# Google's self driving car in worst accident yet



## TwoFiddyMile

Oops!
SDCs are just around the corner...
https://9to5google.com/2016/09/23/g...in-what-appears-to-be-its-worst-accident-yet/

Google's self-driving cars are no stranger to accidents, but rarely are the autonomous cars at fault and rarely do those accidents cause any significant damage. Today, it seems, may be an exception for the latter case, with one of the Mountain View company's Lexus self-driving vehicles sustaining major damage in an accident involving a commercial van&#8230;

As far as we know, this is yet another case where the human - driving what appears to be a commercial van (as you can see being towed in the background) - was at fault. It's still notable, however, as one of the worst - if not the worst - accidents one of Google's cars has ever been in. As you can see in the image above, the entire right door on the Lexus is crumpled in along with a broken window or two.

Specifically, we're told the crash happened in Mountain View, California, at the corner of W El Camino Real and Calderon Ave. We're told that no one was hurt in the crash and all airbags deployed.

"I only saw the tail-end of the crash, and the dazed Google employees sitting around afterwards waiting for their tow-truck. I had to be on my way," a witness told us. The witness also mentioned that, based on their perspective, the self-driving car was not at fault. "From what I could see, it was the van's fault entirely," they said.

There's no official word on this from Google yet (we've reached out for comment on the situation, but have yet to hear back), but if Google follows decorum, chances are we won't hear more about it until it releases its self-driving car report at the end of the month. And that makes sense - it will probably take a little while before all the necessary paperwork is filed with the DMV.

Earlier this year, Google's self-driving car was in its first at-fault accident involving a bus, which also involved a Lexus vehicle. Coincidentally, that accident also happened along El Camino Real.

Update 8:51 PM PT: Google has provided us with the following statement.

A Google vehicle was traveling northbound on Phyllis Ave. in Mountain View when a car heading westbound on El Camino Real ran a red light and collided with the right side of our vehicle. Our light was green for at least six seconds before our car entered the intersection. Thousands of crashes happen everyday on U.S. roads, and red-light running is the leading cause of urban crashes in the U.S. Human error plays a role in 94% of these crashes, which is why we're developing fully self-driving technology to make our roads safer.

_picture credit to @grommet - reprinted with permission_


----------



## DriverX

Don't mess with battery delivery guys job security. They load batteries all day.


----------



## tohunt4me

Human error is WHY we're developing self driving cars.
What else will humans be ELIMINATED FROM due to errors ?
Robots baseball anyone,9 innings NO ERRORS !
Robot surgeons ? Robot pharmacists ?Those ERROR FILLED HUMANS must be ELIMINATED FROM everything apparently !


----------



## tohunt4me

DriverX said:


> Don't mess with battery delivery guys job security. They load batteries all day.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Two things to note. 1) only google is saying google isn't at fault 2) I can't say it happens often that a car runs a red light after 6 full seconds of being a red light. Sounds hard to believe. The google driver had time to stop and smoke a cigarette before the guy hit him.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

uberdriverfornow said:


> The google driver had time to stop and smoke a cigarette before the guy hit him.


A robot that smokes?
Google may need to develop ones that can read & heed health warnings on packs.
New Google self non-driving car: see it first at your local panel shop.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Damn, all these accidents really have my confidence high in the robot world which is poised to take over in just 5 years.
No, Seriously!


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile announced as new male lead in upcoming re-make of "Death Wish".
Don't believe me? - Google it!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> TwoFiddyMile announced as new male lead in upcoming re-make of "Death Wish".
> Don't believe me? - Google it!


I AM the Generation X Charles Bronson.
Jimmy Page will do the soundtrack.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Jimmy Page will do the soundtrack.


Will probably go over like a lead balloon.


----------



## DriverX




----------



## Euius

uberdriverfornow said:


> Two things to note. 1) only google is saying google isn't at fault


And the witnesses.

Of course the company/driver at fault isn't standing in front of a camera saying "Yup, it's our fault!" Their insurance wouldn't let them.



> 2) I can't say it happens often that a car runs a red light after 6 full seconds of being a red light. Sounds hard to believe. The google driver had time to stop and smoke a cigarette before the guy hit him.


Of course it never happens! It's so rare, they don't even make it against the law!


----------



## observer

Why did Google say "six seconds"? Not two, not ten but six. Probably because they have reviewed the cameras on the Google car. 

There have been over a dozen Google car accidents where the other vehicle has been at fault. One accident that was the Google cars fault, and I heard there is possibly one other at fault accident.

Important to note here, if you don't have a dash cam, get one.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Google is going to own EVERYTHING. Hello MONOPOLY. Google is gonn buy cars,twitter,and most things online. If everyone is so safe and lazy go back home live with your goddam parents. Omg my kid got a concusion playing football im worried. Well keep them home in bubble wrap! We talking about how we want government to protects us more but we dont want a bigger government. HELLOOO! How the **** does that make sense? Im on here to try and make people stand up for their rights to own. I guess people are meant to have their rights shoved up their asses! Youtube and facebook is sensering me and others. Also why the **** are we sensored on here? I see kids saying and doing stuff that should be blocked on facebook but not! I can tell you when robot cars tell me i cant be on the road im gonna tell them why are bikes and cars shareing the road?! There will be riots like the black lives matter for people to keep their cars and driveing. I will drive on road still with my 2000 jeep rangler with my guns noone is gonna crowd control me. STAND UP! STAND UP! STAND UP!


----------



## sUBERu2u

tohunt4me said:


> Human error is WHY we're developing self driving cars.
> What else will humans be ELIMINATED FROM due to errors ?
> Robots baseball anyone,9 innings NO ERRORS !
> Robot surgeons ? Robot pharmacists ?Those ERROR FILLED HUMANS must be ELIMINATED FROM everything apparently !


Not bad ideas, if it saves lives.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

sUBERu2u said:


> Not bad ideas, if it saves lives.


RobotLivesMatter


----------



## Strange Fruit

observer said:


> Why did Google say "six seconds"? Not two, not ten but six. Probably because they have reviewed the cameras on the Google car.
> 
> There have been over a dozen Google car accidents where the other vehicle has been at fault. One accident that was the Google cars fault, and I heard there is possibly one other at fault accident.
> 
> Important to note here, if you don't have a dash cam, get one.


It's kind of funny that with the few Google cars there are relative to the rest of drivers, that there have been _over a dozen_ Google car accidents that were the "other car's fault". How come I've not been in a single accident after 2&1/2 years of being on the road 40hrs a week, nor do most people that I've known get into accidents caused by self or another. A bit coincidental that it happens to be Google cars that have been involved in more than 12 accidents, and those were all someone else's fault. What are the chances?


----------



## RamzFanz

_The witness also mentioned that, based on their perspective, the self-driving car was not at fault. "From what I could see, it was the van's fault entirely," they said.
_
Seriously fiddy, you're just proving them right.


----------



## RamzFanz

Strange Fruit said:


> It's kind of funny that with the few Google cars there are relative to the rest of drivers, that there have been _over a dozen_ Google car accidents that were the "other car's fault". How come I've not been in a single accident after 2&1/2 years of being on the road 40hrs a week, nor do most people that I've known get into accidents caused by self or another. A bit coincidental that it happens to be Google cars that have been involved in more than 12 accidents, and those were all someone else's fault. What are the chances?


Pretty good since they have driven 2 million miles. Of course, their self-governed speeds and cautious behavior contributes.


----------



## RamzFanz

observer said:


> Why did Google say "six seconds"? Not two, not ten but six. Probably because they have reviewed the cameras on the Google car.
> 
> There have been over a dozen Google car accidents where the other vehicle has been at fault. One accident that was the Google cars fault, and I heard there is possibly one other at fault accident.
> 
> Important to note here, if you don't have a dash cam, get one.


Google Car has zero at fault accidents, erroneous clickbait reporting doesn't make something true. Yes, they probably have reviewed the video, wouldn't you?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Two things to note. 1) only google is saying google isn't at fault 2) I can't say it happens often that a car runs a red light after 6 full seconds of being a red light. Sounds hard to believe. The google driver had time to stop and smoke a cigarette before the guy hit him.


The witnesses confirm, not just Google.

Humans do the damndest things so six seconds doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Google Car has zero at fault accidents, erroneous clickbait reporting doesn't make something true. Yes, they probably have reviewed the video, wouldn't you?


Nobody drives in Mountain View for Uber as much as me and I have NEVER seen a Google SDC without a driver in it, can you please link me to the articles that state there have been over 2 million miles of Google SDC's that have had NO driver in it? thanks in advance


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> The witnesses confirm, not just Google.
> 
> Humans do the damndest things so six seconds doesn't surprise me at all.


Can you please link me to the video of this accident so I can also see the video that you have seen where it showed that the other driver was at fault? thanks in advance


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Can you please link me to the video of this accident so I can also see the video that you have seen where it showed that the other driver was at fault? thanks in advance


No, I never referenced any such video. I referenced the witnesses.

Can you please link me to any video or other evidence that counters the eyewitness and driver testimony?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody drives in Mountain View for Uber as much as me and I have NEVER seen a Google SDC without a driver in it, can you please link me to the articles that state there have been over 2 million miles of Google SDC's that have had NO driver in it? thanks in advance


I never stated they didn't have a driver. They have driven in autonomous mode for over 2 million miles.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> No, I never referenced any such video. I referenced the witnesses.
> 
> Can you please link me to any video or other evidence that counters the eyewitness and driver testimony?


You're saying witnesses confirm(though there are no witnesses listed, just anonymous comments) as well as Google which implies that it is taken as fact. Since that's ridiculous to think it is confirmed I felt you must have seen a video to come to such a silly conclusion. Apparently I gave you too much credit.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I never stated they didn't have a driver. They have driven in autonomous mode for over 2 million miles.


Then it's not autonomous mode for over 2 million miles if there has been a driver there ready to bail it out when it would otherwise cause a serious accident.

You have no way of knowing if that SDC with a driver would be causing an accident if that driver wasn't there to bail it out when it would otherwise hit something and cause major fatalities.

It's easy to say that something has driven 2 million miles with a driver there to bail it out, but it means nothing since that driver is there to take over and bail it out.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> You're saying witnesses confirm(though there are no witnesses listed, just anonymous comments) as well as Google which implies that it is taken as fact. Since that's ridiculous to think it is confirmed I felt you must have seen a video to come to such a silly conclusion. Apparently I gave you too much credit.


I accept the word of the reporter, witness, Google, and driver, until I have some reason to believe otherwise. Do you have anything or are you just spinning? Have you ever know Google to lie about the Google car or that witness, driver, or reporter?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I accept the word of the reporter, witness, Google, and driver, until I have some reason to believe otherwise. Do you have anything or are you just spinning? Have you ever know Google to lie about the Google car or that witness, driver, or reporter?


The reporter is only reporting what someone else said. If there was an actual person or persons that clearly stated what they seen and backed up by evidence then sure, but do you know how many people have been incarcerated for saying they seen something and it turned out to be not true ? Futhermore we don't know who these witnesses are, normally when you have a witness then a reporter would make sure to get a name. That's Journalism 101.

There is no police report, there is no police spokesman on record stating the results of an accident investigation which would be what I would see as an unbiased report on what happened. Google stated Google wasn't at fault, you're saying I should believe that just because ?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Then it's not autonomous mode for over 2 million miles if there has been a driver there ready to bail it out when it would otherwise cause a serious accident.


Yes, it is in autonomous mode. Every mile is documented as to being driven in autonomous mode or by the driver. Over 2 million are in autonomous mode.



uberdriverfornow said:


> You have no way of knowing if that SDC with a driver would be causing an accident if that driver wasn't there to bail it out when it would otherwise hit something and cause major fatalities.


