Self-driving vehicle strikes and kills pedestrian

Classa64 · Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:46 pm

Thoughts.... ?

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireS ... a-53853445

One quote...
"Autonomous vehicles don't drive drunk, don't get sleepy and aren't easily distracted. But they do have faults."

I would say this is a really big fault.
Its going to be a touchy subject if they charge the back -up driver.... who do you blame?
The car that's suppose to be better than us, quicker reactions etc, the guy monitoring OR the lady crossing the road outside the lines.

C.

* Please delete if posted somewhere else, could not find anything

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:44 am

We don't actually know the cause of the accident. If it was a failure of the autonomous system or the victim stepping into the path unexpectedly. But I am certain we will find this out fairly quickly one way or the other. From the linked article:

the Uber vehicle was traveling around 40 mph when it hit Helzberg immediately as she stepped on to the street.

Neither she nor the backup driver showed signs of impairment, he said.

The public's image of the vehicles will be defined by stories like the crash in Tempe, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies self-driving vehicles.

Although the Uber vehicle and its human backup could be at fault, it may turn out that there was nothing either could have done to stop the crash, he said.

Uber was absolutely right in halting all tests until more is learned. I am sure it is all captured on video and the other imaging systems in the vehicle.

My condolences to the family and friends of the woman who was hit.

Tugg

salttee · Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:33 am

How many miles total have driverless cars put on the road so far?
How many (million) miles driven is the average between pedestrian fatalities?

Once we have those two numbers we can predict the future of driverless cars in our (or at least my) lifetime.

Jouhou · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:45 am

Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

af773atmsp · Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:09 am

Do these companies not have the resources to build massive closed courses? Why not have that and have crash test dummies that you can push in front of an autonomous car and see what happens?

I hope city planners aren't hopping on the hype wagon with a supposed benefit of autonomous vehicles being no more traffic signals. Did people forget pedestrians and bikers exist? And how long before the majority of people choose an autonomous car? Will non-autonomous cars eventually be outlawed? There are many questions on autonomous cars, but people are focusing on possible benefits and ignoring the issues.

flipdewaf · Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:58 am

It would be silly to expect there not to be accidents but there should be a voice between "Progress shall not be halted" and "don't let it loose till its 100% safe". Reasonable actions taken based on the known facts is what should be done.
Perhaps a greater level on public education about the dangers of autonomous vehicles, here in the U.K. We were always told to stop look and listen, maybe it is habitually better to wave and shout before you cross.

Autonomous cars are coming and will be the release for true automobile enjoyment in the future.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ACDC8 · Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:44 am

flipdewaf wrote:

Autonomous cars are coming and will be the release for true automobile enjoyment in the future.

Autonomous cars are the complete opposite of true automobile enjoyment.

Redd · Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:03 am

This also sets a very interesting (and dangerous) legal precedent. Who is to be be held responsible in similar cases? The car can be at fault but there has to be a human ultimately held to account and take punishment.

JJJ · Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:45 am

Redd wrote:
This also sets a very interesting (and dangerous) legal precedent. Who is to be be held responsible in similar cases? The car can be at fault but there has to be a human ultimately held to account and take punishment.

The company will. Anything over level 3 self-driving means the machine is legally responsible.

I assume Uber and Volvo have some sort of agreement on who's taking the hit.

Also, since it was Arizona who authorised self-driving tests the family of the deceased have a shot at going against the government, too.

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:11 pm

They are continuing to investigate, the initial review indicates the victim stepped into the roadway without warning:

TEMPE, Ariz. -- Police say early indications show an Uber self-driving SUV may not have had time to stop or avoid hitting a pedestrian who was killed Sunday night. Uber suspended all testing of its autonomous vehicles after the crash, which is the first-known pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car.

Police say 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg was walking from a median into the lane with the self-driving Uber,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-self- ... olice-say/

Pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags, a woman abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic and was struck by a self-driving Uber operating in autonomous mode.

