What if the Leaf driver got distracted by the Update to the Update Bug on his iPhone?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Autonomous Test Vehicle Involved in Accident on August 24
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Autonomous vehicles are dangerous in a mixed environment. Either all vehicles are equipped and using autonomous technology or none are. Deaths have already been attributed to vehicles using a semi-autonomous mode. Keep these autonomous vehicles off the streets and highways until such time technology has proven able to handle the infinite variables and situations operating a motor vehicle. I believe that an advanced bullet proof system would be really great. Just get in, tell the machine where to go and away it goes..but not yet...
For me, and I'll ask you here for what you think as this will be an interesting as a gauge of acceptance.
If you knew 50,000 car drivers in a year were killed by human drivers, and of course you sadly accept this as just a price worth paying for the freedom to own a motor car.
If then, we replaced them with driverless cars, which still had accidents as you can't account for everything...
But that these new computers, only killed 30,000 of their passengers.
Would you say that was acceptable. It's 20,000 people alive/saved that would otherwise have been killed.
And we should not go to town on the companies that made these systems, and demand fix's as we can't have 30,000 people killed by a computer driver each year.
I genuinely don't think we as a society are ready to accept this.
We only need say a Audi, or Volkswagen, or Tesla, or Apple car to kill perhaps 5 people in one month for the courts and legal system and media to go totally ape crazy and demand things shut down till fix's can be assured.
For the car companies to just basically say "hey, ok so our cars kill a few, but they are still safer than humans" just is not going to be accepted at all....
Your thoughts?
If you knew 50,000 car drivers in a year were killed by human drivers, and of course you sadly accept this as just a price worth paying for the freedom to own a motor car.
If then, we replaced them with driverless cars, which still had accidents as you can't account for everything...
But that these new computers, only killed 30,000 of their passengers.
Would you say that was acceptable. It's 20,000 people alive/saved that would otherwise have been killed.
And we should not go to town on the companies that made these systems, and demand fix's as we can't have 30,000 people killed by a computer driver each year.
I genuinely don't think we as a society are ready to accept this.
We only need say a Audi, or Volkswagen, or Tesla, or Apple car to kill perhaps 5 people in one month for the courts and legal system and media to go totally ape crazy and demand things shut down till fix's can be assured.
For the car companies to just basically say "hey, ok so our cars kill a few, but they are still safer than humans" just is not going to be accepted at all....
Your thoughts?
Cannot wait until these little fender benders involving autonomous vehicles are so common that we don't even hear about them. That will mean that the public has finally absorbed the small cost of progress and have overcome the irrational fear of technology on the roads.
Apple is testing its self-driving vehicles in a number of Lexus SUVs out on the roads of Cupertino, and on August 24, one of those vehicles was involved in an accident.
Apple is required to disclose autonomous vehicle collisions to the California DMV, and the information on the accident was published on the DMV's website.
According to the accident details, the vehicle in question was in autonomous mode at the time, and sustained moderate damage in the crash, but it does not appear that Apple was at fault for the collision. From the accident report:Apple has been testing its self-driving software in Lexus RX450h SUVs in Cupertino, California and surrounding areas since early 2017, but this is the first time an Apple vehicle has been involved in a crash.
Apple's test vehicles are outfitted with a host of sensors and cameras, and while they are autonomous, each one has a pair of drivers inside. At the current time, Apple is testing its software in more than 60 vehicles.
It's not yet clear what Apple plans to do with its self-driving software, but it could be added to existing cars and there are still rumors suggesting Apple is working on its own Apple-branded vehicle that could come out by 2025.
Apple is also working on a self-driving shuttle service called "PAIL," an acronym for "Palo Alto to Infinite Loop." The shuttle program will transport employees between Apple's offices in Silicon Valley.
Article Link: Apple Autonomous Test Vehicle Involved in Accident on August 24
[doublepost=1535834762][/doublepost]
Your scenario is not acceptable on an ethical nor technological level. Less death is always good but the acceptance of any number is wrong. Accidents are not acceptance of fatalities, they are just the cause and there will always be accidents where humans are concerned.
That being said, if all vehicles were replaced by autonomous cars, there should be zero fatalities. If there were any accidents, the problem should and could be addressed with software updates. It's no different than billions of electrons per second moving along a CPU. Unfortunately we are a long way from all vehicles being autonomous. There will be an overlap for decades because people are fearful, stubborn and selfish so they won't give up their cars, guns, carbon footprints, etc. willingly.
