Why You Should Want Driverless Cars On Roads Now

absolutely agreed!

Well, could work for busses and other transit options? But yeah not cars of the current size

Allow me to introduce ya to something called "capitalism!"

consider tho: driverless trains??

Agree. Japan has an awesome high speed rail system.. when is ours coming????

Wait for someone to bet ten grand that this isn’t really driving itself

This is the video he shouldve titled 'risking my life...' lol

Giant windmill carts are the norm, you know

@@brokenacoustic nah, as we can see in this video, a driverless car is way safer than that propeller contraption he was riding in that other video

b-b-but technically it's not a windmill.

😆

Rails cannot take you point to point

Are you sure? @@jamesclerkmaxwell8020

⁠@@jamesclerkmaxwell8020that is just typical North American poor urban planning lol

​@@jamesclerkmaxwell8020 With bad planning and excessive use of roads, of course rail wont lmao

The quiet kid in the corner clicking everything but the traffic lights

amazing comment

now the only way to prove youre not a machine is proving youre stupid enought

@@nihil_._sum , so now if we get the math problem wrong, then it lets us through?

@@nihil_._sum a user would have to move the mouse, and the click rate would be erratic. A bot doesn’t ‘move’ the mouse across the screen, it just clicks like a finger on a touchscreen. That’s the measurable difference.

it basically is a commercial - the sponsorship on the video means that anything he says has to have been approved by the company, so there’s no way he could ever criticize it

@@daniel6678 i mean, we can always call him a sellout.

Whats wrong with having remote drivers

@@ZetaCheese search up a KRplus called Tom Nicholas. He has a very educated and thoughtful critism of this video

Lamborgini would be a Failed tech cuz it cant be used in many parts of the world.
Including my own state, the road is unsuitable for such cars. And its not a village either its fairly common to have such type of roads. Only the best of cities in the world have perfect flat smooth road.

elaborate? the sponsorship?

@@Kavyatejyes lol. It’s not a normal sponsorship, but a custom video.

I agree. No nuisance and stretching the facts and not explaining the downfalls of the sponsored company. Basically, humans can’t drive and the car can do everything perfectly without any human intervention behind its operations.

​​@@devamin6017those Google cars were travelling for years without a single accident. Driveless cars are one of the best inventions of the last decades. They have the potential to save so many lives. Most accidents are duo to human error. That is why airplanes are much safer than cars

@@Kavyatej you should watch "Veritasium: A Story of KRplus Propaganda"

Wait what wow

@@corssaspec it's for ai and deep learning

Woah!

But doesn't the captcha system already know what's correct beforehand? (such that when you pick wrong you need to do another check)

But captcha already knows what's correct. These ppl don't need us to teach their machines

Waymo 9000

"Upgrade" vibes 😂

Waymo AKA. HAL

This doesn’t have enough likes

Street Odyssey 2021

No

That would be the case if he had hidden the fact that the video was sponsored. They probably reached out to him because of his credibility. He tested the car and made observations (honest ones like when the car suddenly stops to protect a pedestrian). I dont understands why that would make you or anyone else question his integrity. That was not an ad, It was an informative video.

@@FredEPLk To copy another reply i saw here: "Tom Nicholas had made a video about it titled "Veritasium: A story of KRplus Propaganda",
when "educational" youtubers get paid to do something and present it as a fact. We should spend more time being skeptical on what we're watching nowadays."
Basically his scientific and balanced view on electric cars and waymo went down to 0% when a paycheck is involved.

@@maxguerra9155 you seem to have quite a vendetta against veritasium

Good question!
I also wondered if other human activity could trip them up, like playing a siren loudly on your car stereo to make them pull over for you.

As long as the car is in an area where there is Wi-Fi, cellphone service, or if the car has a satellite up-link, then a human could pilot the car remotely. That is, if there is a road-worker directing traffic, Waymo could have someone pilot the car using a laptop at home as part of a work-at-home job. After the car has finished passing through the unusual situation, computerized control could resume. You could have some safe-guards, so that if the remote driver attempts to speed, or crash into an obvious stationary object, then the computer will intercede and bring the car to a stop.

@@samuelmuldoon4839 If human intervention is necessary, then wouldn't it be more sensible (and safer) to have someone in the vehicle take control, as opposed to someone with a laptop (potentially hundreds of miles away) trying to maneuver through a network delay and cameras? This seems an especially poor solution in those given situations where situational awareness and responsiveness is necessary, such as when you're being flagged through an area with tons of road work.

Yeah that's a problem only when there is a combination of humans and robots on roads. We need to get rid of human drivers asap.

I think that’s level 5 automation. So, i think they’re still working on that

In a typical accident humans often don't even panic until _after_ the accident because they were completely distracted and didn't even notice that it was about to happen.

