lie and see the artificial hype.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I'd argue that automobiles in the American tradition fall closer to a personal and emotional item." - Bob Brackett of Sanford Bernstein argued that the world may not be making a massive shift to ride-sharing. Brackett, who has a record of dry contrarianism that he calls realism, .


lol go to a car enthusiast meet up and call the biggest ugliest guy's car ugly. people get shot over that shit. huge swathes of the population have enormous amounts of their ego invested in the car they drive.

it's kind of funny. proponents might as well be saying "the american materialist economy is over with!". our entire culture is built on materialism and how those materials define you as a person. Ever heard of madison ave? do these dumb****s really think that cultural priming is just going to go away over night and we're all going to jump in bland bubbles on 4 wheels with a bunch of other strangers?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> lol go to a car enthusiast meet up and call the biggest ugliest guy's car ugly. people get shot over that shit. huge swathes of the population have enormous amounts of their ego invested in the car they drive.
> 
> it's kind of funny. proponents might as well be saying "the american materialist economy is over with!". our entire culture is built on materialism and how those materials define you as a person. Ever heard of madison ave? do these dumb&%[email protected]!*s really think that cultural priming is just going to go away over night and we're all going to jump in bland bubbles on 4 wheels with a bunch of other strangers?


You are very correct, but obviously the Silicon Valley geeks think they are smarter than anybody else or more powerful than nature itself. They hope to play the young generations with the "technologically advanced - you live the future" card, while kids accumulate high amounts of debt only to finish their education.

Millennials addicted to their smartphones and idiotic selfies are the easier category to deal with. What do you expect? They grew up with highly concentrated fructose corn syrup candies, drinks, bread, yogurt and frozen junk foods, and now their "gods" promise them robots.... I am sure if they'll be told they'll get super heroes as well, they'll believe it.

Stupids think the elderly will be easy to trick by offering them "mobility", but did somebody asked them if they want it or if they could handle it? I don't think so. The only certain thing at this point, is that the vast majority of them DO NOT like the idea of self driving cars. The most recent polls show how the less flexible age category to innovation, when it comes to self driving cars technology, is the baby boomers. And yet, desperate companies want to start the transportation revolution with..... the baby boomers. This shows you how disconnected those companies are from the actual reality.

We are witnessing the suicide of the self driving cars developers with their useless products hanging on their necks.


----------



## tcaud (Jul 28, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> despite what old man ramz bloviates, we do not have a statistical sample size large enough to even begin to compare the two. fantasy robot cars will need to drive trillions of miles in all conditions before we can even begin to compare them to human drivers. and no, man made simulators with man made inputs with man made environments don't count worth shit.


We will know the results of comparison early on... from the fatalities.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> fantasy robot cars will need to drive trillions of miles in all conditions before we can even begin to compare them to human drivers..


You can't be serious. Show your work, how did you arrive at trillions? Because my data says we'll need qunitizillions and a billion quadrillion years.

We already know how many miles are driven per accident. If you can't analyze the safety of these it doesn't mean others cannot.


----------



## IERide (Jul 1, 2016)

Far too many words for the average ADHD Uber driver to read.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> You can't be serious. Show your work, how did you arrive at trillions? Because my data says we'll need qunitizillions and a billion quadrillion years.
> 
> We already know how many miles are driven per accident. If you can't analyze the safety of these it doesn't mean others cannot.


excuse me, i exaggerated. https://www.economist.com/news/scie...-being-around-cornerreal-driverless-cars-will

hundreds of billions.

This is really the most important point: According to statistics from America's Bureau of Transportation, there were about 35,000 fatalities and over 2.4m injuries on American roads in 2015. That may sound a lot but, given that Americans drive three trillion miles a year, accident rates are remarkably low:1.12 deaths and 76 injuries per 100m miles. Because accidents are so rare (compared with miles travelled), autonomous vehicles "would have to driven hundreds of millions of miles, and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles, to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries," says Nidhi Kalra of RAND Corporation, a think tank in California.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> despite what old man ramz bloviates, we do not have a statistical sample size large enough to even begin to compare the two. fantasy robot cars will need to drive trillions of miles in all conditions before we can even begin to compare them to human drivers. and no, man made simulators with man made inputs with man made environments don't count worth shit.