“The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” said Sylvia Moir, police chief in Tempe, Ariz., the location for the first pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 765481.php

Still a lot more investigation ahead and this will shape the policies for future autonomous regulation. One thing I noted is that the speed limit was 35 and the car was going 38, while that may be "normal" for a lot of human drivers I think autonomous cars will be required to hew to the speed limit.

Tugg

einsteinboricua · Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:49 pm

Classa64 wrote:
Its going to be a touchy subject if they charge the back -up driver.... who do you blame?
The car that's suppose to be better than us, quicker reactions etc, the guy monitoring OR the lady crossing the road outside the lines.

The car is only as good as its programming so the machine is not to blame.

The blame falls in both the guy monitoring and the lady crossing outside the lines:
1. The guy's reaction was probably too little to late to stop the car in time, so I'd be more lenient with him, though as the figure monitoring, I'd say he should have been ready to react if driving through a busy area.
2. The lady crossing outside the lines (ie. jaywalking). A pedestrian has the right of way, but only in the correct circumstances. Otherwise, they're liable for accidents caused. If I crossed an interstate on foot, cars are under no obligation to stop and any accidents are mine and mine alone.

My guess is that the cars are only programmed to respect pedestrians only on pedestrian crossings (ie. intersections and designated crosswalks).

If the car doesn't see the "piano keys" or the pedestrian signs, it does not stop/slowdown.

PPVRA · Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:03 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Classa64 wrote:
If the car doesn't see the "piano keys" or the pedestrian signs, it does not stop/slowdown.

If that was the case, we'd have seen far more accidents than we have thus far. The real world doesn't run as prescribed, which is why real world testing like this is important.

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:12 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
My guess is that the cars are only programmed to respect pedestrians only on pedestrian crossings (ie. intersections and designated crosswalks).

If the car doesn't see the "piano keys" or the pedestrian signs, it does not stop/slowdown.

No way, there is simply no way in hell that is or would ever be the case. That would be a complete failure and the end of all autonomous driving.
The cars are programmed to avoid or react immediately to a situation, from an accident/stopped vehicle ahead to a dear in the road, or if a pedestrian encroaches. Just look and the current simple "auto-brake" systems that are popping up on cars (and in commercials) everywhere now.

(BTW many, if not most, crosswalks don't have/use the piano-keys design, nor do they have signs. Many aren't even marked/painted on the roadway at all.)

Tugg

casinterest · Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:23 pm

Autonomous cars will have to have a lot of programming to handle special situations.
The question I have here is that this car was Autonomous but it had a human monitor.
Was that Human Monitor paying attention?
If he/she was, was there any way the monitor could have avoided this accident?
Was the bicyclist paying attention to oncoming traffic when they crossed into the road?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the investigation

Revelation · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:05 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Autonomous cars are coming and will be the release for true automobile enjoyment in the future.

This type of issue is exactly why autonomous cars are going to die on the evolutionary vine, despite the billions of at-risk capital pumped their way.

ACDC8 wrote:
Autonomous cars are the complete opposite of true automobile enjoyment.

Word.

2122M · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:06 pm

Here we have a truly fascinating case that could possibly set standards for the future of road transportation.

Of course Fox News is looking at it from a different angle....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/op ... -says.html

Stay classy Fox.

casinterest · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:10 pm

2122M wrote:
Here we have a truly fascinating case that could possibly set standards for the future of road transportation.

Of course Fox News is looking at it from a different angle....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/op ... -says.html

Stay classy Fox.

At least there was some decent reporting in it.
""The pedestrian was outside of the crosswalk, so it was midblock," Elcock said. "And as soon as she walked into the laneof traffic, she was struck by the vehicle.""

Looks like the car and the driver had no chance to avoid if this is the case. However I wonder if the Car was programmed to "give leeway to bikes"

As a side note, it is articles like these from Fox that are totally uncalled for. The folks at Fox are absolutely vile incompetent filth that only exist to gaslight like Abusive monsters.

