# Driverless car from GM’s Cruise and motorcycle collide in San Francisco



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

An autonomous vehicle owned by Cruise, the autonomous car startup that was acquired by GM last year, struck a motorcyclist on San Francisco streets earlier this year. According to a filing with the California DMV, the motorcyclist was able to walk away from the crash but reported shoulder pain and was taken to the hospital to receive medical care. Cruise says that police at the scene determined the motorcyclist was at fault for the collision.

The Cruise vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of a three-lane, one-way street in San Francisco's Lower Haight neighborhood. It spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane and began changing lanes-but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. So the Cruise car shifted back into the center lane.

Normally, that would be an unremarkable chain of events on San Francisco's busy streets. Unfortunately, Cruise says, "a motorcycle that had just lane-split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes moved into the center lane." The motorcycle "glanced the side of the Cruise AV, wobbled, and fell over."

Cruise says its car was traveling at 12 miles per hour, while the motorcycle was going 17 miles per hour.

"We test our self-driving cars in challenging and unpredictable environments precisely because, by doing so, we will get better, safer AV technology on the roads sooner," Cruise said in an email statement. "In this case, the motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so."

This is far from the first collision involving a Cruise vehicle on San Francisco streets. The company reported 14 collisions to California authorities between September and November of this year-a reflection of the company's active testing on San Francisco streets. Many of these involved another car rear-ending the Cruise vehicle.

Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt has touted Cruise's decision to test on San Francisco streets, arguing that the company's software will learn the fastest if it's operating in challenging urban driving environments.

"Our vehicles encounter challenging (and often absurd) situations up to 46 times more often than other places self-driving cars are tested," Vogt wrote.

He provided statistics in October showing that San Francisco vehicles encounter tricky situations like "pass using opposing lane" and "construction navigation" 20 to 40 times more often in San Francisco than in the Phoenix suburbs where Waymo and Uber are doing a lot of their testing.

Unfortunately, while California collects statistics on every autonomous vehicle accident and posts the details to its website, we don't have comparable information from the extensive testing that is happening in Arizona.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/1...uise-and-motorcycle-collide-in-san-francisco/


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Yeah a human easily would have been able to hear a motorcycle right next to them and would have been on the lookout


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Yeah a human easily would have been able to hear a motorcycle right next to them and would have been on the lookout


The reality is that we will get more and more news about such collisions, while algorithms DO NOT improve the more miles the car covers.


----------



## cratter (Sep 16, 2017)

I'm guessing its that old adage learning 80% of something in a relatively short amount of time but the remaining 20% to become an "expert" takes forever.

To get really good at Self Driving, the cars will likely take an eternity to learn.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If the motorcyclist hadn't been going almost 50% faster than traffic around him, he would have had enough time to control his motorcycle and avoid hitting the vehicle.



heynow321 said:


> Yeah a human easily would have been able to hear a motorcycle right next to them and would have been on the lookout


A human was operating the motorcycle and HE is the one who hit the vehicle.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> A human was operating the motorcycle and HE is the one who hit the vehicle.


You do understand how the self driving car and the motorcyclist were trying to merge into the same lane after the self driving vehicle was behaving erratically moving from center to the left and than back to center, correct ?- "It spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane and *began changing lanes*-but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. *So the Cruise car shifted back* into the center lane.

Normally, that would be an unremarkable chain of events on San Francisco's busy streets. Unfortunately, Cruise says, "a motorcycle that had just lane-split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes *moved into the center lane*." The motorcycle "glanced the side of the Cruise AV, wobbled, and fell over."

Any experienced driver who wants to change lanes in busy traffic will watch the front side vehicles for moving left or right (you can see it on the road by acknowledging the slowly increasing distance, while they change lanes, between the rotating tires and the continuous or interrupted line on the asphalt). The self driving switching back was like an asshole bullying the motorcyclist off the road.

Do you understand this?

