[Vicegrip]

Spend a spring weekend at a public boat launch ramp and you would want to ban trailers altogether

[Dandelion]

Originally Posted by Vicegrip

Lot of assumptions at the end. What analysts and testing was done prior to use on public roads. What are the present accident to mile ratios for the system in question? Was the phone occupied human tasked with maintaining backup to the system under test just as is done in aviation based testing?
In that case the human failed.

Did they test the aviation systems in public airspace?

Sure, assumptions are necessary for the analysis, and can be refined as data becomes available. That's engineering. But the overall point is that the systems ought to be designed in the context of a target level of safety with appropriate risk analysis.

As for testing aviation systems in public airspace - it depends: a lot of test flying is done in restricted areas or in airspace otherwise sanitized from non-participating aircraft. For example, testing new aircraft collision avoidance systems by flying a couple of aircraft through a series of maneuvers designed to test different parts of the alerting logic. Both aircraft are participants, with a well-briefed set of maneuvers, and kept way the hell away from anyone else.

Other testing can be done in public airspace, for example, by using a normal flight crew to operate the flight using normal procedures and equipment, while there's a second flight crew in a second cockpit that is evaluating the test system (for example, NASA's old experimental B737 - BTW, this aircraft is now displayed at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle):


Some testing can be done passively in public airspace - for example, collecting data from aircraft flying in the system, with no interface to the flight crew, in order to do an after-the-fact analysis of how a system would have behaved had it been installed and working.

And some testing simply doesn't present much of a risk to the public if it occurs in public airspace - e.g., testing a new communications radio (using the current radio as backup.)

What is unsettling in the Uber case is we really don't know what testing has been done off of public streets, and even filtering the media hype, there are some indications that perhaps not enough was done.

I can also say that in aviation, if a non-participating member of the public were to have been killed during testing, there would rightly be a huge amount of scrutiny as to where the safety protocols broke down, just as it seems to be happening here with Uber.

ed

[Patrick3000]

Originally Posted by N0tt0N

"Dyslexia, I'd like you to hide all the Porsches I purchased that the wife doesn't know about or thinks are sold and then bring them back when she leaves the house." - Karl

FUD

In case Martin requires a translation

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fud

FUD

Although "fud" is widely accepted in Scotland as being a slang term for the female reproductive organs, it is generally used as a pejorative to describe someone who has just done something stupid, often in situations where they've either been impulsive or it was blindingly obvious beforehand that it was a stupid thing to do. It can also be used to describe someone who irritates everyone because they try to impress everyone all the time & invariably talk a load of pish.
"Haw ya big fud!" (angry)

Person A "Ah canny be fucked wi him!"
Person B "How?"
Person A "Coz he's a pure fud!"

[HughA44s]

So now Ed has really hit the nail on the head and suggested a reasonable solution to this problem so:

1. Define “at least as safe as a human being” as: meet or beat 1.15 fatalities (people) per 1e+8 vehicle-miles traveled
2. Make UBER or anyone else show by analysis that they can meet or beat that spec before they test on the road. That is engineering.
3. Provide for adequate testing constraints or they can’t do it.

So in summary, It turns out that humans are pretty good at recognizing random and unpredictable events and reacting to them correctly most of the time - 1.15 fatalities (people) per 1e+8 vehicle-miles traveled meets my definition of most of the time.

Now 5 pages later, I am still trying to figure-out what problem we are trying to solve here although I agree with VG in the ability of humans beings to piss each other off happens much more frequently.

[Vicegrip]

We are not talking about AI fully autonomous system testing. There are humans in the cars.

Have a human in the car when testing. That is as safe as the "system" we are using on the roads now. From what I see every day a little added training of said human just might make it safer than the standard human we expose ourselves to now. The task is complex and there are many things to learn and learn from.

We die in/from cars about 3 an hour in the US. Danes seem to have figured out how to die at a rate per mile far less than us Murkin's and for Dogs sake don't drive in Mississippi if you are risk adverse.

[Vicegrip]

Originally Posted by Patrick3000

FUD

In case Martin requires a translation

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fud

FUD

Although "fud" is widely accepted in Scotland as being a slang term for the female reproductive organs, it is generally used as a pejorative to describe someone who has just done something stupid, often in situations where they've either been impulsive or it was blindingly obvious beforehand that it was a stupid thing to do. It can also be used to describe someone who irritates everyone because they try to impress everyone all the time & invariably talk a load of pish.
"Haw ya big fud!" (angry)

Person A "Ah canny be fucked wi him!"
Person B "How?"
Person A "Coz he's a pure fud!"

We also have a Lot of Dave's around here. FUD can also mean F U Dave.

[Patrick3000]

Originally Posted by Vicegrip

We also have a Lot of Dave's around here. FUD can also mean F U Dave.

Can you think of a better way to call Martin a 🐈

[Dandelion]

Hi Hugh - I was actually suggesting that just better than humans is not nearly sufficient...

Ed

[Vicegrip]

That is true with high visibility public format transportation that relies on a high level of trust. People would be up in arms over any single day that had 1,300 deaths from 2 back to back plane crashes. (Can't fit that many in one plane crash, 1,300 you need to have 2 or 3 real bad plane crashes) 1,300 is a stunning number and far in excess of civilian single day history. OTOH we don't bat an eye over 1,300 deaths a day from smoking tobacco. Tobacco takes us one at a time, each an isolated sad story but lacking the synchronicity of the connected many. This is why we have an $$,$$$,$$$ aircraft inside an $$,$$$,$$$ aircraft filled with worth of $$,$$$,$$$ gear and people that are there to reduce the unexpected.

Seems that anything that reduces or at least better understands what kills us, one isolated sad car/road based story at a time, will be life saving.

[Vicegrip]

Originally Posted by Patrick3000

Can you think of a better way to call Martin a 🐈

Go 2018 non verbal. Grab him by it and go full presidential right there.