Exactly. As long as the vehicle can do better than LITERALLY PANICKING then it's fine lmfao

@@ChilapaOfTheAmazons exactly! That's why I disagree with all the "morality of who to hit" discussions with AI. Humans don't consider this, and computers comparatively won't ever need to.

As a commercial driver, I have often chosen my exit from a potentially fatal situation.

That's not "people" but morons. You can't judge everybody because of the image you have of yourself. "Self" driving cars are nothing less than lethal weapons and suicide booths. Even in aviation where you have thorough and dilligent inspections every 50 hrs, expensive state of the art technology, way more clearances from objects and obstacles, lot longer reaction times, ATC and you assess weather prepare flight plans to make sure the automation will not go out of it's limits and fail (and there are multiple redundancies and emergency procedures for various automation failures) there ARE still frequent automation failures and completely avoidable deaths if there was NO AUTOMATION in a first place. Automation is nothing than convenience that lazy irresponsible collectivists use to avoid taking responsibility for their lives and actions and to avoid putting effort into practical education and training

That is because the benefits outweigh the risks massively. Also, he knows that the tendency is for people to be afraid and skeptical about this. He is showing that it is like any other evolution, the more you know about it, the more you realize it is a great invention and start to wonder why you haven't tried before. There was a time when people would never trade a horse for a car and here we are.

Exactly

Just like in iRobot.
We already are at a point where we trust computers (or automated machines) over humans for near-perfect functioning.
Imagine everything being automated. We would not challenge it.

and it will be pretty expensive to drive yourself because of the insurance

well yea if we even reach to that point since global warming (:

Basically what happened to beginner-to-mid-level programming

Lol, I think I get it. "Driverless"(not Driverless) cars are the ones where the "driver" is doing something else other than driving.

@@thedeadexpert518 👍

🤣🤣🤣

@@thedeadexpert518 or maybe just a parked car

@@StefanNoack or simply you drive ur own car so there is no driver XD

In Amsterdam. Outside of Amsterdam, everyone drives, and eveyone knows this, including you.

@@hamsandwichindahouse Every major city + small town has extensive public infrastructure busses, rent-a-bike, or trains.
Only in really rural areas would a car be essential.

Netherlands is one of the densest countries in the world, basically one big city. The U.S. is an entire continent. You can't build a train or bus lane to everywhere, bikes can't go far enough quick enough and isn't compatible with a lot of the extreme weather of the USA. While we need more public transport and walkability in urban areas, "just build trains lol" is not a viable solution for the transport needs of such a large country. Point to point transport at anytime anywhere will always beat public transport at a lot of tasks.

You realize that Europe as a continent has a pretty good network of trains right, you could easily travel from London to Madrid within a day by train (20 hours, same as you would with the car over a bit more than 1000 miles) while having time for yourself doing so and reducing your ecological footprint. To put it in perspective, Chicago to New York (little less than 800 miles) takes 18 hours. Each country has then their local network that is maybe less efficient, but the idea is that size is not an argument, it's the mentality. Even China is investing in HST...

@@paulisebaert492 Yes I know because I live in Europe and commute every day by train and bicycle. First, no one travels by train from London to Madrid, as it requires multiple interchanges, while a single flight can make the trip in 3 hours for half the price. While I agree with the French policy of replacing short-haul flights with high speed rail, making 20 hour train journeys Is something nobody will do.
Yes, major cities should be well connected by rail, and a lot of road transport disincentivised. We should improve and expand public transport systems. But it is simply unrealistic to replace cars on a large scale. They will always be the most efficient way to travel most distances, even in terms of an environmental standpoint, and to remove them is to return to the 1800s in terms of transportation. Even in the Netherlands, a dense country regarded to have the best public transport infrastructure in the world, cars are by far the most used method of travel.
To build the most efficient transport system requires a combination of public and private transport. It's silly to rely on one or the other.

Why don't the airports leave the IIIb operations always in effect then? Too expensive?

@@guyhommeki "The equipment requires clearance around the runway to guarantee accuracy, and more stringent spacing standards are required." From above.
Basically using the autoland systems require more rigid, somewhat less time/space efficient operating procedures. Major airports that are pressed for capacity would see no benefit from sacrificing capacity for superfluous automation. Second-tier airports may be cost-constrained in terms of equipment runtimes, may not have that capability in the first place, or simply don't have the personnel expertise on hand all the time.

@@jadefalcon001 Still there is the same problematic as in the video; would those safe margins impeding time and space efficiency needed for catIII make human landing operations safer too, or is catIII just "overly" safe. Another way to put it is are the reasons for those margins actually necessary feature or, an extra precaution because we do not feel as confortable toeing the limit as much as when we are in control.
Also there could be a bias about those margins being planned for worst cases climates and not sunny days, which I suppose are not/should not be the same.