This is the reason why some drivers choose to put those "Start seeing the motorcyclists" on their bumpers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> You do understand how the self driving car and the motorcyclist were trying to merge into the same lane after the self driving vehicle was behaving erratically moving from center to the left and than back to center, correct ?- "It spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane and *began changing lanes*-but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. *So the Cruise car shifted back* into the center lane.
> 
> Normally, that would be an unremarkable chain of events on San Francisco's busy streets. Unfortunately, Cruise says, "a motorcycle that had just lane-split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes *moved into the center lane*." The motorcycle "glanced the side of the Cruise AV, wobbled, and fell over."
> 
> ...


An autonomous vehicle owned by Cruise, the autonomous car startup that was acquired by GM last year, struck a motorcyclist on San Francisco streets earlier this year. According to a filing with the California DMV, the motorcyclist was able to walk away from the crash but reported shoulder pain and was taken to the hospital to receive medical care. Cruise says that police at the scene determined the motorcyclist was at fault for the collision.

The Cruise vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of a three-lane, one-way street in San Francisco's Lower Haight neighborhood. It spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane and began changing lanes-but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. So the Cruise car shifted back into the center lane.

Normally, that would be an unremarkable chain of events on San Francisco's busy streets. Unfortunately, Cruise says, "a motorcycle that had just lane-split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes moved into the center lane." The motorcycle "glanced the side of the Cruise AV, wobbled, and fell over."

Cruise says its car was traveling at 12 miles per hour, while the motorcycle was going 17 miles per hour.

"We test our self-driving cars in challenging and unpredictable environments precisely because, by doing so, we will get better, safer AV technology on the roads sooner," Cruise said in an email statement. "In this case, the motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so."

I understand that perfectly, do you understand this?

"Cruise says that police at the scene determined the motorcyclist was at fault"

and,

"The motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so".


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> You do understand how the self driving car and the motorcyclist were trying to merge into the same lane after the self driving vehicle was behaving erratically moving from center to the left and than back to center, correct ?- "It spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane and *began changing lanes*-but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. *So the Cruise car shifted back* into the center lane.
> 
> "B
> 
> ...


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> "Cruise says that police at the scene determined the motorcyclist was at fault"


So you are saying the police is perfect and their reports reflect 100% how things happen? (Just look around you and see/accept the reality as it is and not as you wanted it to be)
Edit: "Police accident reports are probably the most ubiquitous source of traffic accident data analysis. While the primary purpose of such reports is to provide both summary descriptive statistics on accidents and information that might later be used for litigation purposes, very often data from these reports are taken at face value for inferential analysis, most notably in the area of traffic safety improvement programs. Thus, many safety programs are evaluated on the basis of whether or not they yield a reduction in accidents as reported by the police. In conducting such analyses, *one must be aware that at least as far as rigorous scientific procedures are concerned, this approach is questionable*....
Thus, while police reports may be a useful source of information for the evaluation of various safety improvement programs, they are, as indicated by the research described below,* often biased and~or incomplete*." - The validity of police reported accident data



observer said:


> "The motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so"


How do you know that? Do you see a police report attached to this? Or do you see the motorcyclist statement on that? Or is just SPECULATION from ..... CRUISE's (the company operating the vehicle) email? hahahahaha.... *REALLY*? _("Cruise said in an email statement. "In this case, the motorcyclist merged into our lane before it was safe to do so."_)

My comment is on underlined reported description of the incident by the journalist who wrote this. Do YOU understand that?

And,* do you understand driving and traffic*?

Or everything you see flying should automatically be a bird?.... What else?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> So you are saying the police is perfect and their reports reflect 100% how things happen? (Just look around you and see/accept the reality as it is and not as you wanted it to be)
> Edit: "Police accident reports are probably the most ubiquitous source of traffic accident data analysis. While the primary purpose of such reports is to provide both summary descriptive statistics on accidents and information that might later be used for litigation purposes, very often data from these reports are taken at face value for inferential analysis, most notably in the area of traffic safety improvement programs. Thus, many safety programs are evaluated on the basis of whether or not they yield a reduction in accidents as reported by the police. In conducting such analyses, *one must be aware that at least as far as rigorous scientific procedures are concerned, this approach is questionable*....
> Thus, while police reports may be a useful source of information for the evaluation of various safety improvement programs, they are, as indicated by the research described below,* often biased and~or incomplete*." - The validity of police reported accident data
> 
> ...


