Page 43 of 49

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:04 pm UTC
by Zohar
Let me introduce you to my good friend Mr. Radar.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:23 pm UTC
by cphite
jewish_scientist wrote:
stilettoblade wrote:The cyclist was crossing in the dark, without lights or reflective clothing, from a non-pedestrian median, far from any crosswalk, and appeared oblivious to traffic - she doesn't even seem to register that a car (with headlights) is oncoming, right up to the final frame of the video.


Have you ever heard the phrase 'blaming the victim'.


Sometimes the victim bears part of the blame.

If I run out into fast moving traffic in the dark, wearing dark clothing, in an area where nobody is reasonably expected to be, then I would bear a pretty sizable amount of blame for whatever happened to me. Whether the outcome was me being hurt or someone else begin hurt - for example, if the driver swerved to miss me and hit a pole instead - doesn't change what I did, or the responsibility I bear for having done it. Same with this woman. She did something ill-advised, and unfortunately she died as a result. Maybe that sounds like a mean thing to say... but it's the way it is.

As for the technical aspects... one of the key problems with these systems is dealing with unexpected stimulus. They use an array of sensors that they have to combine to make a determination that something is in their path. This one failed; and it's probably going to be very difficult to determine exactly why. The question of "would a human driver have also failed?" is even harder to answer definitively. Maybe a human would have seen the shadow and instinctively known it was "something" even if not exactly what, and stopped. Or maybe a human would have done even worse.

Part of the problem is if you try to twerk the system too much to the side of caution, you end up with a lot of false positives. I've had my automatic brakes kick in because a plastic bag was blowing across the road in front of me - full on stop from near highway speed. If someone had been behind me, it probably would have ended badly. It wasn't even that large of a bag - certainly nothing that any person would see and decide to slam on the brakes over - but some combination of sensors told my car that it was an impending impact.

At then end of the day, at least one takeaway should be... even assuming cars are automated, and even assuming they're better at detecting and avoiding accidents than humans... you're still better off not jumping in front of them, especially in low-light conditions and in unexpected places.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:37 pm UTC
by Yakk
Trebla wrote:
HES wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Have you ever heard the phrase 'blaming the victim'.

In traffic collisions it is often the case that both parties have some culpability. Your comparison doesn't apply here.

Wearing dark clothing on a road at night =/= wearing a miniskirt to a party


Completely correct. A traffic "accident" is not comparable to a "crime" in this sense. In the crime example, some people intentionally did wrong... there is a 'victim.' In a traffic accident, there's no 'victim'... there are (in this case) three actors (pedestrian, driver, car) all of whom made a mistake. We call the pedestrian the 'victim' because she got the worst of the deal, but that's using the term in a different context than that of a crime. If the pedestrian had been in a bulldozer instead of afoot, the uber car/driver would have been the 'victim' of a bulldozer being in the middle of a highway. Assigning a share of responsibility to the pedestrian is not "blaming the victim."

Choosing to be in a highly lethal device in public in order to get somewhere faster makes you responsible to not kill anyone with it.

It is akin to walking around with a huge sword and swinging it around. Sure, you didn't intend to chop that person's head off that you didn't see; but as someone who wants to swing a sword around, it is your responsibility to ensure nobodies head is nearby to be chopped off.

People in bulldozers/large trucks have a similarly higher responsibility to be careful of cars that people in cars have to be careful of bike riders or pedestrians. And if they don't want that responsibility -- to be careful with their tonne+ metal engine of death -- then I'm fine with them not driving. They can walk.

There are going to be extreme cases where it isn't possible to avoid huring or killing a more vulnerable person. Someone jumps off a bridge in front of your car may qualify, as may other situations.

But labelling the person not using a metal engine of death a victim is correct. They may be able to do things to avoid you killing them. But they should, and do under most laws, have right of way even when doing something that can get them arrested.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:38 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
I think "visual" could be assumed to include radar (by some metrics), just as LIDAR could be said to be non-visual by others.

