Self-driving Uber car kills pedestrian in Tempe, AZ

Does @144 mean that frodoz737 opposes and//or disclaims auto-auto road vehicles as they are now configured?

If so, are we likely to hear here about your proposed improvements?

==
As this system is now constructed, I expect unforeseen novelties to lead to unforeseen tragedies. Yet we have here a rare resource, a rare claimant knowing things. I hope it is not too much to anticipate wisdom thence. Much better than just complaining thence.

 

I agree and would add that we've known for a long time that trains should have an automated, speed control. Yet every two years, another runs a light or exceeds posted speed and voila, another train off the rails.

Bob Wilson

 

100% agree that currently completely autonomous vehicles only work in strictly controlled environments.
If your conclusion is that they will never advance, that is where we disagree.

 

So you are fine with people dying if that means no autonomous cars on the road?

Based on what we know about human drivers, and we have lots of data there, autonomous cars will reduce the number of deaths from car collisions. If true autonomy proves out of reach, they won't be deployed, but the research will lead to better working safety aids like collision avoidance systems that are in cars now.

 

The axiom "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" is so appropo for this topic.

An average of 102 people die everyday in motor vehicles in the USA alone. If autonomous tech would lower that amount but could never eliminate it, how many lives would it have to save before you agree it's worth it?

In other news, Teen Smashes Through Buffalo License Center During Driving Test « WCCO | CBS Minnesota .

 

"So you are fine with people dying if that means no autonomous cars on the road?"

That is not a choice. People will continue to die while driving, autonomy or not; they'll also die weeding in their yards, and flying in airplanes, and getting shot in schools, and catching the flu, cancer, diabetes, etc. Everybody dies someday. I wrote a song, called "Quit Your Bitchin'" about that.
I believe it's more dangerous at this time to add these experimental autonomous cars to the mix of existing drivers. The average POOR reliability of our MODERN cyber technology, coupled with poor execution by many in the auto industry, and the EXTREMELY dangerous impact of anarchists, terrorists, and nutjobs, make fully autonomous cars a terrible idea. Add to this mix the legal problems of responsibility and ethics, and baby your boat is sinking!! If you don't want people getting killed in cars, ban cars! It's a dangerous world out there, and full autonomy would just add to that danger with the new component of "Lost Control" by the human. We should not rush pell-mell into full autonomy like GM and others are discussing (They are threatening the imminent release of autonomous cars with no steering wheel or other controls! Nuts!!).
Carefully thought out and tested enhancements can be added in a gradual way to car designs. This way the market can decide what works and what doesn't for a REASONABLY paced evolution of the automobile. Also don't forget, these things won't be cheap!
Thanks, but I want to keep MY autonomy as long as I can, and I don't want to end up like that poor (still unknown) dead bicycle lady.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.
AChoiredTaste.com

 

I think there is a difference of opinion here to be considered. I am certian that a case can be made for some number of people being killed by completely self-driving cars. Especially if the number reflects a large drop from the current loss of life by people driven cars.

 

I believe her name has been released.
While I think the car failed in some manner, this is not a simple black and white case. The victim's choices and actions could have easily left her killed by a human controlled car. Even one with the current advanced safety systems. This tragedy was the result of a chain of errors starting with the city's median design, to the victim's choices, to the autonomous system failing, to the safety driver not giving their full attention. It wasn't just a robot car run amuck.

I believe you are wrong on these being expensive. The basic hardware is already going into cars now; Toyota is making it standard across their line up. Computer processing is already cheap. The majority would more readily pay for this than getting a hybrid.

Perhaps these cars should go back to closed course testing, but to get to the point for people like you feel comfortable with them will require public road testing at some point.

Hackers can cause more trouble with these cars than an individual in a truck, but if they want to cause harm, there is already plenty ordnance flying around that can do much worse.
Could Terrorists Hack an Airplane? The Government Just Did.
We should be working to improve the digital security of many things, but government is also one of those that wants backdoors into things.

 

'velodyne', the company that makes the sensors for the uber self driving car says its liar sees as well in the dark as in the light'.
they claim that the fault must lie in the hardware and software provided by uber and others.
sounds like this accident should never have happened.

 

Lidar can see in the dark because it has its own light source, but that projected light has to get back to the lidar. Dark, matte objects, like black coats, could be harder to detect because they don't reflect has much light. I suspect the issue is after the lidar gets the data.