Self driving cars RUN INTO FIRETRUCKS !!!

Ban Them !



IERide said:


> Far too many words for the average ADHD Uber driver to read.


Summarize .



tcaud said:


> We will know the results of comparison early on... from the fatalities.


Ban War.
It causes death.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> excuse me, i exaggerated. https://www.economist.com/news/scie...-being-around-cornerreal-driverless-cars-will
> 
> hundreds of billions.
> 
> This is really the most important point: According to statistics from America's Bureau of Transportation, there were about 35,000 fatalities and over 2.4m injuries on American roads in 2015. That may sound a lot but, given that Americans drive three trillion miles a year, accident rates are remarkably low:1.12 deaths and 76 injuries per 100m miles. Because accidents are so rare (compared with miles travelled), autonomous vehicles "would have to driven hundreds of millions of miles, and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles, to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries," says Nidhi Kalra of RAND Corporation, a think tank in California.


It's funny how uneducated people are about what is being told to them by the self driving cars developers. Even if the numbers are mentioned here and there, people don't pay attention and start dreaming about robots that will be programmed to save their lives.

Good thing you attached the link, because I am sure our sarcastic fellow commentator needed more education about the topic.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Bottom line is people will not willingly give up the freedom they have to choose whether they do or do not wish to drive.

That is a force no one can overcome. Dictators throughout history have tried. Good luck if you think you can start now.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/18952/this-is-the-human-driving-manifesto
> 
> Do you like driving? I do. It's not about speed. It's about freedom. It's about choice. Car in the garage. Keys in hand. Hands on wheel. We choose where we go and when we go, and we choose how we get there. With the rise of self-driving cars, an army of experts would have us believe freedom and choice are a bad thing. From behind the banner of safety, they claim autonomous technology will save us from the tyranny and danger of human control. *Their strategy is to claim that autonomous technology creates an either/or scenario where human driving is in conflict with safety.*
> 
> ...


The Earth was Created for Man.

Corporations have NO RIGHT TO PLAY GOD.

No G.M.O.'s.

No Robotic Plague.

We must lay down THE LAW.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> Bottom line is people will not willingly give up the freedom they have to choose whether they do or do not wish to drive.
> 
> That is a force no one can overcome. Dictators throughout history have tried. Good luck if you think you can start now.


The Problem is
People DO GIVE UP THEIR FREE WILL DAILY !

To Politicians.


----------



## uberboy48 (Aug 9, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> The Problem is
> People DO GIVE UP THEIR FREE WILL DAILY !
> 
> To Politicians.


Mostly females because it is in there nature


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Do you like driving? I do. .


No one cares what *you* do or don't like. It isn't about you or me. It's about setting the stage for future generations. Young millennials of today don't care a bit about car ownership or the fun of driving or anything else to do with it. Anything that saves them a few bucks and removes the slightest concern about tipping a live person is awesome in their eyes.

And they certainly don't know or care a damn thing about freedom or independence. They've been spoon fed a homogeneous diet of conformity and socialism all their lives, so there's no future in any of the stuff you're talking about. Not after about 10-15 more years.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

jester121 said:


> No one cares what *you* do or don't like. It isn't about you or me. It's about setting the stage for future generations. Young millennials of today don't care a bit about car ownership or the fun of driving or anything else to do with it. Anything that saves them a few bucks and removes the slightest concern about tipping a live person is awesome in their eyes.
> 
> And they certainly don't know or care a damn thing about freedom or independence. They've been spoon fed a homogeneous diet of conformity and socialism all their lives, so there's no future in any of the stuff you're talking about. Not after about 10-15 more years.


Your quoting the article not my words. The article from thedrive.com under the link on the very top of my post.

Do you realize that?


