Uber self driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona

[MindWars]

Uber self-driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona
TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Police in a Phoenix suburb say one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles has struck and killed a pedestrian.





Oh self driving cars just oh so gawd dam cool aren't they. Hopefully they sue but you can e sure these leftist prick companies have immunity.
Why they aren't responsible, the computer AI did it. gawd you leftist are fkn idiots.

Someone was behind the wheel, there are almost no details about what caused the collision other than that the pedestrian was crossing outside of a crosswalk, but you hope they can sue?

bye the way just because someone is in them doesn't mean they aren't driverless doofus.

I didn't say the car wasn't self-driving. I said there was someone behind the wheel, which in these sorts of tests, generally indicates someone who can take control if necessary. "As a precaution, the vehicles have a safety engineer who can take control if necessary." Uber suspends testing of self-driving cars after crash

Also, it would be "by the way," not "bye the way." You also might want to capitalize when you begin a sentence. You also might want to figure out where to put punctuation. Really, you'd probably just be better off not calling anyone a doofus when you have such a hard time with basic grammar and spelling.

I might want to, but i'm working with a jacked up keyboard, so all these little anal irritants that bothers others leads me to really not give a shit since going back and fixing this or that, or typos that need fixed etc.......it is to much of a hassle now if you would like to buy me a new computer I can take Spelling Nazis a little more seriously lol. Oh and grammar nazi's too.

 

[Montrovant]

Uber self-driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona
TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Police in a Phoenix suburb say one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles has struck and killed a pedestrian.





Oh self driving cars just oh so gawd dam cool aren't they. Hopefully they sue but you can e sure these leftist prick companies have immunity.
Why they aren't responsible, the computer AI did it. gawd you leftist are fkn idiots.

Someone was behind the wheel, there are almost no details about what caused the collision other than that the pedestrian was crossing outside of a crosswalk, but you hope they can sue?

bye the way just because someone is in them doesn't mean they aren't driverless doofus.

I didn't say the car wasn't self-driving. I said there was someone behind the wheel, which in these sorts of tests, generally indicates someone who can take control if necessary. "As a precaution, the vehicles have a safety engineer who can take control if necessary." Uber suspends testing of self-driving cars after crash

Also, it would be "by the way," not "bye the way." You also might want to capitalize when you begin a sentence. You also might want to figure out where to put punctuation. Really, you'd probably just be better off not calling anyone a doofus when you have such a hard time with basic grammar and spelling.

I might want to, but i'm working with a jacked up keyboard, so all these little anal irritants that bothers others leads me to really not give a shit since going back and fixing this or that, or typos that need fixed etc.......it is to much of a hassle now if you would like to buy me a new computer I can take Spelling Nazis a little more seriously lol. Oh and grammar nazi's too.

Blaming your computer?

You also might want to pay attention to what the people you are quoting actually write. Of course, paying attention isn't exactly your forte.

 

[MindWars]

Uber self-driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona
TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Police in a Phoenix suburb say one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles has struck and killed a pedestrian.





Oh self driving cars just oh so gawd dam cool aren't they. Hopefully they sue but you can e sure these leftist prick companies have immunity.
Why they aren't responsible, the computer AI did it. gawd you leftist are fkn idiots.

Someone was behind the wheel, there are almost no details about what caused the collision other than that the pedestrian was crossing outside of a crosswalk, but you hope they can sue?

bye the way just because someone is in them doesn't mean they aren't driverless doofus.

I didn't say the car wasn't self-driving. I said there was someone behind the wheel, which in these sorts of tests, generally indicates someone who can take control if necessary. "As a precaution, the vehicles have a safety engineer who can take control if necessary." Uber suspends testing of self-driving cars after crash

Also, it would be "by the way," not "bye the way." You also might want to capitalize when you begin a sentence. You also might want to figure out where to put punctuation. Really, you'd probably just be better off not calling anyone a doofus when you have such a hard time with basic grammar and spelling.

I might want to, but i'm working with a jacked up keyboard, so all these little anal irritants that bothers others leads me to really not give a shit since going back and fixing this or that, or typos that need fixed etc.......it is to much of a hassle now if you would like to buy me a new computer I can take Spelling Nazis a little more seriously lol. Oh and grammar nazi's too.

Blaming your computer?

You also might want to pay attention to what the people you are quoting actually write. Of course, paying attention isn't exactly your forte.

Ever hit a ey and it doesn't work fkn try it sometime........Until you do f off. notice missing leters MY KEYS DONT WORK CORRECTLY JACK OFF>

 

[MindWars]

Uber Halts Autonomous-Car Testing After Fatal Arizona Crash - Bloomberg

 

[Godboy]

View attachment 183548

Uber Halts Autonomous-Car Testing After Fatal Arizona Crash - Bloomberg

Meanwhile, human drivers are a thousand times more likely to get in accidents than computer drivers. Are you stupid enough to presume that anything can be 100% full proof? What am I saying... of course you are.

