Well done for seeing what I've said a few times now.UpTheBeehole wrote:In real life a woman is dead because of unsafe testing
Do you now concede that you were basing your whole opinion on the screenshot of a crap dashcam instead of thinking with your brain that the lighting couldn't possibly be that dark to the naked eye?Sidney1st wrote:Well done for seeing what I've said a few times now.
The person in the car wasn't doing their job.
The woman in the road was also crossing in a place she wasn't meant to, known as jay walking in the US and fines are given out for it.
Both to blame but more can be put onto the woman in the car.
True enough. She wasn't blameless. But she crossed two lanes of a well-lit road and the car failed to see her - that is failure of technology. The point of these driverless cars isn't that they drive along oblivious and pedestrians had better not be ion the wrong place - the point is that people, including people who are in the wrong place, will be safer.Sidney1st wrote:In real life the woman crossed the road in the wrong place and got run over by a car that wasn't being monitored properly.
Were they petty?UpTheBeehole wrote:Do you now concede that you were basing your whole opinion on the screenshot of a crap dashcam instead of thinking with your brain that the lighting couldn't possibly be that dark to the naked eye?
Aggi's provision of a much superior dashcam image makes your whole basis for your earlier petty arguments completely groundless.
Do they tell us/warn us were these driverless cars are testing?Sidney1st wrote:Several companies are testing, some have been in the UK.
Some one else provided a stat about the number of times Google cars needed driver intervention and it was incredibly low.
In this instance it's a combination of pedestrian error coupled with useless human in the car not paying attention herself so she could intervene.
They'll get the hang of it though and in the next 10years I suspect autonomous cars will become a regular thing on the road.
Pretty much exactly what I was saying thenSpeaking to CNET, Cortica's CEO Igal Raichelgauz said the firm's self-driving AI system detected Ms Herzberg 0.9 seconds before impact.
At this point the car was around 50 feet (15 metres) away.
He said the autonomous car's cameras and radar system should have had enough time to pick up the pedestrian and react to the situation.
Someone's upset.BennyD wrote:Cr4p. Whilst most commercial aircraft have an auto land system, it is only used under certain specific conditions as the ground environment has to be closely controlled to prevent corruption/ interruption of the cat 3 ILS signal. If these conditions aren’t active the aircraft is always manually landed by the pilots. As for pilots not doing anything, again that’s cr4p. Whilst the aircraft is almost always flown by the autopilot the pilots are always trying to get ‘directs’, or short cuts, in order to reduce fuel burn and flight time. Also, a pilot always has to be aware which is the nearest airfield, and the prevalent weather conditions there, in case of an in flight emergency. These airfields change as the flight progresses. Google AirTransat flight 236 and ask yourself if a computer would have achieved a similar outcome (from the point of engine failure). If it was an easy job, it wouldn’t cost over £100k to get a licence and pilots wouldn’t have to be examined more than brain surgeons in order to keep their jobs.
I’m not upset in the slightest, but just read your post #36 again, and in the context of what you wrote then read the above quote again. Btw, just because you work in the aircraft industry doesn’t mean you know the first thing about what pilots do. I mean, you could drive the catering truck around the pan or empty the toilets and both of these jobs are in the ‘aircraft industry’.deanothedino wrote:Someone's upset.
I never said "let's get rid of pilots", pilots almost always manually land - I know this and didn't say anything that suggested otherwise. I also didn't say being a pilot was easy.
I also know about the limitations of autoland systems. I work in the aircraft industry.
It could but it doesn't.BennyD wrote:I’m not upset in the slightest, but just read your post #36 again, and in the context of what you wrote then read the above quote again. Btw, just because you work in the aircraft industry doesn’t mean you know the first thing about what pilots do. I mean, you could drive the catering truck around the pan or empty the toilets and both of these jobs are in the ‘aircraft industry’.
I did mention it.BennyD wrote:A crude bit of deflection there. I see you didn’t mention #36 so I’ll just take it that you were wrong and leave it at that. Best you stick to your part of the aircraft industry and I’ll stick to mine, but I reserve the right to comment on posts such as yours as it comes within my job spec and experience.
I said pilots normally land planes, but planes can land themselves. They can, the fact they don't very often isn't relevant.Over half of your post was unrelated to mine but I'm glad you got it off your chest.