Yes, actually, we do. The times that a driver has to "bail out" the car are all documented and public record. The last annual report documented 12 times where the driver intervened and it was necessary and appropriate, but those were mostly at the beginning of the year, over a million miles ago.



uberdriverfornow said:


> It's easy to say that something has driven 2 million miles with a driver there to bail it out, but it means nothing since that driver is there to take over and bail it out.


This is a logical fallacy. If the driver doesn't need to "bail it out", it matters not if they are there or not.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it is in autonomous mode. Every mile is documented as to being driven in autonomous mode or by the driver. Over 2 million are in autonomous mode.
> 
> Yes, actually, we do. The times that a driver has to "bail out" the car are all documented and public record. The last annual report documented 12 times where the driver intervened and it was necessary and appropriate, but those were mostly at the beginning of the year, over a million miles ago.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. If the driver doesn't need to "bail it out", it matters not if they are there or not.


So 2 million miles and ONLY 12 times did the driver need to bail it out? I doubt it, maybe if there was an independent driver that didn't work for Google would I believe something as silly as that. If it only needed to take over 12 times then it would be hailed as being close to being deployable, and we know these things aren't even close. There is nothing that states these things are close to being deployed, even the Uber execs are saying we're still years away.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> The reporter is only reporting what someone else said. If there was an actual person or persons that clearly stated what they seen and backed up by evidence then sure, but do you know how many people have been incarcerated for saying they seen something and it turned out to be not true ? Futhermore we don't know who these witnesses are, normally when you have a witness then a reporter would make sure to get a name. That's Journalism 101.
> 
> There is no police report, there is no police spokesman on record stating the results of an accident investigation which would be what I would see as an unbiased report on what happened. Google stated Google wasn't at fault, you're saying I should believe that just because ?


Sure. If you buy into conspiracies that serve no purpose, I could see where you are coming from. Instead of admitting an incident that means nothing, even if at fault, lets pay off reporters and witnesses and create a huge coverup that could take down one of the biggest tech companies in the world. Lets just lie about it all and think the police won't investigate the accident. Or the insurance companies. Sounds legit.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Sure. If you buy into conspiracies that serve no purpose, I could see where you are coming from. Instead of admitting an incident that means nothing, even if at fault, lets pay off reporters and witnesses and create a huge coverup that could take down one of the biggest tech companies in the world. Lets just lie about it all and think the police won't investigate the accident. Or the insurance companies. Sounds legit.


Oh, I look foward to reading what the police report states was the cause AND seeing the video that Google apparently hasn't released for some strange reason.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> So 2 million miles and ONLY 12 times did the driver need to bail it out? I doubt it, maybe if there was an independent driver that didn't work for Google would I believe something as silly as that. If it only needed to take over 12 times then it would be hailed as being close to being deployable, and we know these things aren't even close. There is nothing that states these things are close to being deployed, even the Uber execs are saying we're still years away.


No, I said 12 times in their last report. If I recall, that one was actually for 16 months, not a year. I don't know how many, if any, this year yet. Last report they went 7 straight months with zero necessary interventions by drivers. It's all public record.

It IS hailed as being close to deployed. Have you not been paying attention at all? The experts are saying 2-5 years. That's pretty close wouldn't you say?

If you think Google is lying, so be it. Nothing I, they, or anyone can say will convince you otherwise. You can join the others in denial.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Oh, I look foward to reading what the police report states was the cause AND seeing the video that Google apparently hasn't released for some strange reason.



Conspiracies everywhere. I bet they're paying off the cops right now to keep it all under wraps.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Conspiracies everywhere. I bet they're paying off the cops right now to keep it all under wraps.


You shouldn't believe in conspiracy theories, it's not good for your sense of reality.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> You shouldn't believe in conspiracy theories, it's not good for your sense of reality.


I know, I'm slipping into believing you're all in on it.

You know what else? They also run 300,000 simulator miles a day on the program using recorded driving. To the computer its the exact same as live. So in reality, the programming is far far better tested than most people realize.

Also, of those 12, 2 would have hit traffic cones and none would have resulted in any injury. They were all minor. Perhaps some minor property damage, as I recall. Of course, after each intervention, they correct the programming error and then run the program through every mile they've actually driven again to ensure it works.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I know, I'm slipping into believing you're all in on it.
> 
> You know what else? They also run 300,000 simulator miles a day on the program using recorded driving. To the computer its the exact same as live. So in reality, the programming is far far better tested than most people realize.
> 
> Also, of those 12, 2 would have hit traffic cones and none would have resulted in any injury. They were all minor.


There's a difference between not believing what Google is saying and believing something ridiculous that someone is saying Google is doing.

I'm sorry you're being naive, I tend to use my head. If Google told you to jump off a bridge, sounds like you would.


----------



## Fireguy50

observer said:


> Why did Google say "six seconds"? Not two, not ten but six. Probably because they have reviewed the cameras on the Google car.
> 
> There have been over a dozen Google car accidents where the other vehicle has been at fault. One accident that was the Google cars fault, and I heard there is possibly one other at fault accident.
> 
> Important to note here, if you don't have a dash cam, get one.


Yep, most can see Crosswalk signals and at night the cross traffic light color. I'm considering putting one in the rear of the vehicle, still working on the details of where and what and how. Not sure if I would need a remote lenses and recorder or a single unit. My backup camera is 5volts, and I don't like the heat from the inverter if it was left on for hours  so need to think of something else.
Oh, and find extra money since Uber doesn't pay us well enough.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> There's a difference between not believing what Google is saying and believing something ridiculous that someone is saying Google is doing.
> 
> I'm sorry you're being naive, I tend to use my head. If Google told you to jump off a bridge, sounds like you would.


No, you're saying they are lying. What I am referring to is a report mandated by law. You are accusing them of a criminal offense with no reason, logic, or evidence. I'm used to it around here so, no offense taken.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> No, you're saying they are lying. What I am referring to is a report mandated by law. You are accusing them of a criminal offense with no reason, logic, or evidence.


I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying I don't believe altogether what they are saying. There's a way to spin things, just look at the Hillary campaign, for example.

You're welcome to believe everything everyone tells you, even with no evidence to back up what they are saying as being true. Some of us aren't so naive.

You're definitely on a mission advocating for these SDC death traps as if they will never do anything wrong if they are ever allowed on the road without a driver but most aren't as naive as you.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying I don't believe altogether what they are saying. There's a way to spin things, just look at the Hillary campaign, for example.
> 
> You're welcome to believe everything everyone tells you, even with no evidence to back up what they are saying as being true. Some of us aren't so naive.
> 
> You're definitely on a mission advocating for these SDC death traps as if they will never do anything wrong if they are ever allowed on the road without a driver but most aren't as naive as you.


Now they are death traps? Zero injuries or fatalities and they are death traps? This is getting pretty deep in the tin hatter range, don't you think?

I do advocate for them. I have children. I have lost several friends to human drivers. But I also want Uber drivers to pull their heads out of the sand and prepare themselves for a job change while they still have years to do so.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Now they are death traps? Zero injuries or fatalities and they are death traps? This is getting pretty deep in the tin hatter range, don't you think?
> 
> I do advocate for them. I have children.


0 fatalites for a self driving car ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/b...na-involved-autopilot-government-tv-says.html

Do you have a short memory ?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> 0 fatalites for a self driving car ?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/b...na-involved-autopilot-government-tv-says.html
> 
> Do you have a short memory ?


No, I don't have a short memory, I have good definitions not drawn from clickbait articles and a decent understanding of the subject. That's not a self-driving car. Period.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it is in autonomous mode. Every mile is documented as to being driven in autonomous mode or by the driver. Over 2 million are in autonomous mode.
> 
> Yes, actually, we do. The times that a driver has to "bail out" the car are all documented and public record. The last annual report documented 12 times where the driver intervened and it was necessary and appropriate, but those were mostly at the beginning of the year, over a million miles ago.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. If the driver doesn't need to "bail it out", it matters not if they are there or not.


So 2 million total miles. But 12 times in what you admit is less than a million miles where a driver intervened, presumably preventing an accident. So that's about 1 in 80 or so thousand miles that it would have been in an accident if the driver weren't present?

Considering these Google cars are presumably not driving around picking up pax outside the bar scene at 2am that doesn't seem that great to me. I'd like to see their human intervention record on a Saturday night in midtown here in Houston.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> No, I don't have a short memory, I have good definitions not drawn from clickbait articles and a decent understanding of the subject. That's not a self-driving car. Period.


*A Google self-driving car caused a crash for the first time *

*http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report*


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report
> 
> *A Google self-driving car caused a crash for the first time*


So, no injuries or fatalities, as I said, and if you knew more about the incident you would know that the click bait headlines aside, it wasn't actually the car's fault or even the human driver in the car who agreed they had right of way.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> So, no injuries or fatalities, as I said, and if you knew more about the incident you would know that the click bait headlines aside, it wasn't actually the car's fault or even the human driver in the car who agreed they had right of way.


Just because this accident didn't cause any injuries doesn't negate the accident itself.

I'd love to be the driver in an accident that caused damage but no injuries and not have it count against me. Would be a great day.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So 2 million total miles. But 12 times in what you admit is less than a million miles where a driver intervened, presumably preventing an accident. So that's about 1 in 80 or so thousand miles that it would have been in an accident if the driver weren't present?
> 
> Considering these Google cars are presumably not driving around picking up pax outside the bar scene at 2am that doesn't seem that great to me. I'd like to see their human intervention record on a Saturday night in midtown here in Houston.


Right.
Cause drunks walk and behave so well at last call, they could never stumble into a moving robot car.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> So, no injuries or fatalities, as I said, and if you knew more about the incident you would know that the click bait headlines aside, it wasn't actually the car's fault or even the human driver in the car who agreed they had right of way.


https://uberpeople.net/threads/we-rode-in-ubers-self-driving-car-—-heres-what-it-was-like.103665/

Even with drivers on the road ready to bail it out you can see all the inconveniences of driving in an SDC here. And this doesn't even include the fact that even if you manage to get one on the road you then have to get it to work for Uber(good luck getting that SDC equipped with that equipment on the hood to fit in a drive thru with an overhang). There are a million ways it will be such an inconvenience being in one of those while using Uber. You may have skipped over that thread because it doesn't state SDC's are perfect.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So 2 million total miles. But 12 times in what you admit is less than a million miles where a driver intervened, presumably preventing an accident. So that's about 1 in 80 or so thousand miles that it would have been in an accident if the driver weren't present?
> 
> Considering these Google cars are presumably not driving around picking up pax outside the bar scene at 2am that doesn't seem that great to me. I'd like to see their human intervention record on a Saturday night in midtown here in Houston.


A fair observation. What you need to consider was this was in late 2014 and early 2015 for the vast majority of these takeovers. They then went 7 months with zero. Then they had a few more. That was the end of the last report. What is most notable is they went from several takeovers a month in the beginning to almost none at the end. This is what the testing is for.

The advance of SDCs is accelerating, not slowing. Google cars may not even be at the forefront anymore for all we know with so many players in so many countries racing to finish them.

They are not ready. They still have some weather issues to figure out but MIT researchers may have cracked that too.

The perception that they need to be perfect to hit the road is not correct. They just need to be significantly safer than humans.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just because this accident didn't cause any injuries doesn't negate the accident itself.
> 
> I'd love to be the driver in an accident that caused damage but no injuries and not have it count against me. Would be a great day.


Again, it wasn't the car's fault, they had right of way. To date, as far as I know, no SDC has ever caused an accident. So, yes, even if it was you who did it, it wouldn't "count against you."


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Right.
> Cause drunks walk and behave so well at last call, they could never stumble into a moving robot car.


...or a human car?

Or are you saying the car is now responsible for the behavior of a drunk?