All your posts in this thread are CLEARLY speculation and biased towards your point of view.

Biased against self driving cars and for motorcyclists THAT ARE UNSAFE wether the car was automated or human driven.

This was ONE accident where a motorcyclist and an autonomous vehicle collided, how many hundreds of thousands of collisions have happened between UNSAFE motorcyclists and human driven vehicles?

If humans are superior drivers to computers, why didn't the human motorcyclist avoid a collision?

BTW, the study you linked was from statistics in Monroe, Indiana from 1971-1975 based on 124 accidents.

Did you read all the way to the end? The studys purpose FORTY THREE years ago was to IMPROVE police reports in the future....


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Allow me to address some of the delusions here.



observer said:


> All your posts in this thread are CLEARLY speculation and biased towards your point of view.


You want to be clever by generalizing into implying I speculate and I am biased. If you cannot be more specific, that is a DELUSION.

If I would speculate, I would imagine things that are not true, real or never happened, as true, real and facts. Can YOU show me something I've mentioned about Self Driving technology, cars or developers, that I've imagined about? Because I can show you a lot more users here, probably including you, that are imagining/speculating about robots on a daily basis. So, let me whisper it in your ear, do you really want to comment about speculating around here, who really does it and who doesn't do anything about it?

I am biased towards my point of view? I am biased towards reality and truth. Prove me wrong.



observer said:


> This was ONE accident where a motorcyclist and an autonomous vehicle collided, how many hundreds of thousands of collisions have happened between UNSAFE motorcyclists and human driven vehicles?


I was the one to attach the "Start seeing motorcyclists" sticker to one of my comments above. That sign is for human drivers, isn't it?

Now back to our topic - THIS IS NOT ABOUT HUMAN DRIVERS. As you clearly can read because the article shows it - the SDC "spotted a gap in traffic in the left lane (Identifying a space between two vehicles (a minivan in front and a sedan behind) in the left lane, the Cruise AV began to merge into that lane.) and *began changing lanes *but then the gap started to close as the vehicle ahead slowed down. *So the Cruise car shifted back* into the center lane."

Now you do understand how that 1 ton robot was in the center lane, moved towards left (moment when the approaching motorcyclist willing to merge decided to get into that slowly growing gap) because the "motorcycle that that had just lane split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes" (the motorcyclist was running out of road), and the robot decided to get back on the center lane, by moving right again, not seeing the motorcyclist as an obstacle or traffic partner. The robot failed to see and properly acknowledge the surroundings, something that, AS A COMPUTER AND AS PROMISED PERFECT VEHICLE, it's hard for me to accept or let go to, or move on from.

As the DMV report shows - "the motorcyclist was determined to be at fault for attempting to overtake and pass another vehicle on the right under conditions that did not permit that movement in safety in
violation of CVC 21755(a)"
and CVC 21755 (a) says - "(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety. In no event shall that movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.". The reason they've used this is because the terms "overtake" and "pass", while was determined the motorcyclist was going 17 mph while the robot was doing 12 mph.
The main problem with this report is the CONTEXT, nobody is considering. I understand how the robot doesn't see the context (one of the most important reasons Artificial Intelligence is NOT possible), but given the data we look at regarding this incident, is clear how the robot, by initiating a lane change towards it's left, started creating a gap in the center lane, *gap that the motorcyclist was going* *for* rolling at 17 mph in the split lanes (right and center).

Now you still have to look at that report in detail and notice on the bottom, how it was submitted by KEVIN CHU, Associate Director, AV Engineering at GM Cruise LLC, so you could consider it BIASED once reflecting only a one sided point of view of the events. Again, NO police report, and NO motorcyclist testimony.

Edit - And* LANE SPLITTING* is..... *LEGAL* in California - http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdf
"It is not advisable to lane split when traffic flow is at 30 mph or faster --- danger increases as overall speed increases.
- At just 20 mph, in the 1 or 2 seconds it takes a rider to identify a hazard, that rider will travel approximately 30 to 60 feet before even starting to take evasive action. Actual reaction (braking or swerving) will take additional time and distance."
and
"5) Be alert and anticipate possible movements by other road users.
- Be very aware of *what the cars around you are doing*. If a* space*, or *gap*, *opens up next to your lane*, be prepared to react accordingly."
"3) Intentionally blocking or impeding a motorcyclist in a way that could cause harm to the rider is illegal (CVC 22400)."