@@FirstnameLastname-ok1yz Probably regulatory reasons. Things like Automation tend to be regulated much more strictly to ensure safety because when automation goes wrong, it can effect millions vs a single pilot's error. (Because an error in automation regulation can lead to faulty equipment across an entire system).
So because of this things like automation tend to be OVER regulated to ensure safety which is a good thing. But it also means there is more resistance to automation as its more expensive to rely on so it takes longer before its more widely implemented.

Humans are just better at landing planes, that's why.

I'm not a motorcycle rider, but i would LOVE to have autonomous vehicles on the road that ACTUALLY indicate which way they plan to turn and everything. I see SOOOOO MANY drivers just fail to use turn signals at all, it's insane. Not to mention the drunk aspect or other things humans do.

This is a good point. I refuse to take up motorcycling (except maybe backroads) because of stupid humans.

@@sino_diogenes that's just stupid

All the negatives, aside from driving distracted, you mentioned are everything motorcyclists I know do 😆

The possibilities on road are endless, which is why autonomous cars will never take over human drivers. Cars are not like other autonomous machines that have only one job, such as motion detecting lights.

Given they want to protect their investment and taxies/busses/trains have CCTV, of course these heicles will have it when they are made public.
On Brakedowns/tyre failures, it would pull over to the side of the road if it could or find the safest place it could, like any human driver. Advantages are that it would know far more about itself than a human does about there car and could stop before a major failure and even immediately alert the authorities that it had broken down - no delay digging out for phone and trying to remember who you need to call. It could even call up another vehicle for the passengers to get into so they are not delayed.
As for heart attacks and similar events, there are already safety systems in place in large machinery such as tower cranes and excavators to detect driver impairment, so adding them to these vehicles wouldn't be that difficult. But this should only apply if there is only one person in the vehicle, so people monitoring the vehicles can make those a priority. The chances of two people being ill are insanely small.
Also, if the vehicle could detect this or you push the emergency button, it could change its route to the nearest hospital/ER/A&E automatically, alert both the hospital and authorities and even be given priority by other driverless vehicles if it encountered any. Imagine being put directly through to 999/911 in a vehicle that is already on its way to hospital and you can focus on answering questions and keeping your passenger alive until you arrive.

@@TheBlackEventorizon who are you

You could die in a train if nobody sits near by and you get a heart attack. The rest could probably be fixed by maintenance, I am getting a hearth attack each day seeing the vehicles allowed on US streets 😅

Perfect.

Bad visibility is a type of bad weather.

Well Akchutally

This was one of Derek's worst videos as the bias was blatant, there were other factual inaccuracies as well, very deceptive.

@@greg6094 could you elaborate on the inaccuracies?

This is absolutely an ad. I'm genuinely disappointed. At the very least, they should change the name of the channel.

Gotta make that $$$$$$

Yeah, this disappointing, especial considering the size of the channel. They have 4000 patrons on patreon. Didn't see numbers published, but I'm sure they're not all $1 subscribers. Can't imagine they're *that* desperate for funding, or that it would be worth putting the channels credibility on the line. :/

You dismissed an arguement of truth based on intentions not factual evidence, that's not a good sign. Also, there's no general "autonomous cars technology", just "autonomous cars technology of XXX company"

@@That_GuyKRplus they can take sponsorships from someone else rather than the same company on which you are making video about it

When I flew to Australia from the UK in the late 90s, we had a refueling stop in Singapore. On our final approach the pilot came on and made his usual pre landing announcement and instructed us to sit back and enjoy the landing - because that's what he was going to do.

Aw, man. So you're telling me that the plot of Airplane! is unrealistic? I never would have guessed

though even today, it is not unusual for a crash to be attributed to the autopilot. Not directly of course, the autopilot usually works as in tended and there is some degree of human or sensor error involved, but the process of explaining to the autopilot what to do and when involves the pilot, ATC, and other systems that can conflict with it.

There's infinitely more complex situations for an autonomous car to have to deal with. Flying is easy for a computer, it's straight forward, minimal obstacles.
Planes don't need to change lanes to turn, or to check if lanes are clear before attempting so. Aerospace auto-pilot doesn't have to contend with bumper to bumper traffic, or stop lights.

@@CharlieDBrown True, but landing is the trickiest part of flying, and computers could do that half a century ago. Given Moore's Law, just imagine what they are capable of today.
They might even fit on your desk!

I'm still waiting for the idiot "but how did you write this?!?!" comments.

@@koneal2000 yeah, he just heard and had his iPhone write it for him. You know.. these services for this specific type of people should be a thing indeed! But for perfectly working humans.. c'mon.. what are you doing to the people's way of living? If the government approves this. Crime will just go higher cause of so much stress from people without jobs. It's sad. Very sad what's going to happen. I'm just thinking about it.. and I feel them.