If I were the drunk, I would hope I stumbled in front of an SDC that makes trillions of observations and predictions a second and can see me coming from much further away.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Right.
> Cause drunks walk and behave so well at last call, they could never stumble into a moving robot car.


I've lived in Houston since 1986. In that time I think there have been at least 6 occasions when the freeway ended up closed in front of me due to an accident and the police had people turn around and drive the wrong way, sometimes also to exit (again the wrong way) off an on ramp.

Would a SDC's programming allow it to drive the wrong way on the freeway and the on ramp? Assuming it can understand the cop's directions to "go after the blue car."


----------



## RamzFanz

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I've lived in Houston since 1986. In that time I think there have been at least 6 occasions when the freeway ended up closed in front of me due to an accident and the police had people turn around and drive the wrong way, sometimes also to exit (again the wrong way) off an on ramp.
> 
> Would a SDC's programming allow it to drive the wrong way on the freeway and the on ramp? Assuming it can understand the cop's directions to "go after the blue car."


Google cars can follow the hand signals of cops. Your particular scenario is one I haven't asked about or seen addressed, though. I've had to do this once in my lifetime of driving so I doubt it's high on the list of priorities.

But yes, at least for the Google car, they can and will break the law when needed.

On the other hand, when a SDC sees an event, all other SDCs could instantly know to route around, so the end result would be much better than human drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Again, it wasn't the car's fault, they had right of way. To date, as far as I know, no SDC has ever caused an accident. So, yes, even if it was you who did it, it wouldn't "count against you."


What part of the below headline are you not understanding ?



uberdriverfornow said:


> *A Google self-driving car caused a crash for the first time *
> 
> *http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report*


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> No, I said 12 times in their last report. If I recall, that one was actually for 16 months, not a year. I don't know how many, if any, this year yet. Last report they went 7 straight months with zero necessary interventions by drivers. It's all public record.
> 
> It IS hailed as being close to deployed. Have you not been paying attention at all? The experts are saying 2-5 years. That's pretty close wouldn't you say?
> 
> If you think Google is lying, so be it. Nothing I, they, or anyone can say will convince you otherwise. You can join the others in denial.


Google themselves are saying 4 years and considering we expect that number to be very optimistic we can expect it to be atleast 5 years.

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/google-self-driving-cars-cyclist/

It hopes to commercialize its technology by 2020.

Not really a surprise you use a very liberal 2-5 years that you basically pulled completely out of your ass.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Google cars can follow the hand signals of cops. Your particular scenario is one I haven't asked about or seen addressed, though. I've had to do this once in my lifetime of driving so I doubt it's high on the list of priorities.
> 
> But yes, at least for the Google car, they can and will break the law when needed.
> 
> On the other hand, when a SDC sees an event, all other SDCs could instantly know to route around, so the end result would be much better than human drivers.


Can you please direct me to the link that states that Google's SDC's can follow police hand signals ?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> What part of the below headline are you not understanding ?


I understand that headlines get clicks and that the car was not at fault. What part don't you get? Clickbait or the actual facts?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Can you please direct me to the link that states that Google's SDC's can follow police hand signals ?


Sure.

This will answer that and a lot of other questions you may have.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I understand that headlines get clicks and that the car was not at fault. What part don't you get? Clickbait or the actual facts?


Oh so you're saying it's a conspiracy that is being mounted against Googles SDC's that made the reporter put that headline in there when it's actually the opposite? Are the Freemason's at work here ? Please enlighten us about your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RamzFanz said:


> ...or a human car?
> 
> Or are you saying the car is now responsible for the behavior of a drunk?
> 
> If I were the drunk, I would hope I stumbled in front of an SDC that makes trillions of observations and predictions a second and can see me coming from much further away.


I don't think a car is going to be able to anticipate stupid human behavior and avoid it anytime soon.

Driving safely is not just about your behavior. It's about dealing with other drivers' bad behavior. And that is predictably unpredictable.

The cars will work great if no humans are driving or allowed to walk where they drive (until hacked, anyway). But having a mix I think will cause more problems than not in many situations.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Sure.
> 
> This will answer that and a lot of other questions you may have.


Looking over that video for the part in question the first thing that stands out is that the car doesn't even follow the hand signals. The guy doing the speaking talks about what it needs to do but he doesn't actually show the car doing it. It's just sitting there while the guy is giving the SDC hand signals. The video moves on without showing the SDC doing it. He's clearly talking about what the overall goal is and you can see that they are not even close.






Another part that stands out is that he talks about the SDC needing to recognize the school bus. But does the SDC actually recognize the school bus? No, you can clearly see the car attempting to pass up the school bus that has it's lights on and the Stop sign on the back of the school bus flapped out which means you can not pass. You can see the SDC attempting to try to pass the school bus in violation of the law. The SDC actually got lucky because as it was attempting to pass the school bus the school bus pulls back the stop sign and turns off it's lights and basically bails out the SDC.

This guy is simply talking about what the car needs to do. I have found just two instances while briefly looking over this video that shows the car not even doing what the guy is saying the car needs to do.






This "presentation" is all about telling you what the objective is.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

So basically Game Over. Come back in 20 years and then we'll talk.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RamzFanz said:


> Google cars can follow the hand signals of cops. Your particular scenario is one I haven't asked about or seen addressed, though. I've had to do this once in my lifetime of driving so I doubt it's high on the list of priorities.
> 
> But yes, at least for the Google car, they can and will break the law when needed.
> 
> On the other hand, when a SDC sees an event, all other SDCs could instantly know to route around, so the end result would be much better than human drivers.


Drive for a living in Houston and it's not an uncommon occurrence. It would definitely need to be addressed.

I don't think accidents will be the biggest problem though. The default behavior when the car gets into a situation where it doesn't know what to do (drunks surrounding it for example) is likely going to be to stop. That could result in a huge mess of cars stuck in place because they are TOO cautious. As far as pax being picked up, they would find that infuriating. Especially if it's surging. LOL


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> https://uberpeople.net/threads/we-rode-in-ubers-self-driving-car---heres-what-it-was-like.103665/
> 
> Even with drivers on the road ready to bail it out you can see all the inconveniences of driving in an SDC here. And this doesn't even include the fact that even if you manage to get one on the road you then have to get it to work for Uber(good luck getting that SDC equipped with that equipment on the hood to fit in a drive thru with an overhang). There are a million ways it will be such an inconvenience being in one of those while using Uber. You may have skipped over that thread because it doesn't state SDC's are perfect.


SDCs are not perfect, never will be, and no one expects them to be.

That's a prototype. Did you not consider that they wouldn't be shaped or sized like that?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Oh so you're saying it's a conspiracy that is being mounted against Googles SDC's that made the reporter put that headline in there when it's actually the opposite? Are the Freemason's at work here ? Please enlighten us about your conspiracy theory.


No, not a conspiracy, an ignorance of the facts or an intentional, non-conspiratorial baiting of the consumer.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I don't think a car is going to be able to anticipate stupid human behavior and avoid it anytime soon.
> 
> Driving safely is not just about your behavior. It's about dealing with other drivers' bad behavior. And that is predictably unpredictable.
> 
> The cars will work great if no humans are driving or allowed to walk where they drive (until hacked, anyway). But having a mix I think will cause more problems than not in many situations.


I agree. Fully self-driving environments would work better but they have to deal with reality. In the end, getting them to deal with humans just moves them along further. If you think SDCs will struggle with human behavior, you should see humans try it. 1.2 million deaths a year and millions of injuries. You can think what you choose, the reality is they are already better in the environments they are being tested.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Looking over that video for the part in question the first thing that stands out is that the car doesn't even follow the hand signals. The guy doing the speaking talks about what it needs to do but he doesn't actually show the car doing it. It's just sitting there while the guy is giving the SDC hand signals. The video moves on without showing the SDC doing it. He's clearly talking about what the overall goal is and you can see that they are not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another part that stands out is that he talks about the SDC needing to recognize the school bus. But does the SDC actually recognize the school bus? No, you can clearly see the car attempting to pass up the school bus that has it's lights on and the Stop sign on the back of the school bus flapped out which means you can not pass. You can see the SDC attempting to try to pass the school bus in violation of the law. The SDC actually got lucky because as it was attempting to pass the school bus the school bus pulls back the stop sign and turns off it's lights and basically bails out the SDC.
> 
> This guy is simply talking about what the car needs to do. I have found just two instances while briefly looking over this video that shows the car not even doing what the guy is saying the car needs to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "presentation" is all about telling you what the objective is.


It's not just telling you the objectives. It was a brief overview of what they are actually accomplishing.

I gave you the short version. Would you like the hour long version with more details?






Mind you, this isn't where I learned everything I repeat, but they are a good starting point. You could actually go read the papers and reports as I have if you really want to know.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically Game Over. Come back in 20 years and then we'll talk.


In 20 years there will probably be no human drivers on public roads.


----------



## Jermin8r89

How about lets start a movement no lives matter. Purge out on humans and kill each other and leave this worlld tp the cars. There we go its a good disney movie to "cars"


----------



## Lowestformofwit

UberBSmatters.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

The nightclub last call scenario is not about accidents.
It's about a robot car which will be so unaggressive it can't leave the curb for 45 minutes.
Zombie drunks only get out of the way for aggressive ahole cabbies and Ubers.


----------



## observer

RamzFanz said:


> Google Car has zero at fault accidents, erroneous clickbait reporting doesn't make something true. Yes, they probably have reviewed the video, wouldn't you?












Any logical person can see that the Google car was not in the lane. Again, a logical person driving two miles an hour is NOT going to ASSUME that a CITY BUS going 15 miles an hour is going to slow down to let them merge.

I think that self driving vehicles will become a reality not in 3-5 years or 20 years, maybe 10-15 years. I generally agree with you but RamzFanz you lose a lot of credibility when you are inflexible in your views and you overlook the truth.

The Google car was at fault.

Says me.


----------



## Gi joe

Who's liable if an SDC is found at fault for hitting and killing someone on the road? Say an SDC ran a red light (which I think they have) and killed someone crossing the road, would the owner of the SDC like google or Uber be held liable for the death?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Gi joe said:


> Who's liable if an SDC is found at fault for hitting and killing someone on the road? Say an SDC ran a red light (which I think they have) and killed someone crossing the road, would the owner of the SDC like google or Uber be held liable for the death?


Both.


----------



## Jermin8r89

observer said:


> View attachment 65435
> 
> 
> Any logical person can see that the Google car was not in the lane. Again, a logical person driving two miles an hour is NOT going to ASSUME that a CITY BUS going 15 miles an hour is going to slow down to let them merge.
> 
> I think that self driving vehicles will become a reality not in 3-5 years or 20 years, maybe 10-15 years. I generally agree with you but RamzFanz you lose a lot of credibility when you are inflexible in your views and you overlook the truth.
> 
> The Google car was at fault.
> 
> Says me.


I got something crazy but idk if it really is that crazzy anymore. Why are they rushing them out now? If you were smarter maybe wait another year or 2 as tesla has been getting hacked alot lately and peoples veiws are gonna not wana be in 1. Which brings me back to my crazzy opinion let me explane

This presidential year everyone can agree is pretty danm crazy. I dont have to tell you all that is going on with hilary its been all over the place but if ypur watching mainstream media theres a cult to make hilary the queen of perfect when noone likes her. Mainstream media has been makeing us seem like kids. The new york bombing for one. CNN is still questioning it as a bombing!? Its a ****ing bomb it blew up! My fb lately has been getting censored if i put up any veiws on whats happening to this country and posts vids are getting sensored. Same with some music vids that you wpuldnt think would be sensored. Internet is getting handed over to the EU in a few days so there goes freedom of speech online.

Walmart has been doing weird shit lately too. Also why is all walmarts built away from everything else? Never see walmart in malls idk why.