So what was the problem with the motorcyclist doing 17 mph and where is MY SPECULATION you are insulting me of making here?



observer said:


> If humans are superior drivers to computers, why didn't the human motorcyclist avoid a collision?


Because drivers need to YIELD also to the motorcyclists, something that the robot didn't do and those bumper stickers ("start seeing motorcyclists") want to remind people about. The motorcyclist needs to be protected because is much more exposed and in this particular situation, he had clear priority. - "There are too many motorcycle accidents that are the result of a driver ignoring the rules of the road simply because "it was a motorcycle and therefore shouldn't have needed a full lane."
and
"Motorcycles can *easily be hidden* in traffic. Look for a helmet above, tires below, or a shadow alongside a vehicle that you can't see around."
"Check your blind spots before *changing lanes or merging, especially in heavy traffic.*"



observer said:


> The studys purpose FORTY THREE years ago was to IMPROVE police reports in the future....


Let me give you one from March 3rd, 2017, Texas - "Generally in Texas, a police officer is *not qualified to render opinions* regarding *causation or fault *merely because they are police officers. However, officers *are qualified *to testify regarding *accident reconstruction* if they qualify as an expert.". Same article says - "The investigator also stated *an opinion* the defendant "f*ailed to yield the right of way*". The plaintiff requested the report to be admitted without redaction because it "would have provided documentary evidence regarding the cause of the automobile collision."[5] *The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the evidence *and reasoned that when the investigating officer is not deposed, does not testify at trial, and nothing is offered in the way of qualifications, *opinion testimony regarding causation may properly be deemed inadmissible*"

Edit - And - "While the police will make a report and may issue traffic violations or even make an arrest, *they do not determine fault in an accident* for the insurance company. A police report will be one of the pieces of evidence used in the investigation of the crash, but it is not the final word. - https://www.insurancehotline.com/fault-determination-after-an-accident-what-you-should-know/ (May 7th, 2013)

So let me put it this way for you to understand how a discussion could go on in a productive, organized and fair way - if you have a problem with a source, please provide another source to support whatever you claim or whatever your statement is.

Of course I've covered that report 100%. Do you think I would have posted a link to something that would have helped your delusions?

If you think the descriptive word "DELUSIONS" I use here is too harsh, PLEASE show us (because is not only about you and me here) I am wrong. PLEASE!!!!!


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

observer said:


> If the motorcyclist hadn't been going almost 50% faster than traffic around him, he would have had enough time to control his motorcycle and avoid hitting the vehicle.
> 
> A human was operating the motorcycle and HE is the one who hit the vehicle.


that's not the point. bikes create a much louder noise than most cars. I can hear bikes coming from much farther away than i can hear an average car. had a human been in the car, they would have heard the bike coming and been on the lookout for it and avoided hitting it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

*"A Human Driver Has Caused Another Accident - Still No SDC Caused Accidents"*

Fixed your title for you.



jocker12 said:


> Can YOU show me something I've mentioned about Self Driving technology, cars or developers, that I've imagined about?


I can.

" AS A COMPUTER AND AS PROMISED PERFECT VEHICLE,"

You are the one setting the bar at perfection because it serves your purposes. This is an imagined goal that has never once been promised by anyone. Completely delusional, imagined, and fraudulently disingenuous.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

observer said:


> This was ONE accident where a motorcyclist and an autonomous vehicle collided, how many hundreds of thousands of collisions have happened between UNSAFE motorcyclists and human driven vehicles?
> 
> ..


the question you should be asking is why do these cars, which represent a drop in the ocean in terms of how many cars are on the road, keep getting in so many accidents?

