Reply to post:

$100m settlement snub: Super Cali goes ballistic, says Uber deal atrocious

bazza Silver badge

"Though the cars will be driving themselves, Uber says a human driver will be behind the wheel to "supervise" the operation of the vehicle and help train their artificial brains."

Frankly I have never heard anything so bonkers as that idea. Come and be a passenger in our beta-test cars whilst some underpaid and bored individual day dreams in the driver's seat? Yeah right.

It's a strategy that stands a very small chance of success, and risks exposing them to some huge liabilities. The end goal can be achieved only if legislation is passed to allow it, and that will surely push the liability for failures onto Uber. If there's even the merest hint that their self driving cars aren't safe, they're toast.

Meanwhile their bored and underpaid "driver" will most definitely be classed as an employee of Uber, and will be a permanent feature if legislation allowing unsupervised cars is not passed (as seems likely), or if Uber fail to demonstrate an adequate level of reliability (as seems equally likely, I doubt they've achieved results any better than Google's cars in California). In which case, why not just have a driver?

There's also the issue that, human nature being what it is, an unmanned Uber-cab will become the transport of choice for the seriously inebriated who can't get any other ride, vulnerable to petty vandalism or careless damage and will therefore not be the most enjoyable of rides. People behave pretty badly even when there's someone else in the car; without that social restraint it'd only be worse.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon