How about they drive the car!!! Permanently !!! So we all know ... SOMEONE ... is paying attention !
-
-
-
Oh that's an interesting concept. I never knew that cars driven by actual people were incapable of killing people..
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well what is the point then? I don't get it. The self driving car bit. It WAS dark as hell tho. I couldn't have stopped if I didn't see her, but at least I have eyes and that does give me an advantage.
-
What don't you get? These are prototypes, not the final product. That's why there's a driver. It's not fair to criticize a design before it has been completed. This incident will to improve the design. While human drivers will remain the same, self-driving prototypes improve.
-
I guess I was commenting on the headline. Actually reading the article helped somewhat. The part I dont get is more the why and how of it. I wasnt criticizing the design. I was saying I don't understand why we need these or how they work. Can you expound?Thank you!
-
A lot of people agree that we don't need them. Like we don't need GPS, cell phones, the internet, remote controls and so on... A lot of people think all this technology just makes our society dumber and lazier. Maybe they're right.
-
There are advantages to having them. Not needing to actually drive your car means you can do other things while moving from point A to point B... Things like eating, applying makeup, reading, texting. Once the technology is perfected, even drinking alcohol would be safe!
-
Regardless of how safe driverless vehicles are today, they will become safer and safer as time goes on. You cannot say the same about human drivers. Our reaction speeds will remain the same while our distraction levels seem to just keep going up and up.
-
I have no idea what it is actually going to shape into but all of this technology has the potential to decrease traffic fatalities from the 40,000 per year they currently are. I predict that one day "drive safe" won't be commonly said along with "I love you" and "goodbye."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So most accidents are caused by the driver of a vehicle. Okay.... let's make self driving cars. Perfect. What happens if there's an unforeseen emergency issue with the car. Ummm.... well we'll put a human in the driver seat as a backup. Wait.... What??!
-
Are you just pretending or are you actually this stupid?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The lack of sensory engagement required of the operator of a self driving car, where that person is essentially doing nothing but watch, is asking a lot of a human being when 99.99% of the time, nothing is happening. I daresay it is impossible to reach 100% vigilance.
-
Agreed. I suspect the operator is there to handle a disengagement and to comfort the public.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Will the WSJ parse the 16 pedestrian deaths caused by “drivered” cars the same day? All are tragedies.... there is some perspective to be reported, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Judging from the now released video, it appears the pedestrian was crossing a dark multi lane road wearing dark clothing and the vehicle was traveling probably at speed limit. Would the driver even had time to react under those conditions?
-
IN essence they would have had two seconds to react and act and probably not enough time to effectively stop.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We expect someone to pay attention judiciously while they are literally disengaged from operation, of which they already underperform with regards to attention. This is a good plan.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If the operators are supposed to watch the road, always ready to break or take the wheel why not just drive?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.