 

[blastoff]

It's the same old story. Need to outlaw assault self-driving vehicles and pass tougher overall self-driving vehicle laws. Otherwise it's just a matter of time until one plows down innocent children on a schoolyard playground.

 

[gipper]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Was it a hit and run?
Does a driverless car know when it has hit a person?

 

[Silhouette]

Uber self-driving vehicle hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona
TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Police in a Phoenix suburb say one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles has struck and killed a pedestrian.

Game over. We all knew it would come to this.

 

[MindWars]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

You gotta think way outside the box. There are more dangers to this than you think.

It will also control if you get to drive it or not, for example lets say you missed paying a parking ticket that car can be shut down so you can not drive until you pay it.

Yes they have a boot that can do the same thing buuut this control is simpler, easier and this is just a very minor example.

This car will determine if you live or die.

This car can be easily, easily hacked

This car will control what you can or can't not do in your OWN CAR c'mon dude......

 

[flewism]

Oh well, people die, the technology will move forward.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected.

My question is, was she wearing something that wasn't able to be detected by the sensors? In some cases, you can actually defeat a motion sensor by moving slowly behind a large blanket. Saw the Mythbusters do that on one of their shows. Maybe she was wearing something that made her unable to be seen by the radar, and with it being dark, maybe that is why the optical sensor missed her as well.

Do pedestrians in any of our 50 states have an obligation to not run out into traffic in front of moving vehicles?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

It's not the flying from point A to point B that is the hard part.

The hard parts are the takeoff and the landing, not the flying.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

View attachment 183548

Uber Halts Autonomous-Car Testing After Fatal Arizona Crash - Bloomberg

Meanwhile, human drivers are a thousand times more likely to get in accidents than computer drivers. Are you stupid enough to presume that anything can be 100% full proof? What am I saying... of course you are.

Like "full" proof? Did you mean like your typing?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected.

But there are a lot less things to run into at elevation than on the ground - no people, animals, trees etc. jumping out or falling in front of your plane

 

[gipper]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

You gotta think way outside the box. There are more dangers to this than you think.

It will also control if you get to drive it or not, for example lets say you missed paying a parking ticket that car can be shut down so you can not drive until you pay it.

Yes they have a boot that can do the same thing buuut this control is simpler, easier and this is just a very minor example.

This car will determine if you live or die.

This car can be easily, easily hacked

This car will control what you can or can't not do in your OWN CAR c'mon dude......

There no doubt are dangers. We know our criminal central government will spy on us all and do it's best to control us. However, there are benefits too.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected.

My question is, was she wearing something that wasn't able to be detected by the sensors? In some cases, you can actually defeat a motion sensor by moving slowly behind a large blanket. Saw the Mythbusters do that on one of their shows. Maybe she was wearing something that made her unable to be seen by the radar, and with it being dark, maybe that is why the optical sensor missed her as well.

Do pedestrians in any of our 50 states have an obligation to not run out into traffic in front of moving vehicles?

You would think.

But then again...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You would think.

But then again...

Maybe I misread the story, the car didn't get into a crash when the pedestrian jumped in front of it, it simply mowed her down and kept going?

 

[Montrovant]

If jets can fly all over the world by computer, the technology for driver-less cars will be perfected. Of course government could screw it up, like they often do.

Hey Gip, driving a car around town through traffic is like a million times more complicated than getting an airplane from Miami to Dallas. The human brain is the ultimate computer, putting a computer with a few cameras in charge of driving a car is like a driver with several drinks in him. How can the one be illegal while the other merely "cool tech?" I'm not crazy about technology to assist the driver, but trying to use it to replace him is something I want no part of.

That's an odd comparison, calling a computer-controlled car "like a driver with several drinks in him." It seems entirely inaccurate to me, for a number of reasons. What makes you think that is a valid comparison?

There is a lot to like about driver-less cars. Think about no more high speed cop chasers that result in death or injury, no more drunks killing themselves or others, no need for cops policing the roadways, no more traffic accidents causing death and injury, no more kids driving crazy killing themselves.

You gotta think way outside the box. There are more dangers to this than you think.

It will also control if you get to drive it or not, for example lets say you missed paying a parking ticket that car can be shut down so you can not drive until you pay it.

Yes they have a boot that can do the same thing buuut this control is simpler, easier and this is just a very minor example.

This car will determine if you live or die.

This car can be easily, easily hacked

This car will control what you can or can't not do in your OWN CAR c'mon dude......

How easily can it be hacked, exactly?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Was the car drinking?