@@oenwlqpsbevxiwoxbevxhsjanoh i see

@UCQMRIAMkmz0BLKI4o4JKx4Q
"I see, I see", said the blind man to his deaf daughter

@@koneal2000 😂😂😂 I used the force. Obviously.

lol

My question is how they would fare on longer trips, like interstate highways

@@benjamincarlson6994 why they'd fare just fine

@@benjamincarlson6994 It's a lot easier to get the interstate right than neighborhoods. The only dangerous thing about interstates is the stakes in the speed, and it's such a regularized system that it reduces the variables at play. In a neighborhood, you any driveway could have a car backing out, every intersection can have an idiot, and every crosswalk can have a vulnerable pedestrian. There's a lot more to detect and be careful of.

@@benjamincarlson6994 interstate would be the easiest...try driving in the city with almost no markings because they don't pain often, pot holes, people parking so far in roads turn into single lanes....

@@nunuvyurbiz123 I think he means a race like a car race. Like racing cars...

​@@nunuvyurbiz123 Hahaha good, was starting to think you were a little dim!

That’s a thing. It’s called roborace and it’s amazing. There was a gif last year that circulated of it just starting a lap and just turning into a wall immediately without any indication

How many average human drivers, are as good as a race car pilot? Or even drive on the road, at the same speeds and making the same maneuvers as race car driver? I hope you know that the most accidents, are provoked by careless, speeding drivers that think they are race car drivers.
So I ask why, should a driverless car, need to be like a race car driver, if it will NOT drive like one, on normal roads at regular speeds?
Having said that they ARE making driverless race cars, just to appease certain people.

Make them play chicken

Air traffic control is incredibly rigorous for this reason :)

That would be fun!

I'm afraid I can't do that Dave

@@V_2077 This needs more thumbs up.

@@faismasterx agree

@@V_2077 “Open the door! The car is sinking !”
“I am afraid I cannot do that”

Unless it's a BBC Monster

*not having a wheel at all

LOL

Hackers : keep your hand or not .. I still control you

@@iSketchy 😂😂 his being cringe for speaking on something that happens has had happened and will happen? You're the cringe not him for actually thinking.

It will, as long as its a little snow. I live in Edmonton. 6 Months of the year our roads are a winter nightmare, with residential streets being having a thick pack of snow/ice on them, it was about 3 inches on my street last year by the end. Add a particularly heavy snowfall, add wet snow conditions that ice up the sensors, add black ice (so thin and clear you don't know its there) Its another level of technology that will be needed for conditions like this, tech that can 'see' through snow and ice, tech that can label roads and lanes without visual line of sight, better tires and braking for icy streets. That said, human driving in those conditions suck too. Sort out the sensors and it will probably be safer already, but likely slow.

I guess that's why they're in Arizona lmao

Ya it’s definitely a different beast. Stuff like a Lidar sensor can still “see” even in heavy snow. I’m in Canada and I keep thinking how every winter my cars backup camera is unusable. I wonder if they could solve it someone. Like keep the camera clean by warming up the lens or something

I handled snow by moving away from Ohio and into a snow-free climate.

@@alexwebster8999 I think its less of a visibility question, and more of a "making many small (and bespoke) adjustments in an environment that demands constant (and random) adaptation" kind of thing. The hard part of driving on snow and rain (for those that aren't really familiar), has less to do with visibility than it does road conditions.

Yeah, except it's not full of stupid, noisy, stinking, sick, crazy, criminal and annoying people.

@@timokreuzer1820 That's not the case where I live anyway. Yes, there can buses and trains like that, especially late at night, but not during the day and in the evenings.
My worry with a driverless taxi would be that someone has been sick in it, though. But maybe they will have interior cams that spot that sort of thing.

Exactly my train of thought.

I wonder: why don't we start with driverless trains? Shouldn't that be easier? We could have way more trains then.

@@lonestarr1490 they already exist

Revmoving drugged and tired drivers also doesn't suck

How about remove alcohol and drugs instead of making such extravagant bypasses

@@deanthomas2561 That's impossible. Even if it was possible, it'd be thousands of times more expensive.

@@ahmads5889 We tried. It was called "Prohibition" and "War on Drugs".
I'm pretty sure you know full well how these endeavors ended up.

@@osdever the issue is with the people, it was normalized for them, then they were immediately forced to leave it after considering it to not be an issue.

Driverless cars is not the future, it’s the flying car for our generation

I disagree with your point about ABS. I reckon ABS outperforms a human braking especially on a gravel road

Abs works on gravel roads. I drove on them in icy, snowy, and rainy conditions for years and it never failed me.
Edit: you know self driving cars don't use ABS right? They control the ammount the car is breaking more like a human would by varying an output to the breaks. Except they are way more precise than humans. So worse case scenario they can just mimic human's best breaking on gravel and match our performance.

ABS on gravel extends braking distance. However, it also retains the ability to turn, which you wouldn't be able to, if your wheels locked up on gravel. So whether it's better or worse, depends on the situation; in some situations, you might need the shortest braking distance. In other situations, it might not be possible to avoid an accident, without turning away from the obstacle, no matter the braking distance.