Personally, for 'visual only' I'd immediately think of passive imaging and object/situation recognition. Which isn't within orders of magnitude of efficacy in vision-systems compared with human vision. Interesting (and may have been linked here previously) is: https://gizmodo.com/this-simple-sticker ... 1821735479

Radar, Lidar and (active) Sonar of various kinds I'd class more as ranging tech, whichever form of wave/particle is induced to echo back again. Better than 'visual' for truly understanding 3d space, in either a broad static cone or a scanning tight beam, but not like vision. Even vision that assumes an auxiliary light-source mounted alongside a camera.

Passive sonar (especially systems that work with ambient noise from the sea surface to detect where enemy submarines are - possibly by the 'hole' in the ocean that their ping-absorbing coating makes, like you could spot someone in a vantablack cloak trying to walk down a daylight, or otherwise well-lit, street) would be more in the spirit of 'visual' than lidar, IMO, though not at all any decent part of the solution to the self-driving car engineering problem when the whole other gamut of systems are possible.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:01 pm UTC
by Zohar
Radar and visual cameras both use electromagnetic waves, but that's pretty much where the resemblance ends.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:19 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Yakk wrote:Choosing to be in a highly lethal device in public in order to get somewhere faster makes you responsible to not kill anyone with it.

Goddamn right. I'd certainly appreciate it if pedestrians made it easier for me to see and avoid them, but when I'm driving a car, it is my problem and not anyone else's.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:35 pm UTC
by stilettoblade
cphite wrote:I've had my automatic brakes kick in because a plastic bag was blowing across the road in front of me - full on stop from near highway speed. If someone had been behind me, it probably would have ended badly. It wasn't even that large of a bag - certainly nothing that any person would see and decide to slam on the brakes over - but some combination of sensors told my car that it was an impending impact.

Somewhat of an aside, this is exactly the reason why, until my car can actually drive itself, I don't want it to interfere with me driving it. I don't even like ABS for this reason. If I'm driving the car, I want to be in full control of the car.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:42 pm UTC
by Zohar
You may want to, but in the end it makes things safer for people, on average. Studies show it reduces the number of accidents by double-digit percentages (source 1 has autoplay video and is just about rear breaking, source 2 reviews forward breaking).

The only reason we didn't get this type of system in our new car is unfortunately it really cut down on my field of view, as a tall person. Hopefully next car we get the technology will be less intrusive (or the seat can be set a bit lower).

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:30 pm UTC
by cphite
stilettoblade wrote:
cphite wrote:I've had my automatic brakes kick in because a plastic bag was blowing across the road in front of me - full on stop from near highway speed. If someone had been behind me, it probably would have ended badly. It wasn't even that large of a bag - certainly nothing that any person would see and decide to slam on the brakes over - but some combination of sensors told my car that it was an impending impact.

Somewhat of an aside, this is exactly the reason why, until my car can actually drive itself, I don't want it to interfere with me driving it. I don't even like ABS for this reason. If I'm driving the car, I want to be in full control of the car.


I'll have to disagree with you on ABS... ABS is a huge lifesaver. And given that it doesn't ever decide *when* you're going to stop, I don't see it as really taking away control. It's basically just making the brakes work better.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:52 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
ABS is indeed a serious improvement as far as stopping power in bad conditions, but it is true that it can be hard to adjust to, particularly if you don't live in a climate where you regularly have to deal with slick pavement where it activates with some frequency.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:44 pm UTC
by elasto
Finnish start-up Varjo has developed a prototype virtual reality (VR) headset that its makers claim gives an image 50 times sharper than most other headsets currently on the market.

When I tested the prototype - looking round the virtual cockpit of a passenger plane - the level of detail in the small central area of vision was certainly impressive - as close to the real thing as I've come across.
Founder and chief executive Urho Konttori says the firm has managed to achieve this by mimicking how the eye sees: "The human eye only focuses on a thumbnail-sized area of vision - the brain fills in the rest. Our peripheral vision is less detailed, at a much lower resolution."

So Varjo's headset provides very high definition images only of the objects our eyes are focusing on at any particular moment, the rest of the scene is at lower resolution. It uses eye-tracking technology to tell which parts of the image it needs to render in high definition.

