SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the darn-it-someone-must-take-the-blame dept.
Uber's self driving car program in AZ isn't out of the woods yet. The Phoenix New Times https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/claim-ducey-state-blamed-uber-self-driving-death-unsafe-policy-11205678 reported last month that lawyers representing family of Uber victim Herzberg have sued the state of AZ for $10M, fingering Governor Ducey for failing to protect the people of his state.
After quoting legal precedent about the state's responsibility to keep roadways "reasonably safe" for travelers, the claim says the state has "failed to make roadways safe, allowing autonomous vehicles to operate on public roadways in an unsafe manner."
The state's oversight of autonomous vehicles was negligent, it states, adding that Ducey's 2015 executive order facilitating the testing of self-driving vehicles was created "negligently and without sufficient investigation into the safety of Uber's autonomous vehicles. Any oversight provided by a committed, ADOT, or DPS, was wholly insufficient, and placed an unreasonably high risk of harm to the citizens of Arizona."
The claim goes on to quote Ducey's 2016 invitation to Uber, in which the governor quipped that "California put the brakes on innovation and change," but he wouldn't. "This rush to be first in the 'tech boom' era made Arizona's roadways unreasonably dangerous," the claim states.
New Times made a similar argument that Ducey was at least partially responsible for Herzberg's death in the April 12 cover story, "Ducey's Drive-By: How Arizona Governor Helped Cause Uber's Fatal Self-Driving Car Crash."
Last time Gov. Ducey appeared here on SN was back on December 03 2016, https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/12/02/2341241 He announced that Lucid would start making cars in a new plant in AZ...in 2018. Looks like he missed that prediction --
Officials from electric vehicle startup Lucid Motors, which broke cover from stealth mode in October [cnet.com], made a joint appearance today with Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Sonora, Mexico's Governor Claudia Pavlovich Arellano, to announce a manufacturing plant in Casa Grande, Arizona. The plant will begin production of Lucid's first car, an electric luxury sedan, in 2018, with parts being supplied from across the border in Sonora, Mexico.
Governor Ducey said the new plant will create 2,000 jobs by 2022 [cnet.com], and that Lucid Motors has promised to prioritize hiring among Arizona veterans.
Lucid Motors has shown a very sophisticated operation for its entry as a new automaker, with its Chief Technology Officer, Peter Rawlinson, an alumni of Tesla and Lotus, and Vice President of Design Derek Jenkins having spent time at Mazda and Volkswagen. The as-yet unnamed first model will compete with the Tesla Model S as a luxury sedan, and should boast over 300 miles of range. Lucid has also designed connected features and self-driving capability into this car.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday March 18 2019, @09:35PM (1 child)
Safer than the average driver - that's easy. Let's break road users down into three groups: AWESOME drivers, AVERAGE and below-average drivers and OTHER road users (motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians) and consider some scenarios.
Drivers in the AWESOME group don't need to worry about themselves because they are perfect. They do; however; need to worry about everyone else, who; by the power of statistics; happens to be AVERAGE. AWESOME drivers do have one advantage, namely awesome defensive driving ability.
The AVERAGE group comprises average drivers (no advantage conferred between robot or human). I am also considering below-average drivers part of this group and they'd be better off with robots - both for them and for everybody else.
The OTHER group is the most interesting. Given that walking is a human right but driving is not, and cars and pedestrians need to co-exist - the needs of people on foot trump the needs of people in vehicles. This is all the more important because pedestrians can't protect themselves with two tonnes of armour (and; remember; they belong there, cars are there under sufferance). Since the OTHER group find themselves at the mercy of everybody else it stands to reason that people in the OTHER group prefer any solution that beats the odds.
Remember that the main causes of crashes tend to be distraction, fatigue, impairment, over-confidence, inexperience, following too closely and impatience. None of which is suffered by a computer.
So; yes; if I truly happen to be an awesome driver, a case could be made that I'd be better than a robot behind my own wheel - and even better off when all the other sub-par drivers were replaced with robots. Of course; as stated above; the needs of pedestrians outweigh the desires of motorists, thus we come to the rational conclusion: once autonomous vehicles are better on average than human drivers, it borders on immoral for humans to drive cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @04:30PM
False. An operating system can crash or become bogged down so tightly that it cannot function real-time (Apollo 11 1202 error, anyone?) A memory leak might be described as creation of fatigue within a system. Put 48V through a 5V system (heck, even 12V) and see if that system is impaired or not. A computer may receive feedback, the sum total of which might be experience - let me know when your computer is experienced "enough," as until then it is inexperienced. An operating system may cause a vehicle to follow too closely. Confidence and impatience are emotions. Computers cannot be confident at all nor can they be patient.
Finally, just because computers do not suffer problems in the same methods as people, or they don't crash from the same causes, that does not mean they are safer. And even if they are "safer" that does not make them automatically desirable. This class of accident is your proof.