Trains lately have been expanding. Thats old transportation i thought we were gonna evolve and have levatateing cars or jetpacks? Planes arnt really upgradeing lately also wich is strange. Companies keep mergeing themselves with each other though. Cars are heavily getting this topic "cars will immietily drive themselves with no people in control" What about planes still needing people even though auto pilot can do most of it. Pay attention to what hilary has said she has said in one of her speeches she dont want borders but regions. I will post that up on here. Just yestarday Michael savage has been tooken off the air perminently just for talking about hilary s health. Hes one of the biggest independent talk show hosts in the country.

SDCs dont need to be great they will put them out evan if its slow and clumsy. Its for population control people need to seriously wake up. People with guns stand up what about the people whojust want to own the means as they want to get out of house and go where ever they want? Im guessing most people here want to still drive so show it


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Upcoming Headline of the Century:
"Self-driving car kills its driver".


----------



## observer

Here's the video in case others haven't seen it.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Almost like that damn white car had a mind of its own.


----------



## observer

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W22DG

LIVE:
Fed may change stress tests, capital buffers for U.S. banks: YellenVIEW MORE
TECHNOLOGY
Mon Feb 29, 2016 | 6:31 PM EST
*Google says it bears 'some responsibility' after self-driving car hit bus*








A prototype of Google's own self-driving vehicle is seen during a media preview of Google's current autonomous vehicles in Mountain View, California September 29, 2015.
REUTERS/ELIJAH NOUVELAGE
Google said on Monday it bears some responsibility after one of its self-driving cars struck a municipal bus in a minor crash earlier this month. The crash may be the first case of one of its au" data-share-media-id="" data-share-img="http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resource...24&w=1200&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1S1DY" data-share-img-sm="http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resource...624&w=800&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1S1DY" data-share="twitter,facebook,whatsapp,more-social" data-more="twitter,facebook,whatsapp,linkedin,pinterest,reddit,google,mail,blank" data-share-id="USKCN0W22DG" style="margin: 24px 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: knowledge-reg, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; float: none; width: auto;">

GOOGL.O) Google said on Monday it bears "some responsibility" after one of its self-driving cars struck a municipal bus in a minor crash earlier this month.

The crash may be the first case of one of its autonomous cars hitting another vehicle and the fault of the self-driving car. The Mountain View, California-based Internet search leader said it made changes to its software after the crash to avoid future incidents.

In a Feb. 23 report filed with California regulators, Google said the crash took place in Mountain View on Feb. 14 when a self-driving Lexus RX450h sought to get around some sandbags in a wide lane.

Google said in the filing the autonomous vehicle was traveling at less than 2 miles per hour, while the bus was moving at about 15 miles per hour.

The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue," it said.

But three seconds later, as the Google car in autonomous mode re-entered the center of the lane, it struck the side of the bus, causing damage to the left front fender, front wheel and a driver side sensor. No one was injured in the car or on the bus.

Google said in a statement on Monday that "we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn't moved, there wouldn't have been a collision. That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that."

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will investigate the circumstances of the accident, Stacey Hendler Ross, spokeswoman for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, said on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT








She said the Google car caused minor damage to the bus, striking the "pivoting joint," or flexible area in the middle of the articulated bus. After the crash, 15 passengers on the bus were transferred to another bus.

An investigation to determine liability is pending, she said.

John M. Simpson, privacy project director for advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said the crash "is more proof that robot car technology is not ready for auto pilot."

A spokesman for the California Department of Motor Vehicles said on Monday it will speak to Google to gather additional information, but added "the DMV is not responsible for determining fault."

SOFTWARE REFINED

Google said it has reviewed this incident "and thousands of variations on it in our simulator in detail and made refinements to our software. From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles, and we hope to handle situations like this more gracefully in the future."

There has been no official determination of fault in the crash. Google has previously said that its autonomous vehicles have never been at fault in any crashes.

*RELATED COVERAGE*
Unlocking iPhone would leave millions exposed, Apple to tell Congress
Yahoo says may write down goodwill value of Tumblr
Buffett says owning IBM shares could prove a mistake: CNBC
The Mountain View Police Department said no police report was filed in the incident.

A spokesman for the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration declined to comment.

The crash comes as Google has been making the case that it should be able to test vehicles without steering wheels and other controls.

In December, Google criticized California for proposing regulations that would require autonomous cars to have a steering wheel, throttle and brake pedals when operating on public roads. A licensed driver would need to be ready to take over if something went wrong.

Google said in November that in six years of its self-driving project, it has been involved in 17 minor accidents during more than two million miles of autonomous and manual driving combined.

"Not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident," Google said at the time.

(Reporting by David Shepardson, additional reporting by Bernie Woodall; editing by Chris Reese, G Crosse)

Google said on Monday it bears some responsibility after one of its self-driving cars struck a municipal bus in a minor crash earlier this month. The crash may be the first case of one of its au" data-share-media-id="" data-share-img="http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resource...24&w=1200&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1S1DY" data-share-img-sm="http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resource...624&w=800&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1S1DY" data-share="twitter,facebook,whatsapp,more-social" data-more="twitter,facebook,whatsapp,linkedin,pinterest,reddit,google,mail,blank" data-share-id="USKCN0W22DG" style="margin: 24px 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: knowledge-reg, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;">

*NEXT IN *


----------



## Strange Fruit

uberdriverfornow said:


> Then it's not autonomous mode for over 2 million miles if there has been a driver there ready to bail it out when it would otherwise cause a serious accident.
> 
> You have no way of knowing if that SDC with a driver would be causing an accident if that driver wasn't there to bail it out when it would otherwise hit something and cause major fatalities.
> 
> It's easy to say that something has driven 2 million miles with a driver there to bail it out, but it means nothing since that driver is there to take over and bail it out.


He actually said that in reply to what I said. You're taking it out of context. I said that it was amazing they were hit 12 times, but none of those were their fault....what are the chances since I've not been in an accident yet, my fault or otherwise. So He replied that they've driven 2 million miles, which, if it's true, makes it far less amazing they've been hit 12 times. The longer your out there, the more chances you have of someone hitting you.


----------



## Strange Fruit

uberdriverfornow said:


> So 2 million miles and ONLY 12 times did the driver need to bail it out? I doubt it, maybe if there was an independent driver that didn't work for Google would I believe something as silly as that. If it only needed to take over 12 times then it would be hailed as being close to being deployable, and we know these things aren't even close. There is nothing that states these things are close to being deployed, even the Uber execs are saying we're still years away.


When they say years away, they aren't talking about the technology. They're talking about getting it going on the road. The technology will be good way sooner than it will be deployable. There are far more barriers than just creating machines that work. You can't just put them on the road right away just because they work.


----------



## RamzFanz

observer said:


> Any logical person can see that the Google car was not in the lane. Again, a logical person driving two miles an hour is NOT going to ASSUME that a CITY BUS going 15 miles an hour is going to slow down to let them merge.
> 
> I think that self driving vehicles will become a reality not in 3-5 years or 20 years, maybe 10-15 years. I generally agree with you but RamzFanz you lose a lot of credibility when you are inflexible in your views and you overlook the truth.
> 
> The Google car was at fault.
> 
> Says me.


I agree with you, as did Google. My point was not that the car acted correctly, even if it's own driver agreed with the decision, simply that it had right of way. That's how I understand it, albeit only from Google's explanation. In the long video I posted they discuss it in depth. I have looked for a police report or insurance outcome to clarify but haven't found it. To date, I have not found that the Google Car program has lied about anything, so I accept their expert opinion. That could easily change.

Google stated they accepted responsibility for not predicting the human driver's behavior and changed their programming to compensate. It was a mistake. Just as not yielding to a red light runner, when possible, would be a mistake. That's not the same as culpability.

Self-driving cars are already a reality in the Netherlands so predicting when they will become a reality is, at best, a gray area depending on your definition. It's currently slow, limited on its public roads route, and the weather it will operate in, but it's carrying passengers with no driver, no remote oversight, and no human controls. It's just a matter of improvements at this point and these are mostly programming, not so much any hardware technological hurdles anymore.

As of now, based on the pace of advancements we know about, I have no reason to doubt the 2-5 year predictions for introduction. I see SDCs achieving the majority of miles driven in the US 10 years, or probably less, from introduction. A lot of that will come from people who never buy a car, those that sell their car because they can't justify the expense, the elderly, handicapped, and others who will become mobile who aren't able to now like teenagers.

Trucking may come faster because there's $233,000,000,000 a year in savings to be had, the low hanging fruit for SDCs.

One independent analyst, who is an expert in emerging technologies, believes the last human driveable car will be made in 2025.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gi joe said:


> Who's liable if an SDC is found at fault for hitting and killing someone on the road? Say an SDC ran a red light (which I think they have) and killed someone crossing the road, would the owner of the SDC like google or Uber be held liable for the death?


There is no precedent yet because it hasn't happened. Yes, it will probably be the owner unless there was negligence or malice by the manufacturer. That's what insurance is for. Tesla is discussing self-insuring every SDC, free to the owner.

No SDC has run a red light that I'm aware of but there are so many SDC projects worldwide, it's hard to know what they are doing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> It's not just telling you the objectives. It was a brief overview of what they are actually accomplishing.
> 
> I gave you the short version. Would you like the hour long version with more details?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, this isn't where I learned everything I repeat, but they are a good starting point. You could actually go read the papers and reports as I have if you really want to know.


Is there anything in that video that actually shows the SDC actually following police hand signals and a SDC stopping for a school bus ? If not, then there's no difference between the shorter video and the longer video.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I have no reason to doubt the 2-5 year predictions for introduction.


I can't believe you're still spouting this hilarious 2-5 year nonsense when I quoted for you earlier in this thread Google themselves who stated their own hopes of a 4 year realization of this rinkydink SDC technology.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Is there anything in that video that actually shows the SDC actually following police hand signals and a SDC stopping for a school bus ? If not, then there's no difference between the shorter video and the longer video.


I didn't think you'de watch it. This is why I don't bother with links for naysayers, it's a waste of time.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

observer said:


> Here's the video in case others haven't seen it.


If this ridiculous SDC can't even change lanes or see a vehicle as big as a bus, how's it going to do complicated stuff like a 3 point turn ? Navigate a Walmart parking lot ? What if it does this to a bicyclist ? This was minor damage. It could kill a bicyclist with the same sort of accident.

Now we know at the least it doesn't know how to read police hand signals, stop safely for flashing school buses, change lanes, and the list goes on and on.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can't believe you're still spouting this hilarious 2-5 year nonsense when I quoted for you earlier in this thread Google themselves who stated their own hopes of a 4 year realization of this rinkydink SDC technology.
> 
> Talk about being naive.


Your sentence makes no sense.

Google isn't predicting when they'll be ready but most analysts I've read think 2020-2021.

Regardless, they are one player of many. I've already posted 18 companies that say by 2020. Musk is saying 2018. Which part can I clarify for you?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> If this ridiculous SDC can't even change lanes or see a vehicle as big as a bus, how's it going to do complicated stuff like a 3 point turn ? Navigate a Walmart parking lot ? What if it does this to a bicyclist ? This was minor damage. It could kill a bicyclist with the same sort of accident.
> 
> Now we know at the least it doesn't know how to read police hand signals, stop safely for flashing school buses, change lanes, and the list goes on and on.


It didn't change lanes. It did see the bus. Is this just another naysaying remark without knowing the subject again?

You know nothing about if they can respond to hand signals or stop for a bus because you haven't bothered to find out. Let me know what you find.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> To date, as far as I know, no SDC has ever caused an accident. "


Just to clarify, confirmed wrong.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Your sentence makes no sense.
> 
> Google isn't predicting when they'll be ready but most analysts I've read think 2020-2021.
> 
> Regardless, they are one player of many. I've already posted 18 companies that say by 2020. Musk is saying 2018. Which part can I clarify for you?