SheikhDjibouti · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:14 pm

salttee wrote:
How many miles total have driverless cars put on the road so far?
How many (million) miles driven is the average between pedestrian fatalities?

Once we have those two numbers we can predict the future of driverless cars in our (or at least my) lifetime.

Based on a sample of.... one fatality?

That's not how math works.

Unfortunately it is exactly how an uncritical public swayed by short-sighted media works.

We can talk again after there have been at least four incidents, preferably ten (¹). And it shouldn't matter whether the incident kills one person, a family of five, or results in a train crash killing 400, it is still a single incident.

If at the same time, you can identify data pertaining to near misses, that would be useful too.
How many times was somebody injured, but not killed, thanks to the quick reactions of an autonomous vehicle.
How many times was somebody not injured at all, for the same reason.
I suspect particularly in this second case, such data is going to be very difficult to find. How do you qualify a report when "nothing happened"?

(¹) If that sounds like I am campaigning for more people to step in front of Uber taxis, I apologize.

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:26 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
How do you qualify a report when "nothing happened"?

Actually with all the data logging systems the cars will have, the service providers/developers will probably download all and any incidents daily to help continuously improve the systems ability. And if they have such data, if they area smart, then it would be a good idea to open such "saves" to the public so they can see just what they do prevent.

Regardless if they release it openly they will most definitely have the data on "saves".

Tugg

frmrCapCadet · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:51 pm

Actually the 2 deaths of autonomous and semi-autonomous (Tesla's) along with other incidents provide pretty good preliminary data. There may be thousands of autonomous cars doing intensive testing. One thing muddying that data is forward warning with automatic braking, lane departure, backing up cameras (which as an older driver I intend to get this year). I believe it was Consumer Reports who said IIRC 25% of cars with that feature will reduce rear-end accidents by 85%.

If in this sad case, the woman accidentally wheeled her bicycle into the traffic lane and was immediately hit, avoiding the accident would have been impossible.

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Very sad situation. As I mentioned the system does record everything and so far it is showing as likely unavoidable due to the abruptness of the incursion.

Police say a video from the Uber self-driving car that struck and killed a woman Sunday shows her moving in front of it suddenly, a factor that investigators are likely to focus on as they assess the performance of the technology in the first pedestrian fatality involving an autonomous vehicle.

The Uber had a forward-facing video recorder, which showed the woman was walking a bike at about 10 p.m. and moved into traffic from a dark center median. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode,” Sylvia Moir, police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... iving-uber

I am curious how the vehicle did react, how immediately the brakes were applied etc. Or if it didn't react at all because it didn't register.

Tugg

scbriml · Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
This type of issue is exactly why autonomous cars are going to die on the evolutionary vine, despite the billions of at-risk capital pumped their way.

It seems some people have totally unrealistic expectations of what an autonomous car can do and should be able to do.

It will be impossible to ever make an autonomous car that is guaranteed to never be involved in an accident. As we will likely see from this incident, there's little any car can do (whether driven by computer or human) to avoid the type of accident this looks like being - a person simply steps directly in front of the car leaving insufficient time to avoid the collision. From what I've read about this accident, a human driver would not have been able to prevent it.

What can pretty much be guaranteed is that autonomous cars will significantly reduce most of the more common accidents. If they can do that while also causing fewer accidents than human drivers (won't be difficult), then pretty much everyone wins.

Jalap · Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:08 pm

ACDC8 wrote:
Autonomous cars are the complete opposite of true automobile enjoyment.

Why?
"Automobile enjoyment" in my view in driving on a lonely road through mountains or wide plains or along the coast or wherever the beauty of the world exposes itself.
Yet as soon as one is in (busy) traffic, I fail to see what you mean with enjoyment. This would be FAR more enjoyable if you eliminated the human factor.

