# World's first self-driving shuttle CRASHES on first day of use



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)




----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


>


*World's first self-driving shuttle **crashes* _*is crashed into*_* on first day of use*


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> *World's first self-driving shuttle **crashes* _*is crashed into*_* on first day of use*


 They play the now or never game and they are losing. Listen to the comments there - the shuttle BLOCKED the ramp, stopped and never backed up. The second video has a passenger describing what happened. Do you think she will use self driving cars again? hahahhaha...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Are you crying yet troll child? Told you is the opposite of what you think. They play the now or never game and they are losing. Listen to the comments there - the shuttle BLOCKED the ramp, stopped and never backed up. The second video has a passenger describing what happened. Do you think she will use self driving cars again? hahahhaha...


Watch the video YOU posted. "The shuttle was stopped and the truck backed into it"


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Lol god this is pathetic. As the passenger correctly pointed out had a human been there there are multiple different avenues that could have been taken to avoid this including honking and or backing up . 

there are going to be big problems if all these things can do is stop when they get confused. Oh we're on the freeway and there is debris in the roadway better just stop and block traffic


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Lol god this is pathetic. As the passenger correctly pointed out had a human been there there are multiple different avenues that could have been taken to avoid this including honking and or backing up .
> 
> there are going to be big problems if all these things can do is stop when they get confused. Oh we're on the freeway and there is debris in the roadway better just stop and block traffic


Or, or, we can replace the human truck driver that was cited, with a self driving truck with better vision.



jocker12 said:


> They play the now or never game and they are losing. Listen to the comments there - the shuttle BLOCKED the ramp, stopped and never backed up. The second video has a passenger describing what happened. Do you think she will use self driving cars again? hahahhaha...


You have to contort yourself into a pretzel on everything you post to even fool other like-minded reach-arounders like, heynow.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Or, or, we can replace the human truck driver that was cited, with a self driving truck with better vision.


So what's it like having an unlimited budget? Are YOU paying the Trillions of $$$s it would take for an almost instant changeover to SDCs, so they won't have to share the roads with humans?


----------



## michael7227 (Oct 29, 2016)

A driver could have seen that coming and reversed, honked horn, got out and waved arms...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> So what's it like having an unlimited budget? Are YOU paying the Trillions of $$$s it would take for an almost instant changeover to SDCs, so they won't have to share the roads with humans?


We'll find out soon enough. It'll be cheaper for companies to retrofit their trucks for self driving than to pay for a driver.



michael7227 said:


> A driver could have seen that coming and reversed, honked horn, got out and waved arms...


A self driving truck would not have hit the shuttle in the first place. Another oopsie for team human.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Come on mods!!!! Featured Thread??


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Lol gregster is so silly. I feel bad for him as he's obviously between a rock and a hard place. His boss is demanding that he spread counterpropaganda despite the fact that it goes against all reason and logic and he has no proof of any of his ridiculous claims. Must be tough to have an employer demand that you sacrifice your reputation online


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Lol gregster is so silly. I feel bad for him as he's obviously between a rock and a hard place. His boss is demanding that he spread counterpropaganda despite the fact that it goes against all reason and logic and he has no proof of any of his ridiculous claims. Must be tough to have an employer demand that you sacrifice your reputation online


Hey heynow and the rest of the UP reach-arounders, it's a profit deal. Does that help take the pressure off?


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

Wait until someone hacks it through the Bluetooth. What kind of disaster will that be?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

pengduck said:


> Wait until someone hacks it through the Bluetooth. What kind of disaster will that be?


Worse than 9/11


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Or, or, we can replace the human truck driver that was cited, with a self driving truck with better vision.
> 
> You have to contort yourself into a pretzel on everything you post to even fool other like-minded reach-arounders like, heynow.


Your cheerleading at all costs is getting tired. There is no doubt humans are capable of making decisions that AI cannot.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

PrestonT said:


> Your cheerleading at all costs is getting tired. There is no doubt humans are capable of making decisions that AI cannot.


Who said anything about AI?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

michael7227 said:


> A driver could have seen that coming and reversed, honked horn, got out and waved arms...


A human driver would not have blocked or gotten in the way of a backing truck to begin with.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Who said anything about AI?


Keep digging that hole!!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Keep digging that hole!!


I didn't say anything about AI, did you saying anything about AI?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Or, or, we can replace the human truck driver that was cited, with a self driving truck with better vision.