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

uberboy48 said:


> Mostly females because it is in there nature


At least we're not stupid asses who don't know the difference between *there* and *their*. Go ahead. Try us. Women aren't the pushovers you assume we are.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Don’t forget everyone- there are at least a couple of different players at play here:

1. The developers of SDC who want this to succeed because, well, it’s their baby
2. The TP- backed consortium of real estate developers who not only want to see SDCs happen but want to see all car ownership be outlawed so they can save $5 from not having to install parking garages.

The first are a group of techie nerds who think they know what people want- but they don’t.

The second are just psychotic a-holes


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RedANT said:


> At least we're not stupid asses who don't know the difference between *there* and *their*. Go ahead. Try us. Women aren't the pushovers you assume we are.


The Red Ant is Mad Now !

FIRE ANT


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Your quoting the article not my words. The article from thedrive.com under the link on the very top of my post.
> 
> Do you realize that?


Yes, it was the royal "you", not you personally. I don't even know you.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

jester121 said:


> Yes, it was the royal "you", not you personally. I don't even know you.


Ok then. The author wants to set it straight from the beginning and make his readers know where he stands. I don't think he makes that statement because it matters what he likes or not, or anybody else, individually speaking, but that statement helps you understand 2 things:
1. That he has an opinion which he is entitled to, like anybody else, and
2. His opinion.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Ok then. The author wants to set it straight from the beginning and make his readers know where he stands. I don't think he makes that statement because it matters what he likes or not, or anybody else, individually speaking, but that statement helps you understand 2 things:
> 1. That he has an opinion which he is entitled to, like anybody else, and
> 2. His opinion.


A lot of people's opinions about SDCs are being interpreted as Gospel truth, for reasons I don't understand.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

This is such a "Murican", good ol' boy article, lol. Everything gets tried to be turned into being about alleged loss of "freedoms". I'm sure that when Gatorade reduced the size of its delicious energy drink bottles from 32oz to 28oz, somebody, somewhere rallied that their "freedoms" were being taken away.

How is self driving cars about the loss of "freedoms", lol. Is the car going to keep its owners imprisoned in their house and only let them out if it likes the destination that the humans want to go to?

If people want an SDC, they'll buy an SDC. If they want to drive themselves, they'll buy a non-autonomous car. It's a non-issue.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> If people want an SDC, they'll buy an SDC. If they want to drive themselves, they'll buy a non-autonomous car. It's a non-issue.


Sure... until regular cars are compleely banned for being too dangerous. Or insurance becomes prohibitively expensive.... or licensing... or taxation.

People who crave power are always convinced that their opinion is what's best for everyone, and they'll do everything they can to amass power and shove their ideas down everyone's throat -- either by economics or political will or social pressure or any other means. It's the defining characteristic of statists everywhere.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Everything gets tried to be turned into being about alleged loss of "freedoms".


I am not sure you see the bigger picture. I put it right in the title. What is driving? It is a skill. What happens when technologies are pushed on the market or accepted by the consumers? The consumers could or would lose the skill. I can give you few examples, like..... writing vs. typing - the young generations gradually are losing their motric skill because of larger use of the keyboard; reading vs. admiring digital pictures or digital movies - again, the younger generations lose the ability and the patience to read and correctly recognize and reproduce grammar because they tend to choose the convenience of flashing images in front of their eyes.

We can argue about the benefits of new technologies the same way we can argue about how they make every single individual lose specific skills in favor of laziness renamed "convenience".

The skill of driving is a complex mixture of multitasking

 focusing at different sound and visual details inside and outside the car,
 controlling the steering wheel and the pedals,
 understanding and anticipating what other traffic participants like drivers or pedestrians could or would do in the very next second,
 understanding weather conditions and how vehicle physics change when road conditions change
 controlling your temper in certain challenging situations
 while navigating the roads and maintaining the correct direction towards a destination.

Some value those skills more, some less, but every single individual gets a little better with every single day spent out there, on the road.

If you think reading, writing or driving, as skills, matter for yourself or for other people around you, you can see how those qualities will empower people to learn, create, help others or travel for personal benefit. We can discuss about this if you want to continue it.