If we use Mr Spocks logic here.
Is it logical to say, no, 30,000 killed by a computer driver is not acceptable.
We need to move back to humans only and back to 50,000 killed.
In any rational sense no, that would be stupid, and whilst we don't want deaths, less is better.
As you say there will be a massive crossover period of probably many decades.
Accidents will still happen, due to unforeseen road events/conditions.
My fear is, it will only take a few major incidents of people killed by a autonomous car, due to some error, for the media to jump all over it. legal cases start happening and companies in major trouble.
I just don't think we as a society are ready to accept this yet, nor will be accepting of it for a long time to come.
No.
The word that was used to describe the A P P L E . C A R was " P R E P A R I N G "
Once more:
Here is the Webster Definition of P R E P A R E
And tell that to owners of $60,000-$80,000 cars that are told they need to be replaced by next year.
Wow.
The Leaf rear-ended another vehicle. That vehicle happened to be Apples Autonomous prototype.
In a rear-end collision, the vehicle hitting is at fault. That is the Nissan Leaf.
/The End.
[doublepost=1535838925][/doublepost]This thread is so sad.
It is sad because many of the posters in it are steaming failures in comprehension . . . . . and those same posters probably vote.
So sad
The Leaf rear-ended another vehicle. That vehicle happened to be Apples Autonomous prototype.
In a rear-end collision, the vehicle hitting is at fault. That is the Nissan Leaf.
/The End.
[doublepost=1535838925][/doublepost]This thread is so sad.
It is sad because many of the posters in it are steaming failures in comprehension . . . . . and those same posters probably vote.
So sad
Even Tesla’s collision avoidance can’t stop a person from driving into the back of your car. Someone once drove into my car while I had been waiting at a red light for a minute. Also, I just got back from a trip to LA and have to tell you that when there’s lots of traffic, merging can be very slow. Not a matter of sensors. Impossible to say without footage, but it sounds like this was likely human error from the other car.
[doublepost=1535846625][/doublepost]
I would say that *semi-autonomous* vehicles are dangerous as it’s not clear whether you should be concentrating or not. They say to keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the steering wheel, but then why have it be semi autonomously all? It’s a bad idea and no one should be releasing anything less than fully autonomous, if it’s automated at all.
The stats from the existing autonomous test vehicles are already showing that you can absolutely reduce the number of accidents with even some of the vehicles being autonomous. What you’re suggesting is that countries have to switch every one of their vehicles out for autonomous at the same time. This is impossible and unnecessary.
And yet insurance will still be required. Fewer claims will mean lower rates but insurance companies will still be able to generate a profit. Then there are the “acts of god” on which autonomous features have no bearing.
The only risk to insurers may be large scale adoption of ride sharing. I’m sure they’ll come up with a clever way to profit from that.
Since I was not able to send you a PM, I’ll ask here
I figured you would be able to better answer this considering your profession
Wouldn’t Apple’s car be in some of the blame, like 20% because coming to a complete stop while trying to merge is a little dangerous? Human drivers would at least try to get in there (which sometimes goes badly)
In California "Entrance Ramp" is to be used to speed up to match the traveling speed of the divided highway you are entering.
Going with the Google Maps Street View, the "Kifer Road" entrance ramp to the Lawerence Expressway southbound is fairly short. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.373...S0jf2m1zpTAmOakknZAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
If someone stops on an entrance ramp, however wrong their driving style may be, you are dead wrong and at fault 100% if you run into them.
We already have cruse control. Are you saying when turned on it causes more accidents? Because the opposite of that is true...
I'll tel the machine where it can go.. And it won't be pretty site
Humans range in intelligence from livestock to astrophysicists. But when humans climb into big fast machines, they think of them as extensions of their physical body, and their egos explode proportionately, quickly forgetting how soft and squishy their puny human bodies will still be when they arrive at the next stoplight.
No you aren't. Blanket statements like that are ridiculous and unhelpful. The world is not black and white.
Consider, you are driving along in two lane traffic. The person to the side of you pulls in front of you without warning. Your safe braking distance has now been cut to a third. Until such time as you get back your safe distance should you be at fault for rear ending them?