Replacing the truck driver actually complicates the situation, because instead of one confused software running a shuttle, you got two confused blocks of metal with people inside, and because they are not communicating, they're stuck. If you add (for the fun of it) a close following self drivable shuttle to the first one, you got a bottleneck, and those people are locked inside. Even if they will be able to get themselves out of that menace, be convinced they will not put their foot again in a silly self drivable robot.

I know you "analytical" thinking it tells you how we need to remove the pedestrians from the road, remove even the road itself and the walls around it in order to have a well functioning self drivable vehicle, but that is not going to happen. There will be more glitches and more problems. This is only the beginning that it shows you they are not ready to commercially deploy the product.

The initial idea was to solve the glitches and develop the self drivable software like a video game, in steps, but anyway you put it, their commercial product needs to be perfect. Why again? Because no insurance will cover people lives while they are travelling in a technologically incomplete product. *I wonder what type of insurance those self drivable shuttle passengers are covered by (or if they are aware of it) in case something bad happens.

*


tomatopaste said:


> Who said anything about AI?


The self drivable cars controlled by an AI is another fallacy and big lie. The self drivable cars developers, in order to stop people from asking legitimate questions about the "brain" inside the machine, are lying to the consumers by saying *the cars will "learn" from their mistakes*. THAT IS A LIE.

Recently I had the chance to chat with a very nice young man involved in developing an Artificial Intelligence meant to detect cancer from a simple radiography. He specifically said how the product it will do whatever the manufacturer wants the product to do, to which I responded with a remark - "But that is not intelligence at all. It is a well written program that will give results based on a specific input over and over again." He simply agreed with my point.

Previously I've mentioned in one of my comments how self drivable cars software is improperly called AI, when in reality, is not even remotely close to an AI. These cars are simply programmed and configured to "react" to basic inputs given by an interface (peripheral devices like cameras, Lidar systems, sonars or radars). They simply DON'T LEARN. This is the real reason the developers need a testing time, before they hope to fix the glitches. With an AI, all the problems, once encountered, will automatically be followed by a proper correction, without human intervention. But that is not the case.

I have a feeling you'll start taking more medication in a very short time, because of the stress trolling in order to convince people these robots are safe. Because they are not.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> They play the now or never game and they are losing. Listen to the comments there - the shuttle BLOCKED the ramp, stopped and never backed up. The second video has a passenger describing what happened. Do you think she will use self driving cars again? hahahhaha...


*I was on the self-driving bus that crashed in Vegas. Here's what really happened*
*https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/self-driving-bus-crash-vegas-account/*

Jockey has to lie about everything, because the facts are never on his side.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> *I was on the self-driving bus that crashed in Vegas. Here's what really happened*
> *https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/self-driving-bus-crash-vegas-account/*
> 
> Jockey has to lie about everything, because the facts are never on his side.


Child troll, I've made a thread about this... Now go do your homework or watch more nickelodeon


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> They play the now or never game and they are losing. Listen to the comments there - the shuttle BLOCKED the ramp, stopped and never backed up. The second video has a passenger describing what happened. Do you think she will use self driving cars again? hahahhaha...



"Earlier this week, a truck backed into a driverless shuttle in Las Vegas during the shuttle's first hour of operation. Was it at all the robot shuttle's fault? No! Jesus.

Jeff Zurschmeide, who was riding in the shuttle at the time of the incident, wrote about it yesterday for _Digital Trends_, chiding other journalists for writing "sensational" posts about it and including his own description of what he said was a very slow motion crash."
Don't forget about Jockey, he was right in the middle of the circle jerk.

https://jalopnik.com/if-you-run-into-a-motionless-object-it-is-your-fault-1820331472


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> "Earlier this week, a truck backed into a driverless shuttle in Las Vegas during the shuttle's first hour of operation. Was it at all the robot shuttle's fault? No! Jesus.
> 
> Jeff Zurschmeide, who was riding in the shuttle at the time of the incident, wrote about it yesterday for _Digital Trends_, chiding other journalists for writing "sensational" posts about it and including his own description of what he said was a very slow motion crash."
> Don't forget about Jockey, he was right in the middle of the circle jerk.
> ...


The only question that resolves your "dilemma" child troll, is what a human driver would have done if they would have had one in that shuttle - honk the horn, back up, or read the situation from the distance, evaluate how that truck was backing up into an alley and stop earlier.

That shuttle went to close, putting passengers in danger, because self driving cars cannot read context.