As I already posted earlier in this thread, I can see why you want to act like you didn't see it so I'll post it again.

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/google-self-driving-cars-cyclist/



> Google introduced the prototype-a gumdrop-shaped vehicle it designed itself-in June 2015. The self-driving cardoesn't have pedals or a steering wheel, but only sensors and software. *It hopes to commercialize its technology by 2020*.


This is straight from Google. Even Google is trying to spout a 2020 year for the technology to be commercialized. We all know based on seeing the video you posted that the capabilities of the the SDC are laughable at best since it can't do even the most basic things related to safety such as changing lanes properly without hitting a bus, stopping for a flashing school bus, or even follow simple hand signals any human would have no problem following.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just to clarify, confirmed wrong.


Probably incorrect. Source?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> Incorrect. Source?


lol There is an article that Google is quoted stating they bear responsibility. We also have video that shows the Google SDC crash into a bus.

There's really no reasoning with you.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I didn't think you'de watch it. This is why I don't bother with links for naysayers, it's a waste of time.


If I didn't watch the video YOU posted then I wouldn't have seen the fact that the Google SDC's can't follow police hand signals or stop for flashing school buses.

You posted that video because you mistakenly thought it shows the Google SDC stopping for police hand signals because you are so deluded thinking this technology is going to work. You didn't realize it shows the exact opposite. It's all about his presentation. You fell for it.

I then posted the exact moments in the video where it shows the Google SDC can't do those things and you still are too deluded to admit it.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> As I already posted earlier in this thread but given your delusional tendencies I can see why you want to act like you didn't see it so I'll post it again.


I'm sorry, did you have a point? That they are coming in 2020? Yes, I can believe that as is obvious from me saying analysts think 2020-2021 for Google. You do get that we are saying the same things?



uberdriverfornow said:


> This is straight from Google. Even Google is trying to spout a 2020 year for the technology to be commercialized. We all know based on seeing the video you posted that the capabilities of the the SDC are laughable at best since it can't do even the most basic things related to safety such as changing lanes properly without hitting a bus, stopping for a flashing school bus, or even follow simple hand signals any human would have no problem following.


It's driven over 2M fully automated miles without causing an accident. Again, since this isn't absorbing, they didn't change lanes, they saw the bus, and you have no idea what it can or can't do because you're not here to actually discuss capabilities.

the funniest part of your post is claiming it can't read hand signals while linking to a story about how it can read hand signals. That's CLASSIC uberdriverfornow.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol There is an article that Google is quoted stating they bear responsibility. We also have video that shows the Google SDC crash into a bus.
> 
> Delusional much?
> 
> There's really no reasoning with you.


No, no there isn't. At no time have they stated the crash was their fault, legally. What they said was they could and should avoid that situation in the future by anticipating buses won't yield as required. You're reading into their statement what you want to see. I posted a video where Google covers the crash in depth. It's the one you didn't bother watching.

I posted that video because you seem to be uneducated on the subject and thought you might like to learn.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I'm sorry, did you have a point? That they are coming in 2020? Yes, I can believe that as is obvious from me saying analysts think 2020-2021 for Google. You do get that we are saying the same things?
> 
> It's driven over 2M fully automated miles without causing an accident. Again, since this isn't absorbing, they didn't change lanes, they saw the bus, and you have no idea what it can or can't do because you're not here to actually discuss capabilities.
> 
> the funniest part of your post is claiming it can't read hand signals while linking to a story about how it can read hand signals. That's CLASSIC uberdriverfornow.


We are not saying the same thing. I'm not saying anything good about SDC's ever being utilized on streets properly. You keep spouting 2-5 years. Google themselves are saying atleast 4 years(2020).

Atleast you now admit atleast 4 years. That's a start.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> No, no there isn't. At no time have they stated the crash was their fault. What they said was they could and should avoid that situation in the future by anticipating buses won't yield as required. You're reading into their statement what you want to see. I posted a video where Google covers the crash in depth. It's the one you didn't bother watching.


Oh so Google is lying now when they say they bear some responsibility ?

The crazy part about that video is that it's not actually Googles video that we are seeing, it's the buses video. So how many other accidents has Google been in where they refused to release video and failed to announce they were the cause of an accident ? Surely this isn't the first one and this didn't just happen it happened some time ago.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Oh so Google is lying now when they say they bear some responsibility ?
> 
> The crazy part about that video is that it's not actually Googles video that we are seeing, it's the buses video. So how many other accidents has Google been in where they refused to release video and failed to announce they were the cause of an accident ? Surely this isn't the first one and this didn't just happen it happened some time ago.


Well, we've moved from _responsible_ for to _some responsibility_. We're making headway. Now you could acknowledge it wasn't changing lanes and had right of way so we can discuss this with the actual facts.

If you had read anything at all, you would know that they are required by law to report every accident and the circumstances in a monthly report. They are public knowledge. Unless you think they are knocking off all the drivers they've plowed into? I know it's easier to just call them liars whenever the facts don't fit but maybe we can raise this conversation to a more sophisticated level?


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> If I didn't watch the video YOU posted then I wouldn't have seen the fact that the Google SDC's can't follow police hand signals or stop for flashing school buses.


I remembered the bus scene so I went back to look.

It was stopping for the bus and came to a complete stop.

You see the red barrier on the top right screen? That's where it is stopping. The red means absolute stop. The bus just pulled out while the car was only stopped momentarily.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I'm trying to see if you would atleast admit they bear some responsibility. Clearly I gave you too much credit.

Clearly Google is lying by admitting they bear "some" responsibility. It's clearly part of their plan to prove you wrong. It's a grand conspiracy.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> I remembered the bus scene so I went back to look.
> 
> It was stopping for the bus and came to a complete stop.
> 
> You see the red barrier on the top right screen? That's where it is stopping. The red means absolute stop. The bus just pulled out while the car was only stopped momentarily.


lol are you blind ? It kept creeping forward and they even kept moving the stop sign in the illustration to make it look like it was being legal when it was going to pass that school bus. If that school bus wouldn't have abruptly pulled out that SDC was going to pass it. It's clear as day.

You didn't even dispute this the first time around when I posted it when you said "SDC's aren't perfect".


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> I'm trying to see if you would atleast admit they bearing some responsibility. Clearly I gave you too much credit.
> 
> Clearly Google is lying by admitting they bear "some" responsibility. It's clearly part of their plan to prove you wrong. It's a grand conspiracy.


As Google said, they needed to learn that buses won't yield like cars and it was partially their fault for not having that programmed in. That doesn't mean they were not following the rules of the road or didn't have right of way, it simply reinforces how humans are bad drivers.

You, like all of the naysayers, are twisting what they said to imply the car was in the wrong. If you had bothered to watch the video I knew you wouldn't, you would have their full explanation of the accident.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> As Google said, they needed to learn that buses won't yield like cars and it was partially their fault for not having that programmed in. That doesn't mean they were not following the rules of the road or didn't have right of way, it simply reinforces how humans are bad drivers.
> 
> You, like all of the naysayers, are twisting what they said to imply the car was in the wrong. If you had bothered to watch the video I knew you wouldn't, you would have their full explanation of the accident.


That SDC didn't have any right of way. I'm not sure where you learned to drive. When you change lanes you are forced to yield until it is safe to change lanes. You don't just change into a bus because you feel like it. That SDC was at fault in its entirety.

But given your track record on this subject I know you will never admit a SDC will ever do anything wrong, even when Google themselves say so.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol are you blind ? It kept creeping forward and they even kept moving the stop sign in the illustration to make it look like it was being legal when it was going to pass that school bus. If that school bus wouldn't have abruptly pulled out that SDC was going to pass it. It's clear as day.
> 
> You didn't even dispute this the first time around when I posted it when you said "SDC's aren't perfect".


It doesn't slam on the brakes like you might. It was gliding up to where it would stop and it came to a full stop. For a person who has spent zero time even learning what he was looking at, being that is how the car always stops, you amaze me with your knowledge of how Google faked the video and told outright lies. Your omnipresence insights are brilliant!


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> That SDC didn't have any right of way. I'm not sure where you learned to drive. When you change lanes you are forced to yield until it is safe to change lanes. You don't just change into a bus because you feel like it. That SDC was at fault in its entirety.
> 
> But given your track record on this subject I know you will never admit a SDC will ever do anything wrong, even when Google themselves say so.


Once again, for the tenth time, it was a single lane. If you can't get the simple facts down, how can we advance?

OK, let's say it was at fault? What's your point? That in 2 million miles of _testing _it had a single at fault minor fender bender? Really? Because that sounds like an endorsement to me when you consider humans get in accidents every 165,000 miles.

Ohhhh, wait, you got me. This is where you will say they are lying and hiding their accidents, breaking the law, and paying off or torturing the other drivers and witnesses. The answer for all unexplainable facts.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

It's like talking to a wall. Can you not see how bad this is making you look ? Do you really think people reading your posts are that dumb, like they aren't going to see how delusional you are being. 

It's really sad.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's like talking to a wall. Can you not see how bad this is making you look ? Do you really think people reading your posts are that dumb, like they aren't going to see how delusional you are being.
> 
> It's really sad.


How I look? Not spinning up conspiracies to explain technology I don't understand? That's fine with me.

Let's review:


You said it couldn't see hand gestures and then linked to an article about how they could read hand gestures.
You said it didn't see the school bus and stop when it did both.
You have accused Google of breaking the law and covering up accidents with zero evidence.
You claimed it didn't see the city bus when it did.
You said it was at fault in an accident it wasn't.
You tried to spin the Google explanation, which you didn't even watch, into them taking blame.
I said 2-5 years and you posted an article that said 4 as if that weren't 2-5 years.
You called them death traps when they haven't so much as caused an injury.
You claimed there is no way to know if the driver had taken over when there are reports. (I know, they lied again)
You said "only google is saying google isn't at fault" about the red light incident when there was a witness.
I doubt I covered all of your... "misstatements" and conspiracies but it's a good start.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RamzFanz said:


> How I look? Not spinning up conspiracies to explain technology I don't understand? That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's review:
> 
> 
> You said it couldn't see hand gestures and then linked to an article about how they could read hand gestures.
> You said it didn't see the school bus and stop when it did both.
> You have accused Google of breaking the law and covering up accidents with zero evidence.
> You claimed it didn't see the city bus when it did.
> You said it was at fault in an accident it wasn't.
> You tried to spin the Google explanation, which you didn't even watch, into them taking blame.
> I said 2-5 years and you posted an article that said 4 as if that weren't 2-5 years.
> You called them death traps when they haven't so much as caused an injury.
> You claimed there is no way to know if the driver had taken over when there are reports. (I know, they lied again)
> You said "only google is saying google isn't at fault" about the red light incident when there was a witness.
> I doubt I covered all of your... "misstatements" and conspiracies but it's a good start.


The only thing you reviewed was the things I completely destroyed you on and you have basically confirmed all the lies you continue pushing.

As I said before, it's like talking to a wall. You must have went to the Hillary Clinton School of Lying and Lying About Lying.

Anyone reading this thread would see that.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

I don't even read RamzFanz posts anymore.
No ill will, just not interested in his brand of tired rhetoric.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Oops!
> SDCs are just around the corner...
> _n_


Thanks for heads up, Uber keeps their self-drivers parked in a lot, 15 blocks from here.


----------



## Just one more trip

RamzFanz said:


> I accept the word of the reporter, witness, Google, and driver, until I have some reason to believe otherwise. Do you have anything or are you just spinning? Have you ever know Google to lie about the Google car or that witness, driver, or reporter?