@@charlottelanvin7095 You put an average driver it absolutely does, but a race car driver will beat abs every time. That's why race cars don't have abs

out, now.

Derek looks so tired 🤔

_ba dum tssss_

Nice, dad

Why are you wasting your time on this?

Ah yes, some survivorship bias. Or non-survivorship bias? haha

It's a bit like a vaccine. If you heard "Most flu related deaths are from bad reactions to vaccines" you might think "Oh no! Vaccines are bad!" But what's really happening is: flu deaths are so insanely diminished that the waaay secondary consideration, bad reactions, becomes prominent.

It's a huge phenomenon in economics. Often used to justify things like, for example, government assistance projects. A government project creates, say, 100 jobs at the cost of $X dollars. Great. What you don't see, and never will, is how many jobs would have been created if the money was spent differently, but you can confidently say "we created 100".

Source for that statement?

Ummm, actually they do track how many pilot-prevented incidents there are. Those numbers aren't publicized but I can almost guarantee you that the airlines keep track of close calls through post flight reports.

Oh my god

You win

Waymo will be contacting you shortly.

well done

nice pun

In Owen Wilson's voice

Actually, software that notes situations where things went out of parameter limits is a necessary thing. Otherwise you can't learn where the software needs improvement.
So some situation confuses the software and sensors. And the software reports it. And the developers tune the software, maybe upgrade the sensors. Maybe the sensors get confused over contrast in particular light conditions. Maybe some forms of curb confuse the sensors and the car hits the curb. Maybe it can't figure out train crossings properly. Yada yada, each situation gets recognized, software and hardware upgraded to deal with it, and then they know what to test for.
The potential benefits are huge.
It is quite reasonable to expect that the accident rate could be reduced by a factor of 10, possibly much more. So it means your morning commute will have a lot fewer accidents screwing up traffic. Driverless cars will also have radio to communicate with eachother, and computers that can do simulations. They will be able to choose the best route for the shortest travel time. And coordinate with each other so that you don't suddenly get every commuter going on the south option and leaving the north option empty.
And it means your insurance (with regard to collisions) should be correspondingly cheaper. Maybe you can add about $5000 to the price of the car and get lifetime insurance. Insurance that could be part of the resale of the car. No more monthly insurance costs.
That will also correspond to a dramatically reduced death and injury rate due to collisions. The vid mentioned deaths. But there are a corresponding number of serious injuries each year also. If you get injured seriously and spend months in hospital then rehab, maybe with things that never go away like scars or damage to your internal organs. Or worse. You may lose your income during this time. And you will have big medical bills, even if your insurance, or the other guy's insurance, pays for it. These cars can reduce the inicdent of those kinds of injuries. That will save costs to the health system as well as reducing the injury and death.
Theft might be squeezed a bit also. Your autonomous car might know you and refuse to budge for anybody not you. Or designated members of your family. Or it might go, but be calling the police while it goes, giving full video to the cops of both the inside and outside of the car. So if you get somebody jumping in your car with a gun and telling you to drive, the car goes but sees the gun, and calls the cops giving them full particulars. The car and the cops coordinate to agree where and when they grab the thief. After a few incidents where a wanna-be thief is caught this way, people might get the idea that car theft is a bad move.
It should mean that emergency vehicles have a much better time. The emergency vehicle will be sending radio messages out ahead and the autonomous cars will be getting out of the way in advance. Side streets would stop to clear intersections. It means the fire truck can motor down the middle of the road at maximum speed. The autonomous cars can also be announcing "Firetruck approaching. Please move to the sidewalk." Or some such announcement. And pedestrians can be out of the way. Your ambulance might be able to cut travel times significantly. In the US, there are roughly 6000 ambulance collisions per year, and 3000 fire truck collisions pe year. Driverless cars could reduce those, maybe by much more than a factor of 10.
You decide you want to go to the office. You dial up your car, which is in a parking lot ten minutes away. It starts itself up and comes to your front door. It drives you to your office. During the drive, you can be reading or watching vids or whatever. At your office, you get out, and the car goes and finds a parking lot nearby. When you are ready to go home, you reverse the process. It means you don't need parking directly at your home or office, just a big parking lot nearby. Which means you can plan things differently both in commercial or industrial areas and residential areas. You can remove the garage and driveway from your home and devote that space and area to something else.

@@colinfloyd5788 How many years do you think it's gonna be before Owen Wilson is hired to voice the voice system of the car?

@@puppetsock 1948 - john orwin

Wamo: "ughh, c'mon! ... must be a human driving... yup! Hooooman!!"

How about good public transport and well designed cities?

@@albertkwalsh public transport LOOOL what makes you think i want to share my transport space with you?

@@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130 trust me buddy, it's mutual

@@albertkwalsh clearly it isnt mutual, since you obviously want public transport.
ill ask again, what makes you think i want to sit with the lower classes?