This technique is known as foveated rendering within the industry - chipmaker Nvidia has been working on it for a few years. This selective approach uses a lot less computing power, says Mr Kontorri - roughly 25% less than current VR headsets.

50x resolution but 25% less power? Sign me up!*

*in about ten years when the price drops...

link

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:48 pm UTC
by stilettoblade
commodorejohn wrote:ABS is indeed a serious improvement as far as stopping power in bad conditions, but it is true that it can be hard to adjust to, particularly if you don't live in a climate where you regularly have to deal with slick pavement where it activates with some frequency.


I actually learned to drive commuting daily up and down I-70 from Denver into the foothills, so I have plenty of experience with driving and stopping in objectionable conditions. 50% of the times I've ever slid off the road while driving (once out of two times) was despite (or possibly due to) having ABS. In that car it hardly ever activated even in icy conditions, so I wasn't expecting it to and I was driving as though I didn't have it. I recall thinking at the time that I would have been fine if the car had continued to perform as I expected it to. This was in the 90s, and I haven't had a car with operational ABS in over a decade, so I can't speak to modern ABS systems.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:03 pm UTC
by sardia
stilettoblade wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:ABS is indeed a serious improvement as far as stopping power in bad conditions, but it is true that it can be hard to adjust to, particularly if you don't live in a climate where you regularly have to deal with slick pavement where it activates with some frequency.


I actually learned to drive commuting daily up and down I-70 from Denver into the foothills, so I have plenty of experience with driving and stopping in objectionable conditions. 50% of the times I've ever slid off the road while driving (once out of two times) was despite (or possibly due to) having ABS. In that car it hardly ever activated even in icy conditions, so I wasn't expecting it to and I was driving as though I didn't have it. I recall thinking at the time that I would have been fine if the car had continued to perform as I expected it to. This was in the 90s, and I haven't had a car with operational ABS in over a decade, so I can't speak to modern ABS systems.

You remind me of a troll who would purposely buy a shell of a new car, (do the extra work to fit it over an old polluting engine), just so he could continue driving without pollution controls. An act of rebellion, but ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of automobiles.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:41 pm UTC
by Dauric
stilettoblade wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:ABS is indeed a serious improvement as far as stopping power in bad conditions, but it is true that it can be hard to adjust to, particularly if you don't live in a climate where you regularly have to deal with slick pavement where it activates with some frequency.


I actually learned to drive commuting daily up and down I-70 from Denver into the foothills, so I have plenty of experience with driving and stopping in objectionable conditions. 50% of the times I've ever slid off the road while driving (once out of two times) was despite (or possibly due to) having ABS. In that car it hardly ever activated even in icy conditions, so I wasn't expecting it to and I was driving as though I didn't have it. I recall thinking at the time that I would have been fine if the car had continued to perform as I expected it to. This was in the 90s, and I haven't had a car with operational ABS in over a decade, so I can't speak to modern ABS systems.


I'm guessing you learned the "break-pump" technique when you slide, which doesn't work with Anti-lock Breaking Systems, in fact it's counter to making ABS work.

The TL;DR of the physics is basically that once you start sliding your coefficient of friction (the force that stops you from sliding) drops dramatically (it's easier to keep a sliding object moving than it is to get it to start sliding in the first place). The best way in a car to stop a slide is to get your wheels moving again, to drop the relative motion between the road surface and the surface of the tire to bring the friction coefficient back up so the tires "grip" the road again. Of course when moving you still need to bring your motion under control, so you still need to apply brakes in this process as well.

(Dirt roads are somewhat different in that you're not losing friction with a uniform surface but an aggregate of smaller particles. A Locked" wheel on a dirt road digs in more than one with pulsed brakes. The physics are (somewhat) more like fluid dynamics than simple single-surface friction)

Old-school method of responding to a slide is to pump your brakes rapidly and forcefully. You get deceleration on the pump, and allow your wheels to spin on the release. This requires a fair amount of effort on the part of the driver, and for many people panic often results in them stomping on the brakes which means the friction coefficient remains at the "easier to slide" state.

ABS is designed to do the pumping for you, faster than any human driver would be able to. The thing is you have to stomp and hold the brake, not pulse it. Pulsing your brakes actually confuses the ABS and makes it stop working properly. When you stomp on the brakes in a slide with ABS you'll feel a ratcheting sensation through the brake pedal, that's the ABS pulsing the brakes for you to get the wheels spinning again, lowering the relative motion between the contact surfaces of the tire and the road, to get the coefficient of friction up high enough for the tire to take hold.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:08 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
sardia wrote:You remind me of a troll who would purposely buy a shell of a new car, (do the extra work to fit it over an old polluting engine), just so he could continue driving without pollution controls. An act of rebellion, but ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of automobiles.

Why do that? I just drive a pre-1975 car and get to skip the yearly extortion without having to go through all that work.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:09 pm UTC
by Coyne
cphite wrote:
stilettoblade wrote:
cphite wrote:I've had my automatic brakes kick in because a plastic bag was blowing across the road in front of me - full on stop from near highway speed. If someone had been behind me, it probably would have ended badly. It wasn't even that large of a bag - certainly nothing that any person would see and decide to slam on the brakes over - but some combination of sensors told my car that it was an impending impact.

Somewhat of an aside, this is exactly the reason why, until my car can actually drive itself, I don't want it to interfere with me driving it. I don't even like ABS for this reason. If I'm driving the car, I want to be in full control of the car.


I'll have to disagree with you on ABS... ABS is a huge lifesaver. And given that it doesn't ever decide *when* you're going to stop, I don't see it as really taking away control. It's basically just making the brakes work better.

I have to agree with you. The only problem I've seen with ABS is when your car has it and the car behind you doesn't.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:28 pm UTC
by Thesh
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/le ... ind-waymo/

So... Uber is fucking terrible, and is putting a "self-driving" car on the streets that requires an intervention every 13 miles (compared to 1,250 for GM, and 5,000 for Waymo).

Despite that, they wanted to launch in December:

Prior to Sunday's crash, Uber apparently believed it was close to being ready for a commercial launch. The Times reports that "Uber was planning to seek regulatory approval by December to start a self-driving car service in Arizona." Uber also placed a massive order last November for 24,000 Volvo vehicles for its driverless car program. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2019 and continue into 2021.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:00 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Uber is run by the worst sort of people; self declared libertarians. No one should be surprised at Uber dumping some hazard on others and then hiding behind the "phree murkit" defense.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:05 pm UTC
by Dr34m(4+(h3r
It seems that more and more, the consumer pays for the privilege of beta testing the product.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:54 am UTC
by addams
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:It seems that more and more, the consumer pays for the privilege of beta testing the product.
That is the way it has always been.
Beta Testing is often a privilege of wealth.

The very First Cars were Death Traps when they weren't broken.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:14 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
jewish_scientist wrote:
stilettoblade wrote:The cyclist was crossing in the dark, without lights or reflective clothing, from a non-pedestrian median, far from any crosswalk, and appeared oblivious to traffic - she doesn't even seem to register that a car (with headlights) is oncoming, right up to the final frame of the video.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'blaming the victim'. It refers to a psychological phenomena where people accuse a victim of somehow causing the crime. The reason behind the fallacy goes something along the lines of "If a crime happened because the victim did A, B, and C, then I can avoid the crime by not doing A, B, and C." If instead someone blames the perpetrator, then they are admitting it is the actions of someone that they have no control over that caused the crime.

A really good example my sociology professor used is of a girl who goes to a fraternity party alone, gets drunk, follows several boys into the basement, and is then raped. You can make a very persuasive argument that this girl could have prevented the crime from happening by taking reasonable measures; not going to a fraternity, not going alone, not drinking, not following strangers into a basement. However, that argument would be very different from one saying that she is responsible for being raped.


's different.

In a case where someone is victimizing others, avoiding vulnerability may spare you, as predators tend to select the vulnerable. But that mostly just means someone else is the most vulnerable victim. The problem isn't solved, merely shifted. Avoidance works for the individual, but not for society.

In a case that's an accident, avoiding vulnerability doesn't cause a substitution effect. If you don't jaywalk, it's not gonna force someone else to do so. Being careful helps both you, and accident rate at large.