Has ANY reporter, driver, or witness EVER lied? Why should WE believe this unsubstantiated report more or less than any other.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only thing you reviewed was the things I completely destroyed you on and you have basically confirmed all the lies you continue pushing.
> 
> As I said before, it's like talking to a wall. You must have went to the Hillary Clinton School of Lying and Lying About Lying.
> 
> Anyone reading this thread would see that.


Every point I made can be fact checked.


----------



## RamzFanz

Just one more trip said:


> Has ANY reporter, driver, or witness EVER lied? Why should WE believe this unsubstantiated report more or less than any other.


I gave my reasoning. There's no reason not to. The fact that people have lied in the past doesn't disparage these people unless you can show _they_ are liars. Add to that the risk of being uncovered, greatly harming Google's credibility and stock value, and which could mean both insurance fraud and violating the laws that force Google to report the details of every incident. There is no reason or logic behind the unsupported and conspiratorial claim that Google lied which would also require the other driver, Google driver, and witness to all be in on it. It was fabricated out of thin air.


----------



## UberAnt39

uberdriverfornow said:


> Two things to note. 1) only google is saying google isn't at fault 2) I can't say it happens often that a car runs a red light after 6 full seconds of being a red light. Sounds hard to believe. The google driver had time to stop and smoke a cigarette before the guy hit him.


Yes, when I saw 'at least 6 seconds' I just thought 'more overwrought gen-Y BS'. As we know from driving them all day we know what their words are worth. We know it's a millenial making the claim 'cos they work at Google.


----------



## DriverX

Are they here yet? just checking in.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

DriverX said:


> Are they here yet? just checking in.


Nope.
Please check back in 5 minutes.
We apologize for any inconvenience


----------



## Jermin8r89

This reminds me i got into an accident a year ago. Got rear ended cuz someone couldnt see past bushes that i was right on other side. The other person was at fault for not paying attention. Now a SDC does samething. Let me take out my 500 page book on what the deffinitions are and how to go about this


----------



## WMUber

tohunt4me said:


> Human error is WHY we're developing self driving cars.
> What else will humans be ELIMINATED FROM due to errors ?
> Robots baseball anyone,9 innings NO ERRORS !
> Robot surgeons ? Robot pharmacists ?Those ERROR FILLED HUMANS must be ELIMINATED FROM everything apparently !


Human error while driving automobiles is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year. The automobile is the deadliest machine that Americans routinely operate. The sooner we get humans riding in cars as opposed to driving cars the better.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

WMUber said:


> Human error while driving automobiles is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year. The automobile is the deadliest machine that Americans routinely operate. The sooner we get humans riding in cars as opposed to driving cars the better.


People fell off horses and underneath chariots, long before the automobile was even conceived of. Didn't you ever seen _Ben-Hur?_


----------



## observer

I_Like_Spam said:


> People fell off horses and underneath chariots, long before the automobile was even conceived of. Didn't you ever seen _Ben-Hur?_


Friend of mine was killed by a horse falling back on him. The saddle horn crushed his chest and internal organs.


----------



## WMUber

I_Like_Spam said:


> People fell off horses and underneath chariots, long before the automobile was even conceived of. Didn't you ever seen _Ben-Hur?_


And your point?

Technology has made all forms of transportation safer over the years. When adjusted for population or vehicle miles driven, the automobile fatality rate is half of what is was in 1971.

That said, while drivers and passengers are safer inside the cage, pedestrians and cyclists are still at risk. Personally, I believe 30,000 preventable deaths a year is unacceptable.

And yes, I've seen Ben-Hur - the 1959 version, not the remake.


----------



## Just one more trip

RamzFanz said:


> I gave my reasoning. There's no reason not to. The fact that people have lied in the past doesn't disparage these people unless you can show _they_ are liars. Add to that the risk of being uncovered, greatly harming Google's credibility and stock value, and which could mean both insurance fraud and violating the laws that force Google to report the details of every incident. There is no reason or logic behind the unsupported and conspiratorial claim that Google lied which would also require the other driver, Google driver, and witness to all be in on it. It was fabricated out of thin air.


Wells Fargo is worth 256 Billion compared to Google's value of 82.5 Billion, and guess what they did? Lied, conned, swindeled and told congress they were sorry when they got caught.

They were sorry they got caught; that I do believe.

I've seen too many cons in my day. The one thing in common is that at some point they take the money and run and are sorry if they get caught. Believe what you will just don't waste your time trying to sell it to me.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Just one more trip said:


> Has ANY reporter, driver, or witness EVER lied? Why should WE believe this unsubstantiated report more or less than any other.


Ramz only believes reporters when they report Google wasn't at fault. When reporters AND Google state Google is at fault then he doesn't believe, even with video that shows Google SDC at fault as the video posted in this thread demonstrates.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

WMUber said:


> Human error while driving automobiles is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year. The automobile is the deadliest machine that Americans routinely operate. The sooner we get humans riding in cars as opposed to driving cars the better.


There is a multitude of overall trips traveled every day without incident compared those resulting in accidents. We'd be a lot better off if we incorporated more driver-assist functions into vehicles rather than trying to do the impossible and impractical and trying to take the driver completely out of the equation.


----------



## WMUber

uberdriverfornow said:


> There is a multitude of overall trips traveled every day without incident compared those resulting in accidents. We'd be a lot better off if we incorporated more driver-assist functions into vehicles rather than trying to do the impossible and impractical and trying to take the driver completely out of the equation.


I do not feel developing a fully autonomous network of automobiles to be impossible or impracticable. Impracticable is spending one hour in congestion to travel 10 miles. Impracticable is the unnecessary deaths of 30,000+ people a year. I also believe that we have the computing power (or will shortly) available to have fully functioning autonomous vehicles and to have them networked together (think cellphone network for cars).

Watch these two videos. Then think about the money pouring into autonomous vehicles. The United States was able to go from WWII/V-2 rockets to landing humans on the moon and returning them safely in eight years. With enough political and corporate will, he can have safe and efficient autonomous vehicles in less than ten years.


----------



## uberfraud

Bait and switch. I was expecting a malfunction with googles sdc software causing the accident.


----------



## painfreepc

tohunt4me said:


> Human error is WHY we're developing self driving cars.
> What else will humans be ELIMINATED FROM due to errors ?
> Robots baseball anyone,9 innings NO ERRORS !
> Robot surgeons ? Robot pharmacists ?Those ERROR FILLED HUMANS must be ELIMINATED FROM everything apparently !


----------



## LA Cabbie

RamzFanz said:


> Your sentence makes no sense.
> 
> Google isn't predicting when they'll be ready but most analysts I've read think 2020-2021.
> 
> Regardless, they are one player of many. I've already posted 18 companies that say by 2020. Musk is saying 2018. Which part can I clarify for you?


Ugh, enough of you preaching that by 2020 SDC will be the standard. I don't care what musk says. He has worried investors that must hear good things.

Just like the public believe that Uber owns the cars and drivers are employees thus no need to tip, they will believe that with SDC they can kick back and watch Harry Potter or go to sleep while their two ton vehicle barrels down the highway at 70 mph.

Read the preliminary report from a senate hearing about the deadly tesla crash in Florida:

https://www.google.com/amp/phys.org/news/2016-07-tesla-cameras-radar-florida.amp?client=safari

The software incorrectly processed the data from the camera believing that the truck was the sky and it suppressed the warning data from the radar. Oops.

Now tesla is going all out with radar.

http://qz.com/779866/tesla-tsla-thi...f-driving-autonomous-vehicles-in-2016-an-opp/

Guess what? It's hackable. Here's the kicker. Since they can't see but feel. They are taking snapshots of the road and corellating that data with radar.

Frankly put, they are recreating the human brain.

Good luck doing that in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> Now they are death traps? Zero injuries or fatalities and they are death traps? This is getting pretty deep in the tin hatter range, don't you think?
> 
> I do advocate for them. I have children. I have lost several friends to human drivers. But I also want Uber drivers to pull their heads out of the sand and prepare themselves for a job change while they still have years to do so.


Why do you keep saying Uber drivers, as if that's the only driving job is going to be lost from this technology, I'm really getting sick of you,

Something about you is not right, how much money do you have invested in this technology,

Why is this technology being pushed so hard so fast what is the actual agenda at the end of the road..


----------



## uberdriverfornow

WMUber said:


> I do not feel developing a fully autonomous network of automobiles to be impossible or impracticable. Impracticable is spending one hour in congestion to travel 10 miles. Impracticable is the unnecessary deaths of 30,000+ people a year. I also believe that we have the computing power (or will shortly) available to have fully functioning autonomous vehicles and to have them networked together (think cellphone network for cars).
> 
> Watch these two videos. Then think about the money pouring into autonomous vehicles. The United States was able to go from WWII/V-2 rockets to landing humans on the moon and returning them safely in eight years. With enough political and corporate will, he can have safe and efficient autonomous vehicles in less than ten years.


It makes no sense to go from having drivers in vehicles with no driver-assist technology(basically from the past to the present there aren't many cars on the road with things like ABS, stop-assist, lane-assist, etc etc. Most cars don't even have ABS as standard features though it's coming more standard) to having no drivers at all in cars. It makes no sense.

Now if they went to making all cars having standard features such as the ones above then you can start reducing most of the fatalies. You don't go backwards to go forward by taking away the primary cause of NOT having crashes, namely the driver him/herself.

You don't go backwards to go forward.


----------



## painfreepc

uberdriverfornow said:


> It makes no sense to go from having drivers in vehicles with no driver-assist technology(basically from the past to the present there aren't many cars on the road with things like ABS, stop-assist, lane-assist, etc etc. Most cars don't even have ABS as standard features though it's coming more standard) to having no drivers at all in cars. It makes no sense.
> 
> Now if they went to making all cars having standard features such as the ones above then you can start reducing most of the fatalies. You don't go backwards to go forward by taking away the primary cause of NOT having crashes, namely the driver him/herself.
> 
> You don't go backwards to go forward.


Yes exactly "backwards to go forward"

That's why I keep asking what is the real agenda, what is the real reason behind the push for this driverless technology,

It sure the hell is not about saving lives because all you need is the Tesla autopilot to be perfected and do what it's supposed to do,

If the Tesla autopilot actually worked there would be no need for driverless cars. because the Tesla autopilot would stop drivers from crashing into each other,

So it looks to me like the Tesla autopilot is not about safety, it's about collecting data in the real world so Tesla can bring the driverless car to the market faster,

because if there's no human driver's why would you need an autopilot..


----------



## uberdriverfornow

painfreepc said:


> Yes exactly "backwards to go forward"
> 
> That's why I keep asking what is the real agenda, what is the real reason behind the push for this driverless technology,
> 
> It sure the hell is not about saving lives because all you need is the Tesla autopilot to be perfected and do what it's supposed to do,
> 
> If the Tesla autopilot actually worked there would be no need for driverless cars. because the Tesla autopilot would stop drivers from crashing into each other,
> 
> So it looks to me like the Tesla autopilot is not about safety, it's about collecting data in the real world so Tesla can bring the driverless car to the market faster,
> 
> because if there's no human driver's why would you need an autopilot..


It's about selling the product. They are using the "autopilot" as a way to sell their cars. They didn't really start getting serious about warning people it's not a true SDC until after it finally got released that someone died thinking it was a true SDC. It just shouldn't be called "autopilot" because it's not even possible to be used as an autopilot like they got in planes which have none of the same variables to deal with that we have on the ground.

The Tesla autopilot technology is great, as long as the driver knows that they are still driving the vehicle and the autopilot features in the car are only designed to help assist him.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Just to be clear, I am NOT against "driver-assist" technology. Technology designed to help the driver not crash is great. However, thinking you can ever have a SDC car on the road is reckless.