@@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130 Well you see, in europe, taking public transport isn't for poor people, it's a a better way of getting around than with a car.
It's completely fine if you don't want to take it but you should have to pay a premium to use a car. High gas prices, taxing cars and so on.

Yes to that

And it will be made by Skynet having determined the human race is unable to survive its own flawed existence prompting the onset of the robot war

But man they won't be able to crash those cars into each other , kind of leaving no space for suspense and action xD

Lightning McQueen will be the last car with a human driver, who has to learn to trust his AI.

This makes no sense

I doubt that's a coincidence 😂

😂

Imagine on the website booking your ride:
Car1: RIP
Car2: RIP
Car3: available
Car4: RIP
....

Let me RIP in peace

😂😂😂😂

what specifically do you think humans do better? (in context of cars of course)

I commute 90 mins to work everyday. I can’t wait to get into one of these and just sleep till I arrive at the office.

Yeah just add an alarm and boom an extra 90 minutes of sleep

You are not disabled.
You just said on another video that you ran a marathon and feel so happy you completed.

@Paul Martin he’s just wrong. On every account. I have never and will never run a marathon (or claimed to do so). Regardless, I can list off the top of my head a dozen different categories of disabilities that could do a marathon but not drive. No idea where he got this idea from.

This is going to be life-changing for a lot of people who can't drive (or can't drive well).

@yuitr loing relatable

You did not

you are truly The Man, Dan

They cant even drift

@@9ishesh when you put it that way.

@@demosdown9812 dude anyone into cars will drive themselves. Imagin someone is chasing you and your car decide, nah we cant break speed limit.

hello there, how you are you doing today

So Derek doesn't have to hear Ding Ding Ding Ding... his whole ride I guess :)

sure the the autonomous car cannot predict what the meatbag driven cars will do, sometimes it is hard to evade an accident caused by another vehicle

*hold on to your papers*

@@tgmtf5963 get ready to squeeze those papers!

Thats cute. Get ready for speed limits to go down.

And create a whole ton of noise.
Imagine trying to get to sleep in a world where cars are whizzing by at 200km/h+ outside your windows.

@@riverw4721 do you live in a service station?

“Oh my god, that car was so hot, was he looking at me??”
*Computes 20 billion possibilities*

@@realchezboi mmmm look at that model 1980 classic

AI cars not doing this thing. It works more like human brain.

Imagine the car suddenly stops in the middle of the road because it is having a anxiety attack XD

@@realchezboi Out of the 20 billion possibilities there is only one in which that girl car would go on a date with him

Insurance fraud?

Not hard to believe. I've had 3 "crashes" with pedestrians in my 20+ years driving... All 3 I was stopped at a red light and some idiotic cyclist crashed into the side of my door trying to squeeze between cars. One of them got killed after he blew threw a red light after smacking the side of my door. Cyclists are suicidal.

@@Hathur See, this is why I never learned to ride a bicycle. Also, yikes.

@@Hathur I've only every had 1 incedent with a pedestrian. I was literally sitting in stopped bumper to bumper traffic, and this cyclist just bangs on my window.. like I'm suppose to move out of his way or something? I was in a Tundra, so rather large truck.. but um yea what do you want me to do? People are dumb.

In almost all cases, there was a vehicle-pedestrian collision.
True story.

It would probably drive slower and more carefully than most people would in the same situation. It would also be able to use the data gathered about the width of the road, other cars positions, and the edges of the road to determine its own correct positioning

I think that there's a reason that is done in a warm climate on wide straight roads, not in snowy, icy regions with winding lanes, bad pavement, blowing grocery bags. You know, like stuff that makes it complicated. Some years back, I thought "wow, DARPA really seems to think that teams have cracked this". Then, cars driving into the sides of buses or the bottoms of crossing tractor trailer trucks, or unable to distinguish between a stopped fire truck and an overheard sign. That last was like, if you can't solve that basic motion problem, that's the most basic 0.00001% of the problem. Ok, long way to go, if ever.

@@bearcubdaycare MINNESOTA MOMENT

How well do humans handle these conditions? (I don't think they handle it very well tbh). There's really no reason why these cars can't (eventually, after enough training) handle ANY situation better than a human.

@@bearcubdaycare I see autonomous cars from multiple companies driving around everyday in San Francisco. They are coming sooner than you think.

Aye. I mean I have panic attacks trying to start a car and get it rolling along with muscle problems in my legs that give me lead feet, but live in a part of rural NSW, Australia where it's a 40km/25mi to the next town and a 110km/70mi+ drive to the nearest cities so having a car is kinda required if I need to go any further than my grocer down the road and expect to carry anything more than some light breakfast and lunch makings in shopping bags.

Exactly

This comment should be way up higher.

That's implied. You figured it out and so did I.