It isn't about being a victim making you always right or immune to criticism, or at least, ought not to be. It's about actually addressing the problem, and in this respect, pedestrian accidents do not resemble rape.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:33 pm UTC
by Dauric
Tyndmyr wrote:
Spoiler:
jewish_scientist wrote:
stilettoblade wrote:The cyclist was crossing in the dark, without lights or reflective clothing, from a non-pedestrian median, far from any crosswalk, and appeared oblivious to traffic - she doesn't even seem to register that a car (with headlights) is oncoming, right up to the final frame of the video.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'blaming the victim'. It refers to a psychological phenomena where people accuse a victim of somehow causing the crime. The reason behind the fallacy goes something along the lines of "If a crime happened because the victim did A, B, and C, then I can avoid the crime by not doing A, B, and C." If instead someone blames the perpetrator, then they are admitting it is the actions of someone that they have no control over that caused the crime.

A really good example my sociology professor used is of a girl who goes to a fraternity party alone, gets drunk, follows several boys into the basement, and is then raped. You can make a very persuasive argument that this girl could have prevented the crime from happening by taking reasonable measures; not going to a fraternity, not going alone, not drinking, not following strangers into a basement. However, that argument would be very different from one saying that she is responsible for being raped.


's different.

In a case where someone is victimizing others, avoiding vulnerability may spare you, as predators tend to select the vulnerable. But that mostly just means someone else is the most vulnerable victim. The problem isn't solved, merely shifted. Avoidance works for the individual, but not for society.

In a case that's an accident, avoiding vulnerability doesn't cause a substitution effect. If you don't jaywalk, it's not gonna force someone else to do so. Being careful helps both you, and accident rate at large.

It isn't about being a victim making you always right or immune to criticism, or at least, ought not to be. It's about actually addressing the problem, and in this respect, pedestrian accidents do not resemble rape.


This, but also in some cases, like this particular accident, the "victim" did indeed cause the incident by being excessively careless (and in California by crossing not at the crosswalk was breaking the law). Consider that the "victim" is only such because of the relative masses of the objects involved (a car and a bicyclist) means that regardless which one effectively caused the incident, the cyclist would suffer the greatest consequences for the collision.

"Victim Blaming" as a concept applies to situations when the victim is doing something where they should have a reasonable expectation of safety and someone perpetrates a crime against them. It does not apply when someone is doing something dangerous and they get killed or injured by someone (or some-thing) else behaving in a normal manner.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:06 pm UTC
by Trebla
Yakk wrote:Choosing to be in a highly lethal device in public in order to get somewhere faster makes you responsible to not kill anyone with it.

It is akin to walking around with a huge sword and swinging it around. Sure, you didn't intend to chop that person's head off that you didn't see; but as someone who wants to swing a sword around, it is your responsibility to ensure nobodies head is nearby to be chopped off.


I certainly didn't mean to imply the driver (or in this case, the car?) bears no responsibility. If you're swinging your sword around a... sword testing arena, I guess, maybe that's a thing, you bear responsibility to be aware of your surroundings. But others also bear responsibility to attempt to avoid your sword swinging because they know they're in a spot that it happens.

I was simply pointing out that 'victim' in this sense is not the same as in a criminal scenario, and that the 'victim' bears some share (not all) of the responsibility; as others have pointed out more eloquently than I did.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:36 pm UTC
by Yakk
If you are in a bank, you should expect bank robbers to show up with guns. Recklessly being there without bullet proof armor, are you?

If you are at a club, there could be rapists there. Recklessly being there without a nun's habit?

If you are on a road, you should expect cars to run you over.

To be clear, those are not my positions.

Jaywalking was a crime explicitly developed to let people with money in cars to exclude and kill pedestrians without being blamed for it. And still is.

Yes, jaywalking puts your life at risk. Yes, going clubbing puts your life at risk. Yes, being a bank teller puts your life at risk.

You can list risks suffered by the victim without assigning blame to the victim. You can also victim blame by mentioning the risks that the victim was taking and use it to remove blame from the perp.