Revelation · Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
This type of issue is exactly why autonomous cars are going to die on the evolutionary vine, despite the billions of at-risk capital pumped their way.

It seems some people have totally unrealistic expectations of what an autonomous car can do and should be able to do.

It will be impossible to ever make an autonomous car that is guaranteed to never be involved in an accident. As we will likely see from this incident, there's little any car can do (whether driven by computer or human) to avoid the type of accident this looks like being - a person simply steps directly in front of the car leaving insufficient time to avoid the collision. From what I've read about this accident, a human driver would not have been able to prevent it.

What can pretty much be guaranteed is that autonomous cars will significantly reduce most of the more common accidents. If they can do that while also causing fewer accidents than human drivers (won't be difficult), then pretty much everyone wins.

As a well known media figure says, "There will be lawyers", and they won't care about what happens in most of the more common accidents, they'll care about they can make the most money for themselves and perhaps their client too.

For instance:

Sergei Lemberg, a California-based lawyer who has brought several lawsuits against self-driving car manufacturers, said that Uber, Volvo, which manufactured the sport utility vehicle, and any companies that supplied self-driving technology could potentially be held liable if litigation ensued from the Tempe accident. The “safety” driver who was behind the wheel but who appears not to have operated the vehicle could also be named as a defendant, Lemberg said. “Suing all these parties would be my top thought right now,” he said.

And:

Volvo, the Swedish car brand owned by China’s Geely, confirmed its vehicle was involved in the crash but said the software controlling the SUV was not its own. Volvo said in 2015 it would accept full liability when one of its vehicles equipped with its own self-driving system was in autonomous mode. The company said in 2017 it had agreed to supply Uber with 24,000 self-driving vehicles.

So the ambulance chaser has a line of targets to aim at, and the auto makers are blaming the software makers, etc.

Car accident litigation usually turns on whether a driver acted negligently, or failed to exercise a reasonable level of care.

By contrast, a lawsuit involving an autonomous vehicle could revolve around whether the self-driving system had a design defect, legal experts said.

Design defect claims do not require a finding of fault or negligence. To prevail, a plaintiff must show only that a product had an inherent design defect that would render it unsafe.

And now the lawyers have a whole new class of claims to file.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto ... SKBN1GW2SP

jetero · Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:49 pm

2122M wrote:
Here we have a truly fascinating case that could possibly set standards for the future of road transportation.

Of course Fox News is looking at it from a different angle....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/op ... -says.html

Stay classy Fox.

Uh oh, he had a Latino name. Surprised they didn’t put that next to “criminal” and imply links to MS-13 in the headline. Maybe I should check InfoWars.

NIKV69 · Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:16 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Not enough testing and now Uber will pay dearly.

mad99 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:26 am

Uh oh, he had a Latino name. Surprised they didn’t put that next to “criminal” and imply links to MS-13 in the headline. Maybe I should check InfoWars.

he is a criminal
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/93 ... pe-Arizona

that manbun is so hot

Aesma · Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:15 am

af773atmsp : having the car emergency brake when there is something too close in front of it is not the most complicated aspect of self driving cars. I'd say it's the simplest one, and is now offered on many non self-driving cars, all VW models for example.

If I were to speculate I'd say the woman got on the road inadvertently (fell) or didn't look at what she was doing and jumped in front of a car that had no material time (not enough distance) to brake regardless of who/what was driving.

WIederling · Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:16 am

mad99 wrote:
that manbun is so hot

"Vasquez was convicted under her first name Rafael but she now identifies as a woman".

WIederling · Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:23 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Not enough testing and now Uber will pay dearly.

A broken legal system. Maybe work on that first. Decimating lawyers would help. :-)

My guess would be that without further introductory testing things like this accident will not be touched on as a problem early enough.
only with enough immersion will you get at the trickier decisions.

Will autonomous cars ever bring enough "intelligence" to the job to judge
if that kid on his pushbike behind some parking cars just visible
may change his direction instantly because
on the other side of the road his friend is gesturing?