I drive 10's of thousands of miles a year and haven't been in one accident. these things can't seem to stop getting rear ended, side swiped, crashing into buses, and hitting motorcycles.

perhaps it's b/c real world driving doesn't involve following the letter of the law or driving way too cautiously. drivers expect other drivers to follow the "street rules" of driving. when they do, most actions are easily predictable. When cars try to follow the letter of the law, which no humans do except maybe paralyzed-with-fear-15 year olds who just started driving, you get increased risk and less safety, which is exactly what these sdc's are doing right now. making the roads less safe.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> the question you should be asking is why do these cars, which represent a drop in the ocean in terms of how many cars are on the road, keep getting in so many accidents?
> 
> I drive 10's of thousands of miles a year and haven't been in one accident. these things can't seem to stop getting rear ended, side swiped, crashing into buses, and hitting motorcycles.


You drive 10's of thousands? They've driven many millions. And most of those as just prototypes. Did you think they would be perfect in testing? I didn't.



heynow321 said:


> perhaps it's b/c real world driving doesn't involve following the letter of the law or driving way too cautiously. drivers expect other drivers to follow the "street rules" of driving. when they do, most actions are easily predictable. When cars try to follow the letter of the law, which no humans do except maybe paralyzed-with-fear-15 year olds who just started driving, you get increased risk and less safety, which is exactly what these sdc's are doing right now. making the roads less safe.


So, what you're saying is humans are unsafe drivers so safe driving makes them more unsafe?

Actually though, I'm pretty sure you're already aware SDCs do not follow the letter of the law. They are being adapted to human driver behavior. Be patient, it will take a little more time, maybe even many more months, but they'll get there.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You drive 10's of thousands? They've driven many millions. And most of those as just prototypes. Did you think they would be perfect in testing? I didn't.
> 
> So, what you're saying is humans are unsafe drivers so safe driving makes them more unsafe?
> 
> Actually though, I'm pretty sure you're already aware SDCs do not follow the letter of the law. They are being adapted to human driver behavior. Be patient, it will take a little more time, maybe even many more months, but they'll get there.


no genius, try reading again. what I'm saying is you can't program the unpredictable nature of driving on urban streets. the human brain can adapt and react much faster than a computer will ever be able to, which at the end of the day, can still only do what it's told to do by it's inputs.

humans are efficient drivers. when they come up to an empty 4 way stop, they might choose to slow and roll through the intersection cautiously as i would expect most experienced people to do. not come to complete stop for 5 seconds then finally decide to go.

Every driver here should start tallying up how many times a day or a shift or whatever you have to use eye contact with other drivers before you both agree on when to make a move. something an SDC will never be able to do and will constantly snarl up traffic.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> The reality is that we will get more and more news about such collisions, while algorithms DO NOT improve the more miles the car covers.


And this crash was at only 12 mph.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> no genius, try reading again. what I'm saying is you can't program the unpredictable nature of driving on urban streets. the human brain can adapt and react much faster than a computer will ever be able to, which at the end of the day, can still only do what it's told to do by it's inputs.


They can't? Silly, they already have. Waymo is level 4 and live. Haven't we covered this?

There is no chance, once these SDCs mature, a human will be faster at detecting issues and reacting. 360 degree multi sensing with trillions of data points a second. A human won't even know there's an issue before the car has already handled it. Our senses aren't good enough and we don't react anywhere near as fast.



heynow321 said:


> humans are efficient drivers. when they come up to an empty 4 way stop, they might choose to slow and roll through the intersection cautiously as i would expect most experienced people to do. not come to complete stop for 5 seconds then finally decide to go.


I don't run stop signs. I come to a complete stop. Not sure why you think that's a good thing. However, if they _wanted_ SDCs to run stop signs, they could. Why pretend they couldn't?



heynow321 said:


> Every driver here should start tallying up how many times a day or a shift or whatever you have to use eye contact with other drivers before you both agree on when to make a move. something an SDC will never be able to do and will constantly snarl up traffic.


Overrated and exaggerated. How many times a day? Almost never. I go when I'm supposed to go and I never yield right of way, which is the safest way to drive. People who wave people through who don't have the right of way cause confusion and accidents.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

No ramz, they can't.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> I can.
> 
> " AS A COMPUTER AND AS PROMISED PERFECT VEHICLE,"
> 
> You are the one setting the bar at perfection because it serves your purposes. This is an imagined goal that has never once been promised by anyone. Completely delusional, imagined, and fraudulently disingenuous.


