A military analyst, a retired U.S. Army officer Ralph Peters has quit his position because he thinks Fox News is not being impartial as a news source but biased towards the current president. He has been working at Fox for over a decade and now he feels ashamed to work there. He did not want to continue working in a place that favors the president. Fox News for him, is not “providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices.” He also accused Fox of creating conspiracy theories and plots that cannot be proved. I agree with him, if the news outlet fails to be ethical and lacks credibility I would not like to work there either. Self-driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam. March 19/18, New York Times. …show more content…
I do not understand how a driver, in this case Rafaela Vasquez, did not take control of the vehicle if she was seating behind a wheel and is obviously responsible in my opinion for this tragedy. The “safety driver” did not pay attention to the road as in the video it is showed that she was looking “down and to the side”, even though she said she was “alert” and there is nothing she could have done to avoid the accident. “It was believed that this is the first pedestrian death associated with self-driving technology”. The company has stopped the testing in different cities, unfortunately, technologies advances sometimes brings human casualties to the mix. Self-driving cars should regulate better the “safety drivers” maybe she was looking at her phone instead to pay attention to the
The news industry has been known to supply heart wrenching stories from around the world, right to our living rooms. What most people do not know is, how reliable IS Fox news? Considering news is a part of mass media, you would not think any information that makes it on there would be altered in any way- except for length and clarity- but some of the “stories” do get altered, almost to a point where it seems biased and too emotional. The portrayal of information in Fox news relies heavily on ratings, causing them to only display emotional stories and not what should be news worthy.
With every large successful materialistic object or figure in society comes its pros and cons. For the Fox News Channel, these pros and cons include its overall ratings and viewership. For over a number of years Fox News has remained atop of the rating scale in the number one spot, providing the public with the news. People claim it is biased and justly unfair, however, it is that very news that they produce which has made it famous and one of the most well respected news networks to this day.
Fox news is right wing garbage. They are highly subjective and you would do yourself better by not watching the news entirely as opposed to watching
For a while, Self Driving Cars, have never really been a thought, to be thought about in the driving industry. It has always been the regular transportation, like regular cars, trains and other types of transportation for getting around. It was crazy enough to have thought about self driving cars, but now to start to make and produce self driving cars, is even crazier. The question is, is it safe to have these cars on the road? Also what kind of hazards might these vehicles be for people who decide to purchase them? Bob Lutz from (www.cnbc.com) states that “"The autonomous car doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, doesn't text while driving, doesn't get road rage,". This shows that in Bob’s opinion, the self driving car, could be safer than the
Finally, if an accident were to occur involving a self-driving car, the question of “who is responsible” is raised. This is a difficult question that needs to be addressed with laws that govern liability in these situations.
Ethical issues are, among those, the most notable ones. In “Why Self-Driving Cars”(2015), it arises a typical ethics dilemma when a driverless car can be programmed to either save the passengers by endangering the innocent nearby or sacrifice its owner to avoid crashing into a crowd. Knight(2015) cites Chris Gerdes, a professor at Stanford University, who gave another scenario when a automated car can save a child’s life but injure the occupant in the car. The real problem is, as indicated by Deng(2015), a car cannot reason and come up with ethical choices and decisions itself like a human does as it must be preprogrammed to respond, which leads to mass concerns. In fact, programmers and designers shoulder the responsibility since those tough choices and decisions should all be made by them prior to any of those specific emergencies while the public tends tolerates those “pre-made errors” less(Knight, 2015; Lin, 2015). In addition to the subjective factors of SDCs developing, Bonnefon and co concludes a paradox in public opinions: people are disposed to be positive with the automated algorithm which is designed to minimize the casualty while being cautious about owning a vehicle with such algorithm which can possibly endanger themselves.(“Why Self-Driving Cars”,
Although pedestrians aren't always faultless, too many pedestrian wrongful deaths occur because of driver negligence or recklessness. This problem isn't a motorist vs pedestrian issue because everyone, motorists included, are pedestrians. When motorists step out of their cars to cross a street or walk through a parking lot to get to a building,
It might be hard to see where the self-driving car could have issues with safety but an interesting question arises when an accident is unavoidable. The question posed is “How should the car be programmed to act in the event of an unavoidable accident? Should it minimize the loss of life, even if it means sacrificing the occupants, or should it protect the occupants at all costs? Should it choose between these extremes at random?” (ArXiv). This is a very interesting question surrounding ethics. I’m not sure if there is a right answer to the question, which could stall the self-driving car industry. Before self-driving cars are mass produced a solution needs to be found to the question about unavoidable accidents. Although this question is a problem, there may not be a need to address the problem. It is said that “"driver error is believed to be the main reason behind over 90 percent of all crashes" with drunk driving, distracted drivers, failure to remain in one lane and falling to yield the right of way the main causes.” (Keating). Self-driving cars could eliminate those problems entirely and maybe with all cars on the road being self-driving cars, there would be no “unavoidable accidents”. Safety is the main issue the self-driving car is trying to solve in transportation and seems to do a good job at
Fox News has always been the number one news source for US citizens. However after numerous incidents which I will elaborate now, your credibility has become poor. Firstly I want to discuss the intimidating of guest speakers on your open debates and interviews, if I remember correctly back in 2003 on the O’Reilly show. Mr Jeremy Glick was invited for an interview on why he signed a petition revolting against the Iraqi war. Mr O’Reilly proceeded to call Mr Glick uninformed and even threatened him to “Shut up.”