NIKV69 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:47 pm

jetero wrote:

Uh oh, he had a Latino name. Surprised they didn’t put that next to “criminal” and imply links to MS-13 in the headline. Maybe I should check InfoWars.

Yea too bad he wasn't a white guy huh? Not sure what this has to do with the topic and the fact that someone is dead because Uber was reckless but keep up the good fight!

2122M · Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:55 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:

Uh oh, he had a Latino name. Surprised they didn’t put that next to “criminal” and imply links to MS-13 in the headline. Maybe I should check InfoWars.

Yea too bad he wasn't a white guy huh? Not sure what this has to do with the topic and the fact that someone is dead because Uber was reckless but keep up the good fight!

The point is that Fox 'News' decided to focus the their entire reporting on this event to the fact that this guy spent time in prison, despite the fact that it had nothing at all to do with the story and that part of his life had no impact on what happened.

No need to put words in others mouths with your whole "too bad he wasn't a white guy" nonsense. No-one said that and no-one implied that.

mad99 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:05 pm

2122M wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:

Yea too bad he wasn't a white guy huh? Not sure what this has to do with the topic and the fact that someone is dead because Uber was reckless but keep up the good fight!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driv ... -klkbt7vf0

uber not to blame

Revelation · Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:29 pm

mad99 wrote:
2122M wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driv ... -klkbt7vf0

uber not to blame

Come now. One local police chief does not have the final word. This will keep lawyers busy for years.

jetero · Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:53 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:

Uh oh, he had a Latino name. Surprised they didn’t put that next to “criminal” and imply links to MS-13 in the headline. Maybe I should check InfoWars.

Yea too bad he wasn't a white guy huh? Not sure what this has to do with the topic and the fact that someone is dead because Uber was reckless but keep up the good fight!

To keep Nikky V happy . . .

We may not know yet whether this convicted felon has ties to ISIS.

I mean, no beard, but he kind of has that look . . .

ACDC8 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:55 pm

mad99 wrote:
2122M wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driv ... -klkbt7vf0

uber not to blame

You went from one persons opinion saying that Uber was "probably not to blame" to straight out "Uber not to blame"? :rotfl:

ACDC8 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:56 pm

ACDC8 wrote:
mad99 wrote:
2122M wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driv ... -klkbt7vf0

uber not to blame

You went from one persons opinion stating that Uber was "probably not to blame" to straight out "Uber not to blame"?

ACDC8 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:57 pm

Jalap wrote:
Why?
"Automobile enjoyment" in my view in driving on a lonely road through mountains or wide plains or along the coast or wherever the beauty of the world exposes itself.
Yet as soon as one is in (busy) traffic, I fail to see what you mean with enjoyment. This would be FAR more enjoyable if you eliminated the human factor.

Take the bus or train if you don't like driving in traffic :thumbsup:

Kiwirob · Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:32 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

WIederling · Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:40 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

Well, there is a difference if your death is voluntary or if you were coopted.
the lady here was coopted :-)

Kiwirob · Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:53 pm

From what I just watched on the tv she stepped out in front of the car, the car didn’t have time to react, she could have just as easily stepped out in front of a regular car, she’d be equally as dead.

SheikhDjibouti · Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:31 pm

WIederling wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

Well, there is a difference if your death is voluntary or if you were coopted.
the lady here was coopted

I'm more inclined to suggest she volunteered; she definitely stepped forward.

NIKV69 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:37 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

You would say something like this. :footinmouth:

Revelation · Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:47 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

... until it's your loved one that gets struck by the robo-car ...

NeBaNi · Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:06 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Classa64 wrote:
Its going to be a touchy subject if they charge the back -up driver.... who do you blame?
The car that's suppose to be better than us, quicker reactions etc, the guy monitoring OR the lady crossing the road outside the lines.

The car is only as good as its programming so the machine is not to blame.