----------



## Jermin8r89

WMUber said:


> Human error while driving automobiles is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year. The automobile is the deadliest machine that Americans routinely operate. The sooner we get humans riding in cars as opposed to driving cars the better.


You are right! The greatest machienes humans have built that are most faultiest are humans.


----------



## Jermin8r89

painfreepc said:


> Yes exactly "backwards to go forward"
> 
> That's why I keep asking what is the real agenda, what is the real reason behind the push for this driverless technology,
> 
> It sure the hell is not about saving lives because all you need is the Tesla autopilot to be perfected and do what it's supposed to do,
> 
> If the Tesla autopilot actually worked there would be no need for driverless cars. because the Tesla autopilot would stop drivers from crashing into each other,
> 
> So it looks to me like the Tesla autopilot is not about safety, it's about collecting data in the real world so Tesla can bring the driverless car to the market faster,
> 
> because if there's no human driver's why would you need an autopilot..


Yep control over other humans. Its happens on tv all the time. The news stations these days are complete and utter jokes i do research online for my news


----------



## RamzFanz

Just one more trip said:


> Wells Fargo is worth 256 Billion compared to Google's value of 82.5 Billion, and guess what they did? Lied, conned, swindeled and told congress they were sorry when they got caught.
> 
> They were sorry they got caught; that I do believe.
> 
> I've seen too many cons in my day. The one thing in common is that at some point they take the money and run and are sorry if they get caught. Believe what you will just don't waste your time trying to sell it to me.


So all statements are lies, therefore your post is a lie as is mine saying yours is?

You do realise it's the corporations spending the money so there is none to take and run with?


----------



## RamzFanz

LA Cabbie said:


> Ugh, enough of you preaching that by 2020 SDC will be the standard.


Except, of course, I have never once said that. Typical strawman.



LA Cabbie said:


> Just like the public believe that Uber owns the cars and drivers are employees thus no need to tip, they will believe that with SDC they can kick back and watch Harry Potter or go to sleep while their two ton vehicle barrels down the highway at 70 mph.


I've never met a passenger who thought I was an employee or that Uber owned my van. I'm sure they are out there, but the numbers must be pretty low. The Tesla owner you are referring to knew full well the limitations of the car and that what he was doing was dangerous.

Tesla doesn't have a self-driving car, so the point is moot.



LA Cabbie said:


> Now tesla is going all out with radar.


Yes, just as many analysts have been saying they would need to eventually. Others are saying they will have to add Lidar and ground penetrating radar also to reach full autonomy, but we shall see.



LA Cabbie said:


> Guess what? It's hackable. Here's the kicker. Since they can't see but feel. They are taking snapshots of the road and corellating that data with radar.
> 
> Frankly put, they are recreating the human brain.
> 
> Good luck doing that in the next 2-3 years.


Everything is hackable. The question is who has the funding, expertise, equipment, and motive to hack them other than to collect the "bug" fee? The answer is probably no one. Outside of a highly improbable system-wide hacking by terrorists, there is no reward. If they could do it, they would be taking down planes right now.

Frankly put, that makes no sense. They are not recreating the human brain.

2-3 years? They are already on the road in the Netherlands and Google has 2M test miles. This is the end game of a half a century of work.


----------



## RamzFanz

painfreepc said:


> Why do you keep saying Uber drivers, as if that's the only driving job is going to be lost from this technology, I'm really getting sick of you,
> 
> Something about you is not right, how much money do you have invested in this technology,
> 
> Why is this technology being pushed so hard so fast what is the actual agenda at the end of the road..


Why do you assume because I said Uber drivers you think I'm saying _only_ Uber drivers? You are aware this is an Uber driver forum, yes? Millions of jobs will be lost in the 10-15 years after introduction, possibly sooner. That's my point. Here, in an Uber driver's forum, I'm addressing Uber drivers.

I have none invested. If I do invest it will be in the suppliers or actual SDCs for TNC opportunities.

Why is it being pushed? Profit of course. 14 trillion a year for TNC alone in some estimates.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> It makes no sense to go from having drivers in vehicles with no driver-assist technology(basically from the past to the present there aren't many cars on the road with things like ABS, stop-assist, lane-assist, etc etc. Most cars don't even have ABS as standard features though it's coming more standard) to having no drivers at all in cars. It makes no sense.
> 
> Now if they went to making all cars having standard features such as the ones above then you can start reducing most of the fatalies. You don't go backwards to go forward by taking away the primary cause of NOT having crashes, namely the driver him/herself.
> 
> You don't go backwards to go forward.



I posted a video that answers your question. Partial autonomy lulls humans into a false sense of security and they watch Harry Potter movies instead of doing what they are supposed to.

How is reducing death and injury, improving traffic, as well as giving people back their commute time going backwards? That makes no sense.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> They didn't really start getting serious about warning people it's not a true SDC until after it finally got released that someone died thinking it was a true SDC. It just shouldn't be called "autopilot" because it's not even possible to be used as an autopilot like they got in planes which have none of the same variables to deal with that we have on the ground.


Not at all true. Why do you say these obviously untrue things? Do you think we don't know better?

You have to actively pursue activating autopilot on a tesla. The car does not come with active autopilot. You have to read and agree to many warnings that you are still the driver and that this is a beta system. There is not a single Tesla driver out there that was not warned of the limitations. Each time you activate it, it warns you again and it always has.

I agree, it shouldn't be called autopilot.

Josh, the driver who died, has a youtube channel where he educated people on Tesla features and demonstrated the car's limitations. Of all the Tesla drivers out there, he was probably amongst the best informed of the limitations. So, no, he did NOT think it was a true SDC. And no, Tesla did NOT "really start getting serious about warning people it's not a true SDC until after it finally got released that someone died thinking it was a true SDC." Did you just make that up out of nowhere? Should I go ahead and add these to the list of untrue statements you've made?



uberdriverfornow said:


> The Tesla autopilot technology is great, as long as the driver knows that they are still driving the vehicle and the autopilot features in the car are only designed to help assist him.


Which they do know. 100% of them full well know. And they still climb into the back seats and watch Harry Potter movies, so no, it's not a safe feature for humans. This was Google's whole reason for going fully autonomous.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Ramz only believes reporters when they report Google wasn't at fault. When reporters AND Google state Google is at fault then he doesn't believe, even with video that shows Google SDC at fault as the video posted in this thread demonstrates.


Google has clearly stated they were not "at fault." Accepting responsibility to compensate for human behavior does not mean they were "at fault." You are intentionally altering the meaning of their statements. Did I add this to your list yet?


----------



## RamzFanz

DriverX said:


> Are they here yet? just checking in.


Yes. They are on the roads in the Netherlands.


----------



## DriverX

The Dutch are so smart.


----------



## Just one more trip

Just one more trip said:


> Wells Fargo is worth 256 Billion compared to Google's value of 82.5 Billion, and guess what they did? Lied, conned, swindeled and told congress they were sorry when they got caught.
> 
> They were sorry they got caught; that I do believe.
> 
> I've seen too many cons in my day. The one thing in common is that at some point they take the money and run and are sorry if they get caught. Believe what you will just don't waste your time trying to sell it to me.





RamzFanz said:


> So all statements are lies, therefore your post is a lie as is mine saying yours is?
> 
> You do realise it's the corporations spending the money so there is none to take and run with?


Not all humans are wonderful noble philanthropic heroes like in the movies and comic books. Some are the bad guys and they do not advertise the fact. If you cannot understand the base forms of human good and evil, you cannot carry on a meaningful conversation with me. Go cheerlead to someone else.


----------



## 1995flyingspur

Jermin8r89 said:


> Google is going to own EVERYTHING. Hello MONOPOLY. Google is gonn buy cars,twitter,and most things online. If everyone is so safe and lazy go back home live with your goddam parents. Omg my kid got a concusion playing football im worried. Well keep them home in bubble wrap! We talking about how we want government to protects us more but we dont want a bigger government. HELLOOO! How the &%[email protected]!* does that make sense? Im on here to try and make people stand up for their rights to own. I guess people are meant to have their rights shoved up their asses! Youtube and facebook is sensering me and others. Also why the &%[email protected]!* are we sensored on here? I see kids saying and doing stuff that should be blocked on facebook but not! I can tell you when robot cars tell me i cant be on the road im gonna tell them why are bikes and cars shareing the road?! There will be riots like the black lives matter for people to keep their cars and driveing. I will drive on road still with my 2000 jeep rangler with my guns noone is gonna crowd control me. STAND UP! STAND UP! STAND UP!


Self driving cars are decades away from threatening real humans...not many believe that but it's not uncommon for the public to believe in something a government or monster company says over & over again. Lol & just wait for this debt bubble to blow, eventually these companies will have to deal with their billion dollar losses, fed reserve will have to raise rates, & the national debt will need to be controlled...but until then keep partying America!!! This illusion will be over soon enough!


----------



## RamzFanz

Just one more trip said:


> Not all humans are wonderful noble philanthropic heroes like in the movies and comic books. Some are the bad guys and they do not advertise the fact. If you cannot understand the base forms of human good and evil, you cannot carry on a meaningful conversation with me. Go cheerlead to someone else.


So that's a lie too? Anything said by anyone is a lie? Are almost every major tech and auto company in the world in cahoots telling one big lie or is it just Google? And how did you determine Google, the Google driver, the other driver, and the witness are the bad guys?

Or is this really just unsubstantiated allegations to try to support an untenable position?

Fair notice: This post, by default, must also be a lie.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberfraud said:


> Bait and switch. I was expecting a malfunction with googles sdc software causing the accident.


Shhhhhhh, we're pretending it did.


----------



## uberfraud

1995flyingspur said:


> Self driving cars are decades away from threatening real humans...not many believe that but it's not uncommon for the public to believe in something a government or monster company says over & over again. Lol & just wait for this debt bubble to blow, eventually these companies will have to deal with their billion dollar losses, fed reserve will have to raise rates, & the national debt will need to be controlled...but until then keep partying America!!! This illusion will be over soon enough!


I'm am employed as an engineer for ________ and _______________________________________.


----------



## LA Cabbie

RamzFanz said:


> Except, of course, I have never once said that. Typical strawman.
> 
> I've never met a passenger who thought I was an employee or that Uber owned my van. I'm sure they are out there, but the numbers must be pretty low. The Tesla owner you are referring to knew full well the limitations of the car and that what he was doing was dangerous.
> 
> Tesla doesn't have a self-driving car, so the point is moot.
> 
> Yes, just as many analysts have been saying they would need to eventually. Others are saying they will have to add Lidar and ground penetrating radar also to reach full autonomy, but we shall see.
> 
> Everything is hackable. The question is who has the funding, expertise, equipment, and motive to hack them other than to collect the "bug" fee? The answer is probably no one. Outside of a highly improbable system-wide hacking by terrorists, there is no reward. If they could do it, they would be taking down planes right now.
> 
> Frankly put, that makes no sense. They are not recreating the human brain.
> 
> 2-3 years? They are already on the road in the Netherlands and Google has 2M test miles. This is the end game of a half a century of work.


The Chinese recently hacked a Tesla. Google it. Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, and even Iranians have the funding, motive, expertise, and equipment to hack them. Heck, a whiz kid in their parent's basement may lack the funds but yet have everything to hack a tesla.

It's not so much about third parties hacking the Tesla I am worried about. It is moles in the company or worse the company itself allying itself with third parties who want to get the bad guy.


----------



## LA Cabbie

painfreepc said:


> Why do you keep saying Uber drivers, as if that's the only driving job is going to be lost from this technology, I'm really getting sick of you,
> 
> Something about you is not right, how much money do you have invested in this technology,
> 
> Why is this technology being pushed so hard so fast what is the actual agenda at the end of the road..