@@alankwellsmsmba that’s definitely not implied in this video and almost no one knows that

@@james3803 But he did say that they are only in a certain part of Phoenix? Near the beginning of the video.

Only if you've paid for the $199/mo premium package.

@@CrouchingGrandpa this is a taxi service.

The biggest issue, I think, is predictability and corrections to failures. Like the whole reason why there are pilots in the airplanes. If the system encounters a failure, either mechanical or electronic-wise, the auto-pilot will be very challenged in correcting the issue, whereas humans might have the right ingenuity to compromise or otherwise strategise in the situation.

@@zrize101 I don't think air planes and cars are comparable, you can stop a car, you can't stop and airplane

Some People dont even learn from their own mistakes so :D

Up next: driverless pedestrians

@@maulerrw That sounds like drunk people already

Or maybe the car just stop immediately Infront of them? I think more details are needed to get a picture of what happened

Were they actually intoxicated?

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Maybe they were scammers trying to get some cash from the Waymo mobile ATM :>

Millions of miles and they still won’t step outside easy layout of Phoenix roads. I dare them to come to Boston.

I also welcome them to Northern Europe in December or Central Europe in general. Let's see how they do when the lanes aren't as wide as a football field and originally designed for horse carriages.
(They will get there, I'm sure. Just not in 2024.)

It is like you guys are expecting them to fail. I am actually surprised It is taking this long. Here in Brazil, traffic is chaotic, roads are usually not good enough and drivers can be really agressive and irresponsible. I can't wait to see self-driving cars everywhere.

It's not an ad: the vast majority of his audience cannot use Waymo's services because they don't operate in that area. It's not about finding customers, it's about increasing public support.
There is an argument to be made that it might be called lobbying, but don't call it an ad when it's not.
Also, I don't care who gives me arguments about self-driving cars; what matters is the facts: are autonomous cars safer than human-driven ones or not? From all I can see, the evidence is steadily accumulating in favor of autonomous cars.

@@momom6197 it literally is an ad. Waymo paid for this video to be made. It was part of a promotional campaign wherein Waymo paid multiple youtube channels to make videos. This is not an unprompted video that Waymo just happened to sponsor.
An ad is still an ad when it also reaches people who can't purchase your products or services. Lobbying is about influencing government or legislation which isn't at play here.

you joking?
that dude probly has a nice cuchy contract and is in charge of a whole division

it really isn't hard to imagine. I doubt it was a first day thing. regardless of warning the monotony of the daily commute would build. it is exactly why the use cases were such a good demonstration of what you can expect of the general public. People are quick to trust a system when things are going well and quick to forget surveillance when it isn't regularly brought up. I dont think this requires any excessive amount of comfort in ones job.

Actually, this scenario is the most dangerous. Humans are terrible watcher for machines.
Take flying planes, theres lots of tasks to keep the pilots entertained while the auto-pilot does its think, because they discovered if you totally do 100% of the things and expect the human to act in the critical situations only, it will fail so badly. That's what the fly-by-wire engineers don't tell the pilots, nor the public, but the plane could actually literally fly itself without pilot, but it doesn't have total environment awareness.
So you either let the human drive, which is safer, or go full autonomous 4 level and don't allow the human to touch the machine.

*imagine being so tired you sleep

But the public is yuckyyyyy ewww... why would we want to help them

@@toericabaker I pretty sure you are just joking but in case you aren’t….. if your public transport sucks, that’s because we haven’t invest enough into them. Public transportation are purposely underfunded due to automotive industry that lobbied for cities to build and prioritize their infrastructure around private vehicles rather than an encompassing public transportation system

@@oakoakoak2219 yes, i'm joking. i am a poor myself!

I sub to More than bikes and Adam Something. I love public transit. KC was gonna get a rail extension until covid happened, and the city drank our budget into other projects

@@toericabaker Thats really frustrating. Theres this trade school I want to go to that's like a 20 minute walk from a train station but only freight goes through the town for some reason. Its like a 50 minute drive from my town.

Most modern planes are mostly automated and pilot do very little in it. The stuff we do in planes can be simply automated but it is more of a red tape. I hope it stays that way so I have a job security.

Almost like a suppressed pogchamp lol

For me, Derek was way too much tech-fanboy, not even once offering a critical thought. Because these cars, when in doubt, always err on the side of caution, they tend to violate our reasonable expectations especially in low-speed situations. Remember this sudden hard stop in the parking lot? I can easily imagine how those 3 pedestrians got their expectation about the cars movement suddenly betrayed and instead of slipping past behind, walking into the car! The cars constantly predict their surroundings and we do exactly the same, but at times in a very different way.

@@FelixFranz I understand, however if we adapt to these cars on the road (easily recognizable), I'm sure these things are not so much an issue anymore. I still think it is worth the trade-off: thousands of deadly incidents each year vs minor injuries because of low speed bumps into a stationary vehicle.