To me, the burden of responsibility from killing an unarmed someone with a car or a gun or a knife is so high that talking about how the person killed was "taking risks" is bullshit. You are using a highly lethal tool, it is on you not to kill people with it. If your gun range has downrange unlocked doors that say "do not enter", it is on you if someone opens them and walks into your line of fire. If someone jaywalks in front of you and you hit them, if a biker hits a pot hole and falls under your wheels, if the knife slips out of your graps and cuts a dinner party guest -- it is on you.

These are lethal tools, treat them with respect, and if you cannot, stop using them. Have some responsibility for your actions.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:48 pm UTC
by Dauric
Yakk wrote:If you are in a bank, you should expect bank robbers to show up with guns. Recklessly being there without bullet proof armor, are you?

If you are at a club, there could be rapists there. Recklessly being there without a nun's habit?


Strawman much?

If a pedestrian jumps out on to a 75MPH freeway within less than the braking distance of an oncoming car in traffic it's is not on the car driver to not hit the pedestrian. Forcing someone driving a car in to a "Trolley Problem" conundrum does not absolve the pedestrian of their role or fault in the resulting incident.

If someone lays down on train tracks within a mile of a train and gets run over (typical stopping distance for a freight train is typically multiples of five miles depending on size of the train) it's not the fault of the train conductor that the sod gets cut in to pieces.

You say that the user of a potentially lethal device is responsible for using it responsibly, sure I agree.

It is the responsibility of bystanders to be aware of their surroundings and hazardous machinery operating in their surroundings. Especially when that machinery is operating predictably and within normal behavior.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:07 pm UTC
by Mutex
Apparently the distinction between an accident and a deliberate malicious crime is harder to spot than I realised.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:57 pm UTC
by ucim
Dauric wrote:the "victim" did indeed cause the incident by being excessively careless (and in California by crossing not at the crosswalk was breaking the law).
Let's see now... the car was speeding (a crime) edit: apparently not, and the driver was not looking where she was going (a crime) - it looked to me like she was not paying attention at all. (Yes, it was in self-drive mode, but there was an actual driver whose job it was to watch for, anticipate, and take over in case of just this kind of thing.)

The camera footage (we still call it footage?) seems to show the pedestrian not visible in the darkness, but that is a limitation of the camera (or the presentation media). In my driving experience, such a pedestrian would have been visible to the naked eye, and if the road ahead was not (either through darkness or through a curve in the road) then the car was going too fast for conditions (a crime) despite posted speed limits.

The onus is primarily on the wielder of dangerous machinery to not cause harm, especially when the benefit of wielding these dangerous machines accrues to the wielder.

Jose

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:00 pm UTC
by New User
Yakk wrote:If you are in a bank, you should expect bank robbers to show up with guns. Recklessly being there without bullet proof armor, are you?

If you are at a club, there could be rapists there. Recklessly being there without a nun's habit?

If you are on a road, you should expect cars to run you over.

To be clear, those are not my positions.

Jaywalking was a crime explicitly developed to let people with money in cars to exclude and kill pedestrians without being blamed for it. And still is.

Yes, jaywalking puts your life at risk. Yes, going clubbing puts your life at risk. Yes, being a bank teller puts your life at risk.

You can list risks suffered by the victim without assigning blame to the victim. You can also victim blame by mentioning the risks that the victim was taking and use it to remove blame from the perp.

To me, the burden of responsibility from killing an unarmed someone with a car or a gun or a knife is so high that talking about how the person killed was "taking risks" is bullshit. You are using a highly lethal tool, it is on you not to kill people with it. If your gun range has downrange unlocked doors that say "do not enter", it is on you if someone opens them and walks into your line of fire. If someone jaywalks in front of you and you hit them, if a biker hits a pot hole and falls under your wheels, if the knife slips out of your graps and cuts a dinner party guest -- it is on you.

These are lethal tools, treat them with respect, and if you cannot, stop using them. Have some responsibility for your actions.

Yes, if you're on a road, you should expect cars to run over you. They're moving at great speeds and they have mass, and therefor can't stop immediately. Why do you think crosswalks and traffic signals exist?