Now tell your nurse to cut the wifi and go play with your play-doh.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "The exciting thing is that the vehicle did exactly what it was programmed to do. This is a really good real-world case of how the technology actually works", said John Moreno, a spokesperson for The American Automobile Association (AAA,) a sponsor on the project.


So, first - I have to bring you to the right thread, would you agree?

Second - I have a problem with "the vehicle did exactly what it was programmed to do"

And third - I will give you the same answer I provided above - "The only question that resolves your "dilemma", is what a human driver would have done if they would have had one in that shuttle - honk the horn, back up, or read the situation from the distance, evaluate how that truck was backing up into an alley and stop earlier.

That shuttle went to close, putting passengers in danger, because self driving cars cannot read context."


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> So, first - I have to bring you to the right thread, would you agree?
> 
> Second - I have a problem with "the vehicle did exactly what it was programmed to do"
> 
> ...


The shuttle stopped 20 feet from the truck. The passengers said they could see the driver's face the whole time in the mirror, meaning the driver could also see the shuttle, had he looked. Should the shuttle have hit the horn? yes. Will they program it to hit the horn the next time a human tries to back into a shuttle? yes.



jocker12 said:


> The only question that resolves your "dilemma" child troll, is what a human driver would have done if they would have had one in that shuttle - honk the horn, back up, or read the situation from the distance, evaluate how that truck was backing up into an alley and stop earlier.
> 
> That shuttle went to close, putting passengers in danger, because self driving cars cannot read context.
> 
> Now tell your nurse to cut the wifi and go play with your play-doh.


I realize that when some dude backs into you, your normal response is: well hello sailor. But you're not like most people, Jockey.



jocker12 said:


> Replacing the truck driver actually complicates the situation, because instead of one confused software running a shuttle, you got two confused blocks of metal with people inside, and because they are not communicating, they're stuck. If you add (for the fun of it) a close following self drivable shuttle to the first one, you got a bottleneck, and those people are locked inside. Even if they will be able to get themselves out of that menace, be convinced they will not put their foot again in a silly self drivable robot.
> 
> I know you "analytical" thinking it tells you how we need to remove the pedestrians from the road, remove even the road itself and the walls around it in order to have a well functioning self drivable vehicle, but that is not going to happen. There will be more glitches and more problems. This is only the beginning that it shows you they are not ready to commercially deploy the product.
> 
> ...


Lord you tend to ramble, Jockey. Are you aware of that?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> The passengers said they could see the driver's face the whole time in the mirror, meaning the driver could also see the shuttle, had he looked. Will they program it to hit the horn the next time a human tries to back into a shuttle? yes.


Troll, all of us here know you are a source of fake information and fake news. Let me prove it again.

Do you have a source having a passenger saying how "they could see the driver's face the whole time in the mirror"?

"Will they program it to hit the horn the next time? yes." - How do you know, you clairvoyant troll?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Troll, all of us here know you are a source of fake information and fake news. Let me prove it again.
> 
> Do you have a source having a passenger saying how "they could see the driver's face the whole time in the mirror"?
> 
> "Will they program it to hit the horn the next time? yes." - How do you know, you clairvoyant troll?


"The truck driver got a ticket from the Las Vegas police. We could see his mirrors the whole time and he should have seen us. But I don't want to be too harsh on the guy - driving a big truck in Las Vegas is a tough job, and he's only human."
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/self-driving-bus-crash-vegas-account/

Another swing and a miss


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> "The truck driver got a ticket from the Las Vegas police. We could see his mirrors the whole time and he should have seen us. But I don't want to be too harsh on the guy - driving a big truck in Las Vegas is a tough job, and he's only human."
> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/self-driving-bus-crash-vegas-account/
> 
> Another swing and a miss


Do you see any differences between you imagining they saying they were able to see the drivers face and actually them saying they were able to see the mirrors?

You are altering the statement thru association, putting words in their mouths.

They were never able to see drivers face, troll, because they were not at the right angle. Of course they were able to see trucks mirrors because anybody on that side of the truck could see those mirrors.

Seeing the mirrors is something, seeing a person or an object in a mirror is something else.

You are heavily uneducated, this is basic physics - reflection in different types of mirrors.

You cheated all the way thru school and now come here and insult us with your lack of basic knowledge.

Also, do you know what a blind spot is, or you only carry that skull as an umbrella to keep the rain from going down your throat?