Robots only follow written instructions (emphasize on "only").



jester121 said:


> People who crave power are always convinced that their opinion is what's best for everyone


Can you please explain what people are you referring to?



iheartuber said:


> A lot of people's opinions about SDCs are being interpreted as Gospel truth, for reasons I don't understand.


I think those opinions have an emotional impact that makes individuals have a comment, and that is good. As long as people want to understand what is going on, I think they need information and informed opinions.

In this particular situation there are so many things to understand because the developers promises and lies are so "fascinating", that some people really think impossible is possible or, because they've seen few visually spectacular scifi movies, they really want that change (mistakenly called progress) to happen, and they get the tunnel vision ignoring reality.

Progress will only come from more education, not more technology.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> What is driving? It is a skill.


Not in this town. I take it you've never driven in the San Francisco bay area?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> The article raises legitimate issues. This is not about an old man and a troll. If we want to have a serious discussion about this, I am afraid we need to ignore the noise coming from those 2.


and you need to ignore videos of people sleeping while being driven on everyday roads in Phoenix. Otherwise you could look like a real clown and people might start pointing and laughing at you.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> and you need to ignore videos of people sleeping while being driven on everyday roads in Phoenix. Otherwise you could look like a real clown and people might start pointing and laughing at you.


If you're going to produce a video at least make it not boring.

The music was totally lame, the comments from the people were stiff, and you can even feel the nervousness, which is probably the opposite of what Waymo was looking for.

But don't take my word for it because as a member of the UP Community you made it clear that I'm "slow" and thus my opinion doesn't count.

Rather: watch for the proof to be in the pudding. Or, to put it more easily: if tons of people plunk down their money for this, then it's a success. If they don't, then it's not.

If you don't mind, I'd rather just wait until we have that data. And that's gonna be when? Oh right: "within weeks"


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> as a member of the UP Community... I'm "slow" and thus my opinion doesn't count.


well said


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> well said


As my uncle used to say: if you ask a fool if he's a fool of course he's gonna say no.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the self-unaware fool tomatopaste


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> If you're going to produce a video at least make it not boring.
> 
> The music was totally lame, the comments from the people were stiff, and you can even feel the nervousness, which is probably the opposite of what Waymo was looking for.
> 
> ...


At this point you'd think one would have enough self awareness to realize how stupid that sounds, but alas, no. Ten thousand people signed up for the early rider program the first week, Waymo was only able to accept a small fraction of that.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Not in this town. I take it you've never driven in the San Francisco bay area?


Actually I have.... few times around the city.

The article tells what people need to do - "We cannot escape the march of technology, but we can channel it toward paths that strengthen rather than weaken us, expand our horizons rather than limit them, and guarantee that the car-once and still a symbol of freedom-doesn't become a tool of the tyranny we seek to avoid."

You will say "what tyranny"?, and I will send you to Stephen Hawking's explanation about the possibility of technological unemployment - "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

He says how, based on reality, technology driving will increase inequality.

Do you think he was right or wrong?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> If you're going to produce a video at least make it not boring.
> 
> The music was totally lame, the comments from the people were stiff, and you can even feel the nervousness, which is probably the opposite of what Waymo was looking for.
> 
> ...


When all you have left to biotch about is the choice of music in a video, you've officially become a laughing stock.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> When all you have left to biotch about is the choice of music in a video, you've officially become a laughing stock.


The video is boring, face the facts

But hey, a transportation revolution is not going to be made or broken on the back of a video.

Bottom line: let me know when Waymo launches, give it a few weeks to catch on, and then tell me how the public reacts: like gangbusters? Just blah? Or nothing at all?

When you have that data then talk to me. Nothing else matters.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Actually I have.... few times around the city.
> 
> The article tells what people need to do - "We cannot escape the march of technology, but we can channel it toward paths that strengthen rather than weaken us, expand our horizons rather than limit them, and guarantee that the car-once and still a symbol of freedom-doesn't become a tool of the tyranny we seek to avoid."
> 
> ...


The situation you outline is a possibility. There have been a ton of discussions about whether it is valid and what we need to do.