If someone jaywalks in front of a moving car and is hit, the blame shouldn't necessarily be on the driver (although there could be a thousand different hypothetical situations we could discuss) because otherwise, people would just be walking on roads anywhere they please and cars wouldn't be able to drive any faster than 5 mph anywhere for fear of hitting someone who might erratically meander in front of the car, and traffic everywhere would be gridlocked. I have driven many places in my life, and when there is a paved sidewalk on the side of the road, I trust that the pedestrians will not suddenly change direction without warning and step in front of my car while I'm moving 35 mph, just as I suppose they trust that I will not suddenly steer my car to the right a little bit and drive on the paved sidewalk and strike them with my vehicle. It's like you don't even know what the purpose of roads is, or how traffic and driving work. What kind of society do you live in?

Also, do you have any source for your claim that jaywalking is a crime that was explicitly developed to let people with money in cars exclude and kill pedestrians without being blamed for it? I think it was made a crime to benefit the safety and order of the general public, but alas, I have no source, either. Statutes can easily be referenced, but they don't typically don't show a reason for why they were made.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:03 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
Tyndmyr wrote:It isn't about being a victim making you always right or immune to criticism, or at least, ought not to be.

I never claimed this. It is important to remember the post I was responding to in full reads:

Spoiler:
stilettoblade wrote:The "driver" wasn't there to prevent this situation. As I understand it, the person in these self-driving cars is there to monitor the car's systems, and to be able to take over if, for example, the car's computer crashes, or it goes downtown, sees 100 taxicabs cutting each other off in front of it, and freezes up, or it starts raining.
The cyclist was crossing at night, in the darkest possible point halfway between streetlights, without lights or reflective clothing, from a non-pedestrian median, far from any crosswalk, and appeared oblivious to traffic - she doesn't even seem to register that a car (with headlights) is oncoming, right up to the final frame of the video.

I think that the video changes the actual question we should be asking from "why did the car perform worse than a human driver?" to "Even though a human driver might well have still hit this person, why didn't the car, with its improved sensors including lidar, perform better than a human?"


It is completely reasonable to think that a human driver could have done better than the car*, yet they directly state that we should dismiss this as a possibility. They are critical of Elaine Herzberg, but not of Uber, even though they are both the cause of the accident to some degree.

Spoiler:
From 40 mph, a car will travel 168 ft before stopping, 88 of which is caused by human reaction time. Traveling 88 ft at 40 mph takes 1.5 seconds. I counted 2 seconds between Elaine Herzberg's foot becoming visible and being hit. Even if braking for that fraction of a second would only have reduced the speed by 5mph, the car would have hit with 120kj** less energy.

I cannot figure out why this hyperlink will not work and I am already late for my class: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1600kg*%2840mph%29^2+-+1600kg*%2835mph%29^2

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:01 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
jewish_scientist wrote:It is completely reasonable to think that a human driver could have done better than the car*, yet they directly state that we should dismiss this as a possibility.
No, they don't. It's just a reframing of the question.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:10 pm UTC
by Yakk
Here, The Invention of Jaywalking.

The rich and poor are equally banned from sleeping under bridges: second class citizens are rarely second class by accident.

---

When driving next to a sidewalk, I keep my eye on those people on the sidewalk and watch if there is any sign they'll leave the sidewalk and enter the road. Because my job is not to kill them. If I see evidence that they are going to enter the road, I'll slow down to the point where I think I can stop if they do. If they do enter the road, I'll try my darndest not to kill them.

It is far from certain I'll succeed, and I'm aware that I'm risking the lives of others by driving my car around. If I kill people with my car, it is on me for trading their lives for my ability to get places faster and easier.

Yes, people can lie down on train tracks and get killed. Which is why civilized areas restrict access to train tracks, because otherwise people die from it. Insofar as they fail, those deaths are on the passengers and operators of the train system. A blood price for a faster commute. Decide if it is worth it, and how much you want to invest in reducing it.

Uncontrolled access to tracks in lower population density areas is less costly, in terms of lives lost, than in higher population areas. When you build the track, you get to pick how many people you are willing to let die to speed up transportation.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:35 pm UTC
by ucim
Yakk wrote:Here, The Invention of Jaywalking.