In the trolls world you are probably not even qualified to be one, but you continuously hit the wall with your head because you want to be one..... That is pathetic!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Do you see any differences between you imagining they saying they were able to see the drivers face and actually them saying they were able to see the mirrors?
> 
> You are altering the statement thru association, putting words in their mouths.
> 
> ...





jocker12 said:


> Do you see any differences between you imagining they saying they were able to see the drivers face and actually them saying they were able to see the mirrors?
> 
> You are altering the statement thru association, putting words in their mouths.
> 
> ...


No, because he said: and he should have seen us. Meaning, we could see him, so he could see us.



jocker12 said:


> Do you see any differences between you imagining they saying they were able to see the drivers face and actually them saying they were able to see the mirrors?
> 
> You are altering the statement thru association, putting words in their mouths.
> 
> ...


"We could see his mirrors the whole time and he should have seen us." He didn't say: we could see his tires the whole time and he should have seen us. See, mirrors tend to reflect images a lot better than tires do. Hope that helps.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, because he said: and he should have seen us. Meaning, we could see him, so he could see us.
> 
> "We could see his mirrors the whole time and he should have seen us." He didn't say: we could see his tires the whole time and he should have seen us. See, mirrors tend to reflect images a lot better than tires do. Hope that helps.


It is really entertaining to have you coming back to defend your ludicrous statements, troll.

So, if you cannot see the Earth is round (like they didn't see the driver) and all you see is a vast flat horizon (like they were able to see the mirrors), then the Earth should be flat right? Hahahahaha.....

Go get a book and read you pathetic troll!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> It is really entertaining to have you coming back to defend your ludicrous statements, troll.
> 
> So, if you cannot see the Earth is round (like they didn't see the driver) and all you see is a vast flat horizon (like they were able to see the mirrors), then the Earth should be flat right? Hahahahaha.....
> 
> Go get a book and read you pathetic troll!


Here, I think this might help. The only reason to include the subordinate clause, 'and he should have seen us' is if they were able to see him. Make sense? Great. Good talk.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> The self drivable cars controlled by an AI is another fallacy and big lie. The self drivable cars developers, in order to stop people from asking legitimate questions about the "brain" inside the machine, are lying to the consumers by saying *the cars will "learn" from their mistakes*. THAT IS A LIE.
> 
> Recently I had the chance to chat with a very nice young man involved in developing an Artificial Intelligence meant to detect cancer from a simple radiography. He specifically said how the product it will do whatever the manufacturer wants the product to do, to which I responded with a remark - "But that is not intelligence at all. It is a well written program that will give results based on a specific input over and over again." He simply agreed with my point.
> 
> ...


Oh!! I thought they were running AI.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Oh!! I thought they were running AI.


The improper use of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) term, was started by the gaming industry, some time ago. See, when you are virtually racing in a SIM game under "career mode" or shoot in a RPG simulation, the game developers designed virtual "opponents" for you, and communities quickly referred to those opponents (which need to fake the idea of racing/fighting against the real player and need to display some sort of predictable behavior within the racing standards or combat tactics) as AI's.

Of course the Silicon Valley nerds, the vast majority of which grew up loving video gaming and ignoring real sports and sports activities (The stereotypical hardcore gamer is out of shape, and has poor hygene. They spend a lot of their disposable income on video games, consoles, or PC upgrades, and a large percentage of their free time either playing video games or discussing them, online and off. They wear either black clothing, or T-shirts with geeky pop-culture references, often to video games. Their social skills may be sub-par, and they may be less likely than others their age to have many friends, a job and a girlfriend/boyfriend. Some of these stereotypes are negative, and they certainly don't apply to all hardcore gamers, but there's a fair amount of truth to them.), adopted the term and cultivated it as the self driving cars "brain", but that is a lie.

Psychologically is known how "the masses" are not very smart and also is known how they like and need to be told how things are going to be OK and safe. By implying that those self driving cars will have an "intelligence", the developers are able to argue how their product it will save lives, because if they will admit the truth and admit those cars are simply bigger computers on wheels, by a simple comparison with todays levels of powerful software and hardware, people will understand the limitations, and most importantly, they will understand the high probability of system crashes and failures, subsequently - their LACK OF SAFETY.

There is no scientific proof those self driving cars are learning systems (and that will be very easy to do by having the developers publicly and openly demonstrate their systems capabilities) and consequently there is no scientific and statistical data to determine how safe those robots are.

All they do at this point is SMOKE AND MIRRORS.


----------

