Ronzuki wrote:My position absolutely NEVER assumed any such thing. My position IS that exhaustive testing with real world scenarios must be performed, and passed repeatedly, prior to giving it the old college try on public roads.
I am submitting that "real world scenarios" can only
be created by actual public roads. I understand your concerns about this but it's rather self-evident to me and the engineers behind automated driving that they have to run these cars no other place but public roads for them to have any validity and merit in testing and data acquisition for development. While not near perfect by any means, they are not up against perfection either. In fact, as I have repeatedly stated in every engagement here, the human driver is far more flawed as a whole. You argued that automated systems are useless in inclement weather conditions where snow and ice can impair sensors, cameras, etc. I agree, however, what I also consider is that human drivers are also very bad at driving in snow and ice. In fact, simple rain causes accident rates to increase regardless of location. In essence, why have an expectation that automation must, "BE guaranteed to function correctly 100% of the time (short of failed componentry) UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS"
when humans are nowhere near this standard either and that's just an accepted reality? In fact, humans cause so many accidents, insurance is a normalized industry and is required almost everywhere. Again, automation should have a high standard, but the expectation of perfection is odd when those demanding it seem to accept the pathetically low standards of the status quo.
Also consider, as I have stated many times, machines don't get tired, drunk, high, medicated, or angry. Humans do. You've put a lot of your personal and professional experience and insight with automation in this discussion which has been enlightening. However, let me also put mine in: I work in criminal law and have investigated cases ranging from vehicular homicides to DUIs. Let me tell you that there are many people driving on the road who shouldn't even be trusted with a skateboard on a sidewalk. There are literally millions of people who drive fatigued, drunk, high, or under the effect of medication that affects their ability to drive. In fact, many mix those conditions together. Believe it or not, there are some on the road with a BAC of over 0.2 who can't even talk properly but are driving. Keep in mind 0.08 is the legal limit for most places and a 0.2 is known to literally kill some people from alcohol poisoning. While anti-automation is a cautious sentiment among some, there are literally movements like MADD and judicial systems to deal with the ever-present flaws of human driving. This is the status quo.
So while it's unfortunate that an Uber with flawed automated driving tech "supervised" by an inattentive human ran over a jaywalker at night
, human drivers kill way more people all the time and damn near choose to do it. This is what I've been saying all along. Hence, any legitimate comparative analysis must compare the status quo vs. the dangers of automated driving.
Another flaw that is often found with arguments against technological development and implementation is that they hold things at a constant as they are seen currently. There is the assumption that things will largely be the same in the future as it is now which makes no sense at all. For example, those against EVs often argue about the "environmental harm" of lithium ion batteries. Even if considering the extremely weak argument (in comparison to fossil fuel production), the assumption is that only Li-ion batteries can power EVs forever. Why think like that? Researchers are nearing breakthroughs in battery development and Li-ions will likely be replaced in the next 5 to 10 years, following improvements to extend capacity and life cycle. Unlike ICEs, EVs can be powered by electricity generated by a variety of ways and stored in different mediums. Within several years, more and more vehicles will have better, safer batteries than Li-ion charged by cleaner and more renewable sources of energy. It's not a pipe dream given even today, people like my former college roommate charges his Chevy Volt from solar panels on his home's roof.
The same argument applies to automated driving. The technology will not be limited to current means. As I have argued before, in the near future, automated vehicles will communicate directly with other cars around them, adjusting and reacting to each other. This will not only prevent accidents, it will significantly alleviate traffic as cars will literally be synced in movement. Research has already showed that human miscalculations in speed and braking are the cause of congestion on roadways such as freeways. Synced automated vehicles will have the ability to likely reduce, if not eliminate, traffic by removing the flaw of human miscalculations in the flow of traffic.
Lastly, I believe I have already argued this but maybe not: another danger to the resistance of automation development (as we have seen in places like AZ with the vandalism of automated vehicles) is that it will hamper development in certain areas and key markets. If companies cannot test in prime scenarios that reflect market space, they may be at risk to outside competition. To put it plainly, let's say Americans voted to ban automated vehicles from driving on public roads in the US. What will happen is that other countries like China will deliberately allow it and develop the technology there, pushing to capitalize and monopolize it as much as possible. Their companies will then dominate the market from experience and offer superior technology for a lower cost. This will then make US-based technology unlikely to compete given the handicap their people once voted for and the Chinese will dominate automated driving technology around the world. We've seen this sort of thing happen before so I'd hate to see shortsighted Americans deliberately trying to hamper American innovation and leadership of an inevitable
Ronzuki wrote:Speaking of death-by-uber...
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/05/ ... e-charges/
Good luck to the prosecution trying to prove that the human in that automated Uber was liable instead of Uber (which quickly settled out of court). I think this would be an easy case for a good defense attorney, especially given the facts of the case: the vehicle was automated and was supposed to be driving itself
and the victim was jaywalking at night
. No doubt that human was lousy, but criminally responsible?