Of course there is a hidden agenda. Imagine a vehicle that records and transmits your location, video and audio in real time. Imagine a car that will take you to the authorities and there is nothing you can do about it. Imagine if the powers that be want to make you disappear and they send a drone to take you out while you are busy watching harry potter.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I never encountered a pathological liar before, until this thread.

Only the second time I've had to use the ignore button.


----------



## heynow321

lol ramz has a fantastic way of using spin and conjecture to try to sound knowledgeable. He should try his hand at politics. The first half of the IQ bell curve might buy his shit.

sdc's are not on the roads in the netherlands. They're no further ahead than anyone else. http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/03/16/fifty-self-driving-cars-to-test-on-netherlands-highway-today/

It's all the same shit. The cars still have drivers in them, they're still using simplistic highway courses during non-peak hours and good weather to test, etc. No where are any of these "sdcs" successfully dealing with the infinite amount of insane possibilities one will encounter while navigating a clogged urban area in poor weather.

ramz just suffers from serious cognitive dissonance. He's obviously wasted way too much of his time on this fantasy and now can't let it go (or address the numerous serious weaknesses and roadblocks of sdcs). It's very similar to academics who waste their lives studying economics only to have the real world prove their models and theories false (like the silly ivory tower economists who were stunned 2008 could happen when their models said nothing like that could ever happen!).

Ignore his whimsical adolescent sci fi fantasies.


----------



## Just one more trip

Don't feel b


uberdriverfornow said:


> I never encountered a pathological liar before, until this thread.
> 
> Only the second time I've had to use the ignore button.


Don't feel bad; I just used it too......


----------



## RamzFanz

LA Cabbie said:


> The Chinese recently hacked a Tesla. Google it. Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, and even Iranians have the funding, motive, expertise, and equipment to hack them. Heck, a whiz kid in their parent's basement may lack the funds but yet have everything to hack a tesla.
> 
> It's not so much about third parties hacking the Tesla I am worried about. It is moles in the company or worse the company itself allying itself with third parties who want to get the bad guy.


They did it for the "bug finder" fee and they used a scenario that would never work in the real world. Well, not "never", but not anymore. Companies have smartened up and pay white hat hackers to find their weaknesses.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I've lived in Houston since 1986. In that time I think there have been at least 6 occasions when the freeway ended up closed in front of me due to an accident and the police had people turn around and drive the wrong way, sometimes also to exit (again the wrong way) off an on ramp.
> 
> Would a SDC's programming allow it to drive the wrong way on the freeway and the on ramp? Assuming it can understand the cop's directions to "go after the blue car."


I'm sure it will use Waze or Maps where the route was already changed, instantly.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

Even RamzFanz knows I don't defend him on here but to say an SDC today is more dangerous than the drivers in Boston is nuts. They will be adding better AI and that's when it will be on the streets and people on here can relax. Eight pages?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

5 Star Guy said:


> Even RamzFanz knows I don't defend him on here but to say an SDC today is more dangerous than the drivers in Boston is nuts. They will be adding better AI and that's when it will be on the streets and people on here can relax. Eight pages?


Nobody is saying they are more dangerous than SDC right now because they ALWAYS have a driver in them to ALWAYS bail them out when they about to **** up.

The moment they take that driver out is when they are dangerous.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody is saying they are more dangerous than cars right now because they ALWAYS have a driver in them to ALWAYS bail them out when they about to &%[email protected]!* up.
> 
> The moment they take that driver out is when they are dangerous.


They're not more dangerous, they are safer than most Boston drivers now. They would have to be as dangerous and I don't even see that. There are SD buses now and SD shuttles. People don't realize how much faster this will be improved. I'll be back is just around the corner.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

5 Star Guy said:


> They're not more dangerous, they are safer than most Boston drivers now. They would have to be as dangerous and I don't even see that. There are SD buses now and SD shuttles. People don't realize how much faster this will be improved. I'll be back is just around the corner.


Not sure what part of "nobody is saying SDC's are more dangerous than drivers due to SDC's always having a driver in them to bail them out" that you are not understanding.

As soon as they take the driver out of SDC's then they become more dangerous.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not sure what part of "nobody is saying SDC's are more dangerous than drivers due to SDC's always having a driver in them to bail them out" that you are not understanding.
> 
> As soon as they take the driver out of SDC's then they become more dangerous.


I'm not sure either, there have been a very small number of drivers bailing them out. Of those accidents that were prevented, they would not have been worse than most drivers, it would be the same. If anything it does show, today that they are safer than drivers, today and this is going to get much better, at a faster rate.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

So get a total of all the drunk drivers, people driving on drugs, people who fell asleep at the wheel, people who had a medical emergency while driving, senior citizens and young drivers who did have an accident and even killed people. There's no way you're going to convince me that the SDC today is worse than those people, today.   That is a lot of people, thousands who have driven much worse than any SDC accident or potential accident.


----------



## 5 Star Guy

In 2014, *9,967* people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,070 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to *14* years in 2014, 209 (19%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.Apr 15, 2016.

In the 1996 appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Senate Appropriations Committee report noted that "NHTSA data indicate that in recent years there have been about 56,000 crashes annually in which driver drowsiness/fatigue was cited by police. Annual averages of roughly 40,000 nonfatal injuries and 1,550 fatalities result from these crashes. It is widely recognized that these statistics underreport the extent of these types of crashes. These statistics also do not deal with crashes caused by driver inattention, which is believed to be a larger problem."


----------



## ptuberx

Strange Fruit said:


> It's kind of funny that with the few Google cars there are relative to the rest of drivers, that there have been _over a dozen_ Google car accidents that were the "other car's fault". How come I've not been in a single accident after 2&1/2 years of being on the road 40hrs a week, nor do most people that I've known get into accidents caused by self or another. A bit coincidental that it happens to be Google cars that have been involved in more than 12 accidents, and those were all someone else's fault. What are the chances?


Agreed. The per-capita accident ratio with Google SDC'S sounds through-the-roof compared to the average responsible driver. I had a guy blow a red light on me the other day. I had less than 1 second warning. I pounder the brakes and steered away, and BARELY avoided it. It was so close and fast, I actually thought the guy did hit me. Turns out, no. Computers can do great things, but they will never be able to have human instinct or human reaction based on all the variables. The same institution that created Google is the same institution that is dumb enough to approve this idiocy on a roadway infrastructure that will never be able to safely support it on any level.

Take a few trillion dollars and invent a new highway infrastructure for SDC'S only, or drop it. This whole driverless car thing has never been a good idea. If it were, we would have had pilot-less planes years ago, but we do not. You know why? Even the computers in countless simulations could not land a fake plane in the Hudson River with minimal negative results. But a HUMAN named Sully did it. Hmm.


----------



## RamzFanz

Google has reported the accident.

September 23, 2016: A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle (“Google AV”) traveling
northbound on Phyllis Ave. in Mountain View in manual mode was involved in an accident. As the
Google AV proceeded through a green light at the El Camino Real intersection, its autonomous
technology detected another vehicle traveling westbound on El Camino Real approaching the
intersection at 30 mph and began to apply the Google AV’s brakes in anticipation that the other
vehicle would run through the red light. The Google AV test driver then disengaged the autonomous
technology and took manual control of the Google AV. Immediately thereafter, the other vehicle ran
through the red light and collided with the right side of the Google AV at 30 mph. At the time of
collision, the Google AV was traveling at 22 mph. The Google AV sustained substantial damage to its
front and rear passenger doors. The other vehicle sustained signiÒcant damage to its front end.
There were no injuries reported at the scene by either party. However, the Google AV test driver
later voluntarily went to a local hospital where he was evaluated by medical sta× and released.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not sure what part of "nobody is saying SDC's are more dangerous than drivers due to SDC's always having a driver in them to bail them out" that you are not understanding.
> 
> As soon as they take the driver out of SDC's then they become more dangerous.


The opposite by now probably.  A driver taking over lead to their worst accident yet (see above). They report every time a take-over by a driver that was necessary occurs, and the numbers trend indicates they are probably nearing or at zero by now. We won't know until the end of the year.

Their first 16-month report in 2015 showed 12 take-overs that were necessary. The majority happened in the beginning of the 16 month period with only 2 in the final 9 months, IIRC. That was more than 800,000 live miles and 840,000,000 simulator miles ago.

Of the 12, none would have resulted in a serious incident. Two were just traffic cones the car missed.

It's quite possible they are crashed more per mile in human driven mode than self-driven now, but we won't know until January.


----------



## RamzFanz

ptuberx said:


> Agreed. The per-capita accident ratio with Google SDC'S sounds through-the-roof compared to the average responsible driver. I had a guy blow a red light on me the other day. I had less than 1 second warning. I pounder the brakes and steered away, and BARELY avoided it. It was so close and fast, I actually thought the guy did hit me. Turns out, no. Computers can do great things, but they will never be able to have human instinct or human reaction based on all the variables. The same institution that created Google is the same institution that is dumb enough to approve this idiocy on a roadway infrastructure that will never be able to safely support it on any level.
> 
> Take a few trillion dollars and invent a new highway infrastructure for SDC'S only, or drop it. This whole driverless car thing has never been a good idea. If it were, we would have had pilot-less planes years ago, but we do not. You know why? Even the computers in countless simulations could not land a fake plane in the Hudson River with minimal negative results. But a HUMAN named Sully did it. Hmm.


None of this makes sense. The google car has several 360 degree senses you will never have. It can examine the data trillions of times a second. You're fortunate you saw the red light runner with your limited range of view whereas a google car could have known and reacted long before you did. This Google car accident, the T-bone, was caused by the human drivers. The only one who reacted correctly was the Google car. You simply can not gather information, process all of the possible actions and outcomes, and make the correct decision as fast. It's impossible.

They don't need infrastructure changes so I'm not sure why you think they do.

In modern planes, we fly by autopilot, almost exclusively. They can even do takeoffs and landings, but mostly just do landings. I read an article on the new Airbus where a pilot said he flew about 6 minutes a flight. In reality, pilots cause the vast majority of accidents and an automated system could way outfly a pilot in an emergency IF they had advanced systems and not decades old technology. For example, say you lost a flight control surface, it's more than likely an automated system could convert to using other flight surfaces to compensate in a manner a human never could. Remember the flight that lost hydraulics and the pilots used throttle only to crash land in the cornfield off the runway? There's no reason an automated plane couldn't stick that landing. Same as the Hudson landing. That was a very rare water save by Captn. Sully. Most water landings by humans have way worse outcomes. There's no reason an automated system couldn't pull that off. In fact, there's no reason to think it couldn't have gotten them back to the airport instead.

Stealth planes can't be flown by humans. It takes millions of adjustments a second to keep them in the air because of poor aerodynamics (similar to losing a flight surface). The pilot points it where it wants the plane to go, but the computer does 100% of the flying and won't allow the pilot to make a situational mistake like take it into a stall.

We already have autonomous drones and ships. There's no logical or technological reason we won't have passenger planes too in the not so distant future. There just isn't a motivation at this point.


----------



## Tommy_Morning

I had a teacher a long time ago for a computer class. He was trying to explain something about not spilling drinks or otherwise "accidentally" damaging our equipment.

He put it like this: "If you neglect to keep your drinks away from the computers then they spill, that isn't an accident and I won't consider it an accident. If a meteor comes crashing through the roof and smashes into your computer, you'll be off the hook."

He was trying to give us the freedom to bring drinks to class, but to remember that it's our fault if they spill. When a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they made a decision to risk their own life and others around them.

I'm not in a position to judge what sentences should be for certain crimes, but I think they should face the consequences of their choices. Keep in mind that I'm very lenient when it comes to justice. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, for drug legalization, and in almost all cases against _technical _life in prison.

*There is no excuse that I can think of to drive drunk and yet it seems like common practice.*


----------