This race is not about the United States it's about the world, we live in a global world. If the world has fully autonomous machines doing work in a cheaper fashion it is going to kill our trade and severely harm our purchasing power because what we make will be more expensive. The super wealthy will continue to amass wealth since they are diversified internationally resulting in what you predict. The people that live in the United States will suffer. We are not going to get consume 20% of the worlds energy if we are not the dominate economic power. This race we are already falling behind:

https://www.predictiveanalyticsworl...head-of-the-us-on-deep-learning-patents/9381/

China is publishing more patents then us now for AI.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> The video is boring, face the facts
> 
> But hey, a transportation revolution is not going to be made or broken on the back of a video.
> 
> ...


"Those are probably the results Waymo was hoping for, but they should be taken with a grain of salt. A Waymo employee and a camera operator were onboard for the rides, albeit not in the driver's seat, according to The Verge. It's also worth noting that not every passenger reaction made the cut in this roughly 40-second video. Numerous studies have found that people are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, or even share the road with them."

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/19228/...ers-already-getting-used-to-self-driving-cars


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Actually I have.... few times around the city.
> 
> The article tells what people need to do - "We cannot escape the march of technology, but we can channel it toward paths that strengthen rather than weaken us, expand our horizons rather than limit them, and guarantee that the car-once and still a symbol of freedom-doesn't become a tool of the tyranny we seek to avoid."
> 
> ...


There you go with the "freedom" speak again. "Give me a manual 5 speed or give me death" - Patrick Henry (1775)


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> The video is boring, face the facts
> 
> But hey, a transportation revolution is not going to be made or broken on the back of a video.
> 
> ...


As with everything else, the salient parts of the video fly right over your head. The elderly couple in the beginning of the video sheepishly push the start button. The mother says: this is weird. By the end of the video pax are texting and even falling asleep. It's a devistatingly powerful video.



jocker12 said:


> "Those are probably the results Waymo was hoping for, but they should be taken with a grain of salt. A Waymo employee and a camera operator were onboard for the rides, albeit not in the driver's seat, according to The Verge. It's also worth noting that not every passenger reaction made the cut in this roughly 40-second video. Numerous studies have found that people are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, or even share the road with them."
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/tech/19228/...ers-already-getting-used-to-self-driving-cars


This is what the vaunted UP is down to: they're probably all paid actors


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> "Those are probably the results Waymo was hoping for, but they should be taken with a grain of salt. A Waymo employee and a camera operator were onboard for the rides, albeit not in the driver's seat, according to The Verge. It's also worth noting that not every passenger reaction made the cut in this roughly 40-second video. Numerous studies have found that people are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, or even share the road with them."
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/tech/19228/...ers-already-getting-used-to-self-driving-cars


Waymo was able to convince the parents' of the two young girls in the video (or legal guardian, if they're from the local orphanage) that they can trust Waymo with the lives of their young daughters


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> As with everything else, the salient parts of the video fly right over your head. The elderly couple in the beginning of the video sheepishly push the start button. The mother says: this is weird. By the end of the video pax are texting and even falling asleep. It's a devistatingly powerful video.


Roger Ebert, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

123dragon said:


> The situation you outline is a possibility.


Unlike corporate BS based on promises and delusions, Stephen Hawking refers to REALITY (and when is about technology we have a very short history of events) as "the trend seems to be toward the second option, with *technology driving ever-increasing inequality*".

To make a simple analogy, this is like Uber telling you how "the busier you are (the more riders you get), the better it is"(BS) when the reality is different - "the more money you make (the longer the distance you cover with a rider in your car), the better it is".


123dragon said:


> This race is not about the United States it's about the world, we live in a global world.


Here you try to set a direction, but you continue by contradicting yourself - "The people that live in the United States will suffer. We are not going to get consume 20% of the worlds energy if we are not the dominate economic power." So, if is about the entire world, then technology should and would be almost evenly distributed (without complaining or warning about the US falling behind), while if it's about the US, we'll need to stay ahead in order to control how that technology is distributed around the continents.
In my opinion, it is only about the US, because the US or Silicon Valley type of capitalism is not about competing but about crushing any competitors in order to achieve monopoly on every single market. At this point, the rest of the world is inspired by the US in terms of technological advances and few players interested to operate on the American market, are trying to develop or use similar technologies, whatever these are or will be.