@@FelixFranz maybe the solution is that pedestrians just shouldn't walk through moving traffic..... Idk, maybe that's a bit too crazy an idea to work.

@@FelixFranz I'm struggling to actually picture the scenario in which a pedestrian expects to pass behind a car, the car instead stops, and then the pedestrian slams into the car at enough force to cause injury -- and of course that would still be human error, and pedestrians not paying enough attention while on a road to not walk into a car should feel lucky they walked into an autonomous one and didn't get run over by a human controlled one.
I think part of the hypey tone in the vid is due to the frustration with people's attitudes toward autonomous tech, while human driven cars continue to be one of the most dangerous elements of our lives. My main transportation method is cycling, and almost getting run over by a driver not paying attention is a daily occurrence in my life. At this point, I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm not injured or dead is that many modern cars automatically brake to avoid these types of collisions.
(Oh, and also, I don't think the sudden brake was unreasonable. If a pedestrian reaches a crosswalk while a car is behind the crosswalk, the car is supposed to stop -- that's a reasonable expectation. The fact that drivers almost never actually do this is the unreasonable bit, and why pedestrians will feel much safer crossing the street when they know no humans are going to try and swerve around them at a crosswalk.)

Lol

Just put a cut out of Chuck Norris in the seat

Do you like Matthias?

The guy in your pfp

@@rapinsanramesh8074 I don't watch him anymore. I created that pfp years ago.

Yep, that's why cars are being automated the last and need the most sophisticated software of the three.

To be fair, there's been Elevator collisions with the ground. If someone crashes into the side of a freeway overpass you wouldn't say that car wasn't in a collision because it hit a wall instead of another car.

Elevator crashes are rare but not never, you probably are forgetting it can crash at the bottom, or actually more likely, at the top (the balance weight is heavier so in most cases where an elevator crashed it was into the ceiling)

What is the point of this comment?

Planes collide with the ground everytime they land.
See, I too can use language to sound clever but ultimately say nothing.

Hard agree

Definitely agree

Tom Nicholas?

@@KaProLax think the guy wrote this before Tom's video

Damn right.

To be fair it's lacking details on if the car was moving but was stationary at the impact, which a pedestrian wouldn't expect. Idc enough to check tho

We created traffic rules that even our limited brains can understand. More or less intuitively.

Not true. You can google it. The car hit and killed a woman because if you aren't in a designated crosswalk apparently the car doesn't recognize you. The problem with this is in some places like where I'm at in Florida if you use a crosswalk people hit you because they turn without looking so most people run across the street when there is a break in traffic because traffic basically never stops at the crosswalks. Or consider a country road someone crossing the street to check their mail or something. Then you have the jobs crisis what happens when nobody has a job because its all automated which is already becoming a problem. These self driving cars might be ok on short commutes in a well ordered city but there should be serious limitations put on them. Of course law makers bought and paid for by donors are unlikely to do the right thing unless another trump comes along.

@@raymondkidwell7135, that was a different technology from UBER. Google/Waymo did it the right way.

“Oh, it’s one of those driversless cars. Better watch out, it can hit the brakes at any moment for no discernible reason”
I get that without AI level communication in our own brains, it can be dangerous to have vehicles with a new movement pattern.
I’m all for driverless cars, but when they break on the highway and claim innocence because others were too close to their tails or something…

something's wrong, i can feel it...

Wait..

Here before 100

@@sqrvssl Text-to-speech mouse pointer.

Good for you buddy.

Journalistic ethics is literally dead. The moment the advertiser has input into the video you are no longer a journalist. This content has no business having his or the channels name attached to it. Weymo is literally running a carpet bomb campaign to manipulate public opinion. An ethical video would have been him, doing a video about self driving cars with ZERO direction from the company about what to say or do but this is abusive of the trust his viewers place in him. His channel is now an entertainment channel not a learning channel. As far as I am concerned NOTHING he says from this point should be trusted as being impartial, his actual opinion, or accurate. Sadly most people can not separate that.

And why would that not be able to be done other places? I feel like that would almost be a necessity for most cities, how would the car know where to go otherwise? This feels like an extremely weak criticism.

@@bradenculver7457 it's because he failed to mention it, he implied that the car only uses lidar which is just lying by omission.

@@kennethkho7165 I disagree completely. He doesn’t have to mention every caveat, especially with the fact I imagine every city will require some mapping in order for the car to actually, you know, know where it is going. Your car isn’t even going to know where Walmart is unless there is some mapping of the area. No autonomous car could rely solely on LiDAR, it would have no reference of where to actually go.

I mean, the car has to start somewhere, right? I’d imagine if given enough time and money, they could have 3D maps of every city and town. What? Do you think you’ll be able to hop in one right now and drive up snowy mountain roads in Colorado?
I guess I’m just confused what you expected from him, and I agree this isn’t a very strong argument/criticism.