You are going in circles. We already had this discussion before and I told you - "Those products are manufactured by a corporation, and no corporation in its right mind, will put a FAULTY product on the market because of people like you willing to get injured in or by their product and then sue them for millions. Hahahaha...

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

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

and

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

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


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> You are going in circles. We already had this discussion before and I told you - "Those products are manufactured by a corporation, and no corporation in its right mind, will put a FAULTY product on the market because of people like you willing to get injured in or by their product and then sue them for millions. Hahahaha...


All products are imperfect. Your logic is imperfect, and that's being generous.

You made a claim, that we're being told these cars will be perfect, stop deflecting and quote any SDC expert.

You made it up. Then you said you haven't made anything up. Then I busted you.

By the way, lawsuits are paid by insurance and the auto industry has an army of excellent lawyers. They aren't worried about lawsuits. You have to prove they _negligently_ or _maliciously_ ignored a known dangerous problem. Good luck with that.



jocker12 said:


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


Tens of millions of permanent injuries and 1.2M deaths annually is "not dangerous at all?" At some point you need to start being serious.



jocker12 said:


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


The chances of me getting killed in a terrorist attack? Far higher than me being killed by a SDC.



jocker12 said:


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


They will intentionally and knowingly put an imperfect product on the market. Just like all other products.

Tesla put out driver assist and a man died when it failed. Tesla still exists and still makes the same product. Airplanes are imperfect. Their imperfections have killed thousands (human pilots have killed way more, but I digress). They still make those planes. We still fly in planes. You're arguments are empty shells.



jocker12 said:


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


I have in fact installed faulty products. The companies that made those products are still in business and still sell those products. And no, I've never charged to replace a faulty product. I understand there is a failure rate and that is considered in my rates, just as SDC TNCs will do. It's business 101.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> You made a claim, that we're being told these cars will be perfect, stop deflecting and quote any SDC expert.


I am not deflecting at all. I am telling you the truth the developers are afraid to tell because they know the moment will admit "product" flaws, is over. You busted what? Yourself admitting you installed faulty products? If this is the business model you accept, follow, enforce and cover up for, do not make the mistake of thinking the consumers will accept it. In how many situation when you've installed faulty products, you informed the customers about what you've just done?

I am not sure you understand (because of Santa's joint) they could sue you for it and make you retire on a piece of cardboard in a train station or under the nearest highway bridge.

You trying to glorify a business scam would make people understand what you are, how much do you respect what you do and how much do you respect your in good faith paying customers that are expecting a fully functional product.



RamzFanz said:


> I have in fact installed faulty products. The companies that made those products are still in business and still sell those products. And no, I've never charged to replace a faulty product. I understand there is a failure rate and that is considered in my rates, just as SDC TNCs will do. It's business 101.


It is very interesting how you do not show any remorse, but some sort of pride and also how usual this type of behavior seems to be for you. Anyway, do not make the mistake to think that industry and business regulators have the same crooked values as you have, because you'll be very disappointed.



RamzFanz said:


> They will intentionally and knowingly put an imperfect product on the market. Just like all other products.


 Again, do not think the industry regulators will look the other way if something like this happens.



RamzFanz said:


> Tesla put out driver assist and a man died when it failed.


That is exactly why I am telling you the testing will take forever, because if that man will be you, your family won't like it.



RamzFanz said:


> Their imperfections have killed thousands (human pilots have killed way more, but I digress). They still make those planes. We still fly in planes. You're arguments are empty shells.


TAKATA filed for bankruptcy.
CHRYSLER filed for chapter 11 in 2009, and only a government bail out saved those schmucks from a certain fall.
GM did the same thing the same year.

The main problem is not even a possible bankruptcy, but all the lawsuits for their faulty products that corporations wont enjoy at all.

In your fervor to have an answer for everything, you think fixing corporate crime is like fixing a sandwich for a kid. You also imagine consumers excitingly jumping on the faulty corporate products, ignoring the risks and the dangers they are exposing themselves to.

And more disgusting at all is that, instead of acknowledging the problem, by contrary, you are aware of it and proud to be part of it (because for you, seems to be some frivolous business detail) .

STOP SMOKING WHAT YOU ARE SMOKING. SERIOUSLY!


----------