Some updated quotes from that website:

“If you ask people today of the future what a street the world is for, they will say cars robots,” Norton. “That’s practically the opposite of what they would have said 100 years ago prior.”

Public opinion was on the side of the pedestrian human, as well. “There was a lot of anger in the early years,” says Norton. “A lot of resentment against cars robots for endangering streets.” Auto clubs and manufacturers The tech industry realized they had a big image problem, Norton says, and they moved aggressively to change the way Americans thought about cars, streets, and traffic robots and humans. “They said, 'If we’re going to have a future for cars in the city robots, we have to change that. They’re being portrayed as Satan’s murdering machines.'”

The industry lobbied to change the law, promoting the adoption of traffic liability statutes to supplant common law. The statutes were designed to restrict pedestrian use of the street humans and give primacy to cars robots.


I see a lot of this here too.

Jose

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:48 pm UTC
by Chen
Yakk wrote:Yes, people can lie down on train tracks and get killed. Which is why civilized areas restrict access to train tracks, because otherwise people die from it. Insofar as they fail, those deaths are on the passengers and operators of the train system. A blood price for a faster commute. Decide if it is worth it, and how much you want to invest in reducing it.


This seems like a ridiculous position to take. Wouldn't this logic apply to bridges too? If someone jumps off one it's on everyone who wanted to get across the ravine without rappelling down the side and climbing the other? If it's going to be so black and white about deaths, shouldn't it at least be NET deaths? Having an auto industry at all clearly will cause deaths due to accidents. But how many lives are saved due to having the system in place as well? Even just the direct effects (say ambulances taking people to hospital quicker) are non-trivial. The indirect effects are absolutely enormous.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:00 pm UTC
by Yakk
Don't you have suicide prevention barriers on bridges where you live?

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:21 pm UTC
by speising
it seems very American to me to never assume responsibility for one's own stupidity.

"coffee may be hot"

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:32 pm UTC
by Zohar
The coffee thing is actually legitimate and not an example of a client being petty or stupid. The woman was served dangerously hot coffee and suffered 3rd degree burns, had to be hospitalized for eight days, went through skin grafting, lost 20% of her weight (when she was pretty thin already and 79 years old), needed subsequent care for an additional three weeks, suffered permanent disfigurement and was recognized as disabled for two years. She only sued them initially for $20K for her hospital fees and the loss of work on her daughter's behalf while she was taking care of her. It ended up being a much higher amount once McDonald's refused and only offered $800, and she had to take them to court.

So yeah, fuck that as an example of frivolous lawsuits in the US.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:43 pm UTC
by speising
ok that sounds pretty terrible but the coffee can't have been more than 100C , and i'd be pretty unhappy to get coffee below ~85, so i don't really see what McD did wrong here (except offering a insulting amount). the point being that a grown up person should know better than to drive with a cup of hot beverage between the knees.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:00 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The woman was in the passenger seat, and had opened the lid to pour in cream and sugar, and it spilled on her sweatpants which held it against her skin.

It's an interesting case, an injury caused by the customer but an actual injury with extreme damages. The trial itself found McD responsible for 80% of the damages and Liebeck the other 20%. I'm not sure I agree with that breakdown, but I wasn't on the jury so I didn't hear the evidence as presented.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:21 pm UTC
by Zohar
The car was parked while this was happening. McDonald's purposefully heated their beverages as hot as possible since most people apparently got them to drink at work, so they wanted them to be hot enough by the end of the drive. Coffee is often served at around 55 degrees C, as a quick google search can show. The McD's coffee at the time was usually served at around 85 deg C, knowingly much higher than most other places that serve coffee. There have been over 700 scalding complaints to McD's in the decade before the lawsuit. The company's QA control manager said they were aware of the risks and were not planning on lowering the temperature.

This actually seems like a really straightforward case once you know a bit more of the facts surrounding it.

Re: The Thread To Remind Me We're Living In The Future

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:32 pm UTC
by Thesh
55 is barely warmed, 85 is too hot to drink. My home brewed coffee is about 80 directly out of the pot (pour over coffee maker, boiling point around 94 at this altitude), and quickly drops to 75 C in the glass which is still a bit on the hot side.