In July 12, The New York Times reported a news: “Inside the self-driving Tesla fatal accident”, which again caused enormous debates on whether self-driving cars should be legal or not.
Automotive executives touting self-driving cars as a way to make commuting more productive or relaxing may want to consider another potential marketing pitch: safety (Hirschauge, 2016). The biggest reason why these cars will make a safer world is that accident rates will enormously drop. There is a lot of bad behavior a driver exhibit behind the wheel, and a computer is actually an ideal motorist. Since 81 percent of car crashes are the result of human error, computers would take a lot of danger out of the equation entirely. Also, some of the major causes of accidents are drivers who become ill at the time of driving. Some of the examples of this would be a seizure, heart attack, diabetic reactions, fainting, and high or low blood pressure. Autonomous cars will surely remedy these types of occurrences making us
This is the main reason of the road accident was the cell phone usage while driving. The estimated value of the cell phone users while driving in the United States of America is over the value of 100 million. Due to many safety concerns the restrictions are made over the use of cell phones while driving. There is the research that tells the clear scenario that those drivers are more proved dangerous who use cell phones during driving. On the other hand the intoxicated drivers are less problem creative as compare to the cell phones distracted
The engineering that goes into a driverless car covers all areas of mechanics, computing software and so on which still tends to frighten some drivers of its monstrosity on the inside. In the article “Google Cars Becoming Safer: Let the Robots Drive” it states that, “The economic lift from ridding the roads of human-driven vehicles would be over $190 billion per year. That would primarily come from reducing property damage caused by low-speed collisions”(Salkever). The point is that when driverless cars hit the road the cost of low-speed collision and save consumers money will be reduced. In the article “ Google Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers” Slakever states that “One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage — paralyzing Google’s robot”(Bosker). Current drivers have never followed the rule of the road, which have made the road more prone to any accident. Drivers have found the upper hand on not following traffic laws that makes manufacturing driverless car more meticulous to decrease accidents and breaking traffic laws. The fact that driverless car sensors can detect the errors of other human driven car is extraordinary. Human driven cars are trying to stick to the status quo of the roads when in reality human driven cars are breaking valuable innovation that will make the roads safe for generations to
Autopilot, the self-driving feature in the new Tesla car, is a controversial subject because it puts the car’s computer in control of all driving responsibilities. To activate this autonomous mode, all the driver has to do is push a button and the computer has full control of the vehicle. The sole responsibility of the driver is to pay close attention to the way the car brakes, steers, and accelerates, while in autopilot mode. Amazingly, there has only been one known fatality involving a Tesla vehicle while driving in autopilot. In an article written by Jordan Golson and published by The Verge, this first fatality in a Tesla vehicle driving in autopilot is covered with great detail.
Uber gave the mayor the first driverless car to try the driverless car to let the company test the car in Pittsburgh (Kang, 2016). Moreover, Uber is the first company in the United State especially in Pittsburgh testing the driverless car there ("Uber Self Driving Car, " 2016). In addition, the employees of Uber who are working in Pittsburgh are using the driverless car to go to their work ("Uber Self Driving Car, " 2016). However, many experts says that it will be many years until driverless cars are available for people and public ("Uber Self Driving Car, "