The Gift of Fish said:


> There you go with the "freedom" speak again. "Give me a manual 5 speed or give me death" - Patrick Henry (1775)


You seem to ignore the different connotations of the term "freedom" used by the author of the posted article. Patrick Henry's words were "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" and not your "5 speed" joke, where LIBERTY has an absolute meaning about RIGHTS.
The author of this article refers to "freedoms" as the ability to do whatever an individual wants to do, whenever that individual chooses to. 
As I've already mentioned, these are different connotations of the same term, where connotation is "the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning".


----------



## Uberdaddyo (Jan 3, 2018)

Uber is at war with car ownership. They want everyone to depend on a driverless car for all their transportation. Won't happen though


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber is at war with car ownership. They want everyone to depend on a driverless car for all their transportation. Won't happen though


Going to war with car ownership is like going to war with the ocean


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Going to war with car ownership is like going to war with the ocean


This is very true. A week ago, when Ford announced they will test self driving cars pizza delivery service in Miami, where you already see the harsh result of the ocean raising and some streets go underwater, I was like .... "brilliant!". Now a bridge collapsed in Miami... Looks like the perfect place to test a transportation service....


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> This is very true. A week ago, when Ford announced they will test self driving cars pizza delivery service in Miami, where you already see the harsh result of the ocean raising and some streets go underwater, I was like .... "brilliant!". Now a bridge collapsed in Miami... Looks like the perfect place to test a transportation service....


Vehicle ownership and the physical freedoms it provides simply isn't value as highly these days. The post high school road trip, experiencing new places, problems and people isn't on the radar to youngsters any longer.

Their lives are filtered through Social Media and the "friends and followers" they log up from the safety of their homes. They can live a life without undertaking the risky human activity of Social Intercourse.

All new cars starting with Electric vehicles will soon be fitted with telemetry. Governments around the world HAVE to design a new per mile use tax model, to replace the fuel taxes they collect from Fuel sales.

That telemetry will then allow Government Agencies to automatically breach drivers recorded breaking speed limits, parking illegally. The time line that is generated by vehicle telemetry will also be saved for Police investigations.

Freedoms are being taken away the older I get. I bought myself a Tesla hoping it's progress to full Autonomy would be quicker, giving me and my clients more choices as far a a personal chauffeur or robot car transport. But alas! Methinks here in OZ we are well behind.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> Vehicle ownership and the physical freedoms it provides simply isn't value as highly these days. The post high school road trip, experiencing new places, problems and people isn't on the radar to youngsters any longer.
> 
> Their lives are filtered through Social Media and the "friends and followers" they log up from the safety of their homes. They can live a life without undertaking the risky human activity of Social Intercourse.
> 
> ...


Not true


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> Vehicle ownership and the physical freedoms it provides simply isn't value as highly these days. The post high school road trip, experiencing new places, problems and people isn't on the radar to youngsters any longer.
> 
> Their lives are filtered through Social Media and the "friends and followers" they log up from the safety of their homes. They can live a life without undertaking the risky human activity of Social Intercourse.
> 
> ...


yeah, which is why all the night life areas of cities are full of boomers while all the young people are at home. please....


----------



## DJWolford (Aug 6, 2017)

what the hell are you getting so riled up about


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

heynow321 said:


> yeah, which is why all the night life areas of cities are full of boomers while all the young people are at home. please....


Minimum wages don't allow for easy car ownership. Youngsters know what cars they want, but in reality rarely can afford them or have the discipline to save.

We are bombarded with advertisements to buy all sorts things. Marketing very effectively drains a youngsters wallet. Stuff I never had to pay for like mobile phone fees, Netflix, Ubers and accessible drugs. Priced to match their meagre earnings.

So most youngsters adapt. Growing up without ever waking up in a tent on a 3rd beach in a week, hiking and driving AWAY, 100s of miles on a trip of learning.

Weekly party events as you suggest are a $5 shared UBER trip away.


----------



## Uberdaddyo (Jan 3, 2018)

So these companies want to get rid of drivers, mcdonalds have installed kiosks to get rid of employees, and amazon wants to have robots instead of employees. So the future is automation for sure, if all these people lose their jobs thats less money they have to use services and buy stuff....


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

iheartuber said:


> Not true


For a growing percentage of kids, yes. That's what effective marketing does. Diverts people's disposable income to frivolous purchases.

Saving to buy a decent car takes a lot of discipline. Something that modern society has deemed "uncool".

I just showed my soon to be 12 yr old how she can afford a Tesla by the time she's 20. Starting with a dollar a day with a 25% increase in contributions per year, matched by Mum and Dad, invested at about 5%. She could see it all work out on the spread sheet.

But then she started looking at the amounts and deducting little amounts here and there for shopping trips, treats and friends. In no time the final total was under a half of the original.

"But Dad! I can't wait till 2028 to have all my fun, and besides I won't be able to drive a car then my Teacher told me"!


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> Minimum wages don't allow for easy car ownership. Youngsters know what cars they want, but in reality rarely can afford them or have the discipline to save.
> 
> We are bombarded with advertisements to buy all sorts things. Marketing very effectively drains a youngsters wallet. Stuff I never had to pay for like mobile phone fees, Netflix, Ubers and accessible drugs. Priced to match their meagre earnings.
> 
> ...


you're right. every time i go to the beach it's nothing but old people! no young people anywhere!


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> For a growing percentage of kids, yes. That's what effective marketing does. Diverts people's disposable income to frivolous purchases.
> 
> Saving to buy a decent car takes a lot of discipline. Something that modern society has deemed "uncool".
> 
> ...


The world you describe where all millenials are children forever would make a great dystopian society movie (well, YA book first, then a movie), but the reality is sooner or later everyone grows up.

If your daughter thinks like a 12 year old when she's 40 then our society has bigger problems than robot cars


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

iheartuber said:


> The world you describe where all millenials are children forever would make a great dystopian society movie (well, YA book first, then a movie), but the reality is sooner or later everyone grows up.
> 
> If your daughter thinks like a 12 year old when she's 40 then our society has bigger problems than robot cars


My daughter is being indoctrinated with all sorts of new priorities. Just spent a rare few hours together taking her to the Dentist and back. It's worrying what they are being taught and influenced into thinking. I've got a lot of work to do.

How old are your kids?



heynow321 said:


> you're right. every time i go to the beach it's nothing but old people! no young people anywhere!


I'm talking weeks away from current day social media. Camping for days, road trips, hiking to cabins and living rough. Many Youngsters don't find that as compelling or as the easy as logging on and chatting n social media.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> My daughter is being indoctrinated with all sorts of new priorities. Just spent a rare few hours together taking her to the Dentist and back. It's worrying what they are being taught and influenced into thinking. I've got a lot of work to do.
> 
> How old are your kids?
> 
> I'm talking weeks away from current day social media. Camping for days, road trips, hiking to cabins and living rough. Many Youngsters don't find that as compelling or as the easy as logging on and chatting n social media.


you need to speak with more youngsters then. i hate the young people just as much as the next person but they are still venturing outside to the beach, going camping, and traveling.


----------



## transporter007 (Feb 19, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/18952/this-is-the-human-driving-manifesto
> 
> Do you like driving? I do. It's not about speed. It's about freedom. It's about choice. Car in the garage. Keys in hand. Hands on wheel. We choose where we go and when we go, and we choose how we get there. With the rise of self-driving cars, an army of experts would have us believe freedom and choice are a bad thing. From behind the banner of safety, they claim autonomous technology will save us from the tyranny and danger of human control. *Their strategy is to claim that autonomous technology creates an either/or scenario where human driving is in conflict with safety.*
> 
> ...


----------