The blame falls in both the guy monitoring and the lady crossing outside the lines:
1. The guy's reaction was probably too little to late to stop the car in time, so I'd be more lenient with him, though as the figure monitoring, I'd say he should have been ready to react if driving through a busy area.
2. The lady crossing outside the lines (ie. jaywalking). A pedestrian has the right of way, but only in the correct circumstances. Otherwise, they're liable for accidents caused. If I crossed an interstate on foot, cars are under no obligation to stop and any accidents are mine and mine alone.

My guess is that the cars are only programmed to respect pedestrians only on pedestrian crossings (ie. intersections and designated crosswalks).
If the car doesn't see the "piano keys" or the pedestrian signs, it does not stop/slowdown.

I see what you're trying to say here, but no matter whose liability it is, the car needs to be able to stop, whether the crossing by the pedestrian was legal or illegal. I say that because it's not always going to be a human crossing. I'm sure you're driven through areas where deer/moose, cows, bison, dogs, etc. appear out of nowhere.

ER757 · Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:14 pm

There will always be a need for a human in the driver's seat IMO - whether they are constantly monitoring the situation or not. Top of my head examples of when manual over-ride would be handy
Guy in the lane next to me is driving erratically - I think I'll speed up to get past him, or slow down because I think he's about to make an abrupt lane change right into me
I'm on a two lane road - guy in front driving slowly, I pass in a legal passing zone, speed up to over the posted limit to get past him and back into my lane before oncoming traffic is too close.
I want to go on a hike up some off-the-grid dirt road - car doesn't know where it is or how to get there
A collision with a pedestrian or animal is inevitable - do I swerve knowing that I'll collide with another car but save the life of the pedestrian or hit the pedestrian? Car will not be able to make that judgement

SheikhDjibouti · Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

... until it's your loved one that gets struck by the robo-car ...

or until it's your loved one that gets struck by a slow reacting human driver, when they could have been saved if it had been a robo-car.....

I'll take thousands, possibly millions, saved - quite possibly including members of my own family, against the obscure chance that another member of my family is one of the unlucky few.

einsteinboricua · Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:26 pm

NeBaNi wrote:
I see what you're trying to say here, but no matter whose liability it is, the car needs to be able to stop, whether the crossing by the pedestrian was legal or illegal. I say that because it's not always going to be a human crossing. I'm sure you're driven through areas where deer/moose, cows, bison, dogs, etc. appear out of nowhere.

Yes, but there's almost always a sign that warns of animal crossings (dogs and other small animals are exceptions, of course). I don't know. Looking at this image from the NYT, it's a mixed bag.

There's no pedestrian crosswalk anywhere. Like I said, my guess is that if there's no sign about pedestrian crossings, maybe the programming just doesn't react in time for when a pedestrian is jaywalking. And looking at the picture, she would have been backlit and not picked up by the cameras until the headlights of the car shone light on her.

I'm not saying the programming shouldn't be improved, but this accident could have also happened with a regular vehicle. The only reason it's getting attention is that the car is self-driving. Programmers should consider other safeguards, yes, but it's up to us as civilians to also obey traffic laws.

Revelation · Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:02 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

... until it's your loved one that gets struck by the robo-car ...

or until it's your loved one that gets struck by a slow reacting human driver, when they could have been saved if it had been a robo-car.....

I think we're a long way away from knowing how the math will turn out.

Speculative investors are an optimistic bunch of people, in my experience...

Kiwirob · Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:59 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Driverless cars seriously need to be eased into normal traffic at a slower pace than they've pushed for. The technology is too new.

Meh many men died in the pursuit of space, and it was worth it, a person dying every so often in pursuit of self driving cars isn’t a biggie. When the tech is perfected it will eventually save many millions of lives.

You would say something like this.

People die in car accidents by the thousands every day, so far only two people have been killed by self driving cars, I like them odds.

Me foot in mouth??? Compared to the utter drivel you post I’m a god damned Mensa candidate.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net