Also, Uber used to have two people in the car. The second person was monitoring a laptop that was displaying what the car was seeing. They would alert the safety driver if the system was having problems identfying or missed something. Everyone jumping to the conclusion the driver was checking a phone in the video are more than likely wrong, and she was actually checking that laptop.

 

"I suspect the issue is after the lidar"
So does Velodyne

==
Since we won't know much more soon, I further deflect this intelligent discussion by say that a T. rex (replica) in Colorado burned out in 'Big Tex' style. Same MO - electrical malfunction in foot.

 

Doesn't matter. The car didn't see the pedestrian...and the Human safety monitor didn't either because she was "in essence" poking glass. The resulting death was caused by primary and secondary systems failures of an experimental commercial vehicle in an uncontrolled environment.

 

Fatal airliner crashes often take out the pilot and co-pilot.

Bob Wilson

 

in a similar way, the many information screens and data in modern cars cause us to take our eyes off the road, which many here have been complaining about vigorously.
an accident like this makes you realize how important it is to have 100% attention on the road at all times.
legislation should be called for to reduce built in distractions.

 

I have always thought I was a better driver when I am in the car by myself. I turn the radio off and no passengers.

 

It matters for legal fault.
If the driver was looking down at her phone doing personal stuff, she's at fault.
If she was monitoring the system read out to see what the car was seeing and planning, it is Uber's fault for removing the co-pilot whose sole job was originally doing just that.

But you are driving, and any advanced safety systems you might have are designed to operate after you made a mistake. In these autonomous test cars, the situation is reversed. The human is suppose to take over when the computer makes a mistake.

That is not an easy job. The person needs to know that the computer is messing up in order to act, which isn't has simple has a passenger keeping an eye on a driver that has been awake for too long. The safety driver needs to know how the computer is operating in real time. Without that, the are just a passenger, and this pedestrian could have still died because the safety driver thought the car saw her and was going to take action.

In this case, it appears that the readout on what the car saw and was doing was a lap top sitting on the center console. To monitor that, the safety driver would shift her sight further than it would take to check the speedometer, and reading it would require more focus and concentration.

The safety driver's process here appears to be;

• look down at the display to see what the car sees
• look up to see if there is anything the car missed
• look back down at the display
• and repeat

​

This leaves relatively long stretches of time in which the person isn't looking up at the car's surroundings, and allowing the car and something it didn't 'see' get closer and closer together.

 

sounds like another uber problem. legal analyst suspects an out of court settlement, but not that large because the lady was crossing illegally. could get higher depending on public backlash.
über has so much money though, i doubt it matters.

 

Did everyone here discussing this issue see the video? When I watched it, she came out so fast I think I would have still hit her. Reminds me of a deer jumping out in front of my car in the past which I was not able to avoid.

 

Might not make much of a difference in a high profile lawsuit. Big money Uber company, having a bad and sketchy past, using a possibly not-too-well-tested self driving systems hits and kills pedestrian. The headlines might not even be that kind. Expect some changes and delays in the months and years ahead for self driving vehicles (and not for the better), and more public skepticism and pushback. (Many) more of these accidents are bound to happen, and with increased frequency. Emergency situations like these, in a much more busy urban environment (if the computers can even see something about to happen) are just a trolley problem for software to solve; the trolley solutions don't end well.

What's going to happen when a car has to decide if it should hit a school bus or crash onto a busy sidewalk in order to avoid something else with or without people in it? We're only at the beginning of dealing with the legal and practical moral implications of autonomous vehicles. As a society, we'll get through it eventually. I'm not old enough to remember the debate if cars should ever be allowed to drive on the same roads as horses, pedestrians and bicycles, but I can understand it might be the new century version of that.

OTOH, Humans aren't much better drivers. Don't even get me started on new teenage drivers. That's a whole other thread - somewhere.

 

As you say she came out so fast that I think ....
That n fact is my point. While we think of doing everything possible to reasonably prevent an accident. If a person steps into traffic. Is it an accident ? I did say "Steps into traffic." a willful act in hopes of being hit ? I have heard many people say heck let them hit me.....makes you wonder why the driver is always found at fault when you see how people puch their luck. By the same train of though. If you go to las Vegas, You will find that you do NOT have to cross the street. There are in fact pedistrian over overpasses in key locations. The even have elevator from the street to the overpass for those that need them. Yet you could still risk you life attempting to cross at the street level.