Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh
I was mocking IK6SPEED with the "slam dunk" comment. You missed my entire point. My point is the purveyors of autonomous driving technology tell us that their tech is better than humans at driving a car. In this case you and IK6SPEED keep hiding behind law to obfuscate the fact that the tech failed. You state if a human would have been driving, the jaywalking pedestrian would have been struck anyway, which means the autonomous technology IS NO BETTER than a human at driving a car under real-world conditions. My argument is the the tech failed because it is supposed to be better than humans at driving a car, as the propagators claim it is (or will be once it is mature - that will be your counter argument I bet). Arguing the pedestrian was killed because she would have been killed even if a human was driving a manual car (i.e. non-autonomous) is stupid in this case because you can't emphatically prove it; I'm sure there are drivers within the Arizona population that could have avoided that accident. I pointed out the situation regarding the highbeam use because a human may have decided based on the lighting conditions to use the highbeam function and possibly seen the pedestrian in time to avoid a collision. The autonomous car doesn't even need headlights because its vision is RF based and invisible light spectrum based. The pedestrian crossed 3 lanes of the street (oncoming traffic) and what looks to be two lanes of the side of the street she was hit on. You can't say that an attentive driver may have seen her crossing in the oncoming lanes and took evasive action prior to the collision point. You are trying to make a legal argument from dash cam video that has a poor night vision and a poor field of view. So in other words the case is not going to be a slam dunk <----- hence the mock....
I work on a program that is a large integrated system of sensors that provides data for safety-of-life. When we developed the system, now 8 years mature, and make changes to it, we did not and do not test it in the live environment; we test in a test environment and test the living shit out of it. We do not test it in the operational environment first and hope for the best. There are no specific laws regulating the testing procedures; we don't have some dumbass lawyer telling us how to test the system, we have professional and ethical test engineers who understand the responsibility they have. If we are going to argue law here, than the legal argument is one of gross negligence.
|
At some point, your precious program has to go live in the real world after testing.
You refuse to admit that coding will determine what the car does in an emergency. Either A) Protect Occupant or B) Protect Others instead of occupant. Most times A and B are mutually exclusive.
You keep obfuscating the fact I acknowledged from the first post I noted that either the technology failed or was coded for A) Protect Occupant if other person violates law and have stated in over a half dozen posts.
Autonomous cars can and will prevent accidents better than humans. I saw 2 wrecks yesterday alone because human was distracted by smartphones.
You are proposing a double standard. Autonomous vehicles MUST drive safer than humans. That law does not exist as it is a double standard.
Then again, why not have multiple standards? Perhaps on license renewal everyone is given a road test and graded. If examiner gives you 100% you get full license. 90% - 99% you cannot drive at night. 80% - 89% you cannot have passengers.
Sounds ridiculous. But that is exactly what you are proposing. Different standards for different drivers.
On the other hand, in 10 years should any human who cannot drive as well as an autonomous car be banned from driving?
Again, double standards.
Be careful what you ask for.
But bottom line, every post I have made on this was on the legality.
And you have posted nothing that can be construed in any legal sense where the victim was not at fault for violation of Arizona State Law.