/linked/2016/12/15/uber-frisco

Comments

anonymous:
Curious
5:37 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
Daring Hemorrhoid:
Irredeemable
5:45 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
jimothy:
Wow, AI is even more human like that I thought.
6:35 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
anonymous:
"Uber’s institutional arrogance is astounding."

Hahaha, rich coming from an apologist for Tim Cook's Apple.
6:53 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
Daring Hemorrhoid:
Maybe the car determined that given the speed at which it was going it was unable to stop safely, and went through the light.

The grubs doesn't do thinking, he does reporting.
7:17 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
Dicknose:
>Maybe the car determined that given the speed at which it was going it was unable to stop safely, and went through the light.

That argument will lose every single time in the court of law.

That means that the car was traveling too fast for the conditions.

Guilty. Every. Single. Time.

Simple as that.
8:06 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
Daring Hemorrhoid:
It depends on the jury and judge, dude.
8:14 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
jimothy:
So let's do what Grubes didn't do, and think about this further.

So the Uber cars ran a red light, and the driver didn't intervene. So there are your two problems right there. I'm sure Uber will address the first (this is what testing is for), and hopefully, they're at least considering the latter.

But, the Grubester is fixated on the fact that they don't have a permit; they're too arrogant to get a permit, he tells us.

What would a permit change here? Is the argument that, if they had the permit, that the cars would not have run the red light? Or that the DMV would have denied them the permit because they knew their cars would one day run red lights?

I'm not saying Uber is in the right here; obviously, they've got an issue that needs to be fixed in their self driving cars, and apparently, a human issue to solve, as well. I just don't see how, if Uber had been less arrogant regarding permits, anything would be different.
8:22 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
anonymous:
The permit is for liability. Which means that if something happens Uber can't just suspend the driver rather than the company being responsible.
9:46 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
To Be Fair:
@Hemorrhoid:

>Maybe the car determined that given the speed at which it was going it was unable to stop safely, and went through the light.

It went through the intersection **three seconds** after it turned red, at a "moderate" speed. It had plenty of time to stop.

the human driver was either asleep at the wheel, or (more likely) playing with his phone.

9:54 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
To Be Fair:
@jimothy:

> I just don't see how, if Uber had been less arrogant regarding permits, anything would be different.

If they had been granted a permit, they would probably be held to more stringent safety requirements than Uber decided upon internally. Thus reducing the risk of this happening.
9:56 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
enough already:
I’ll go ahead and point out that this wasn't an intersection, “just” a crosswalk.
10:26 pm — Thursday, 15 December 2016
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
"If they had been granted a permit, they would probably be held to more stringent safety requirements than Uber decided upon internally. Thus reducing the risk of this happening."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh you really believe that.
9:10 pm — Friday, 16 December 2016
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!