Slashdot Mirror
Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian (gizmodo.com)
Joe_Dragon writes: Last night a woman was struck by an autonomous Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. She later died of her injuries in the hospital. The deadly collision -- reported by ABC15 and later confirmed to Gizmodo by Uber and Tempe police -- took place around 10PM at the intersection Mill Avenue and Curry Road. Autonomous vehicle developers often test drive at night, during storms, and other challenging conditions to help their vehicles learn to navigate in a variety of environments.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel. A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman's 'next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.' The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said. Update: Uber says it is suspending self-driving car tests in all North American cities after a fatal accident.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel. A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman's 'next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.' The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said. Update: Uber says it is suspending self-driving car tests in all North American cities after a fatal accident.
I'm very familiar with the types of sensors used in these cars. They have trouble with rain, snow, sunlight, scratches, dirt, basically anything. Try sticking your head out the window while driving and pretend your eyeballs are the sensors. It's a pretty comparable comparison. We're 50 years out from a working self-driving car. The AI isn't there, the sensors aren't there, and every amaaaaazing show-off event being held is on a perfect road with perfect weather or some conditions they know the car can handle.
. . . to the existing legal system. So many have speculated what would happen when a self-driving car inevitably killed a 3rd party. Might as well get the process started so the litigation / legislation is resolved quicker and things move ahead . . .
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
On the one hand she was crossing illegally. However, if a human had been driving would they have seen her and been able to stop in time? It seems like these automated vehicles rely on certain assumptions and this is one example of what can happen when faced with the unpredictable circumstances that can happen on the road. Until automation has a way to make provisions for these sorts of things these automated vehicles shouldn't be on the road.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Agreed. I'm sure they'll spin this as a smear against self-driving vehicles... but realistically, the human was 100% in the wrong.
Let's all jump to conclusions. Don't disappoint me now. We should be at the root cause with all the information within the next 5 minutes.
Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, just better than people.
If self-driving cars rack up fewer pedestrian deaths per mile driven than human drivers, that's the critical metric.
--PM
J walking isn't a capital offence. However, wrongful death suits, or possibly manslaughter charges can bring down companies.
it can be blinding. It's called "Monsoon" weather. If you've never driven in it it's hard to explain. You can't see 6-8 feet in front of you. Like a white out but with water. Not sure if that's what happened here. I've been stuck driving in Monsoon rain a few times. I pull over as soon as I can and wait it out. It can be hard to do that with all the nut jobs trying to power through it.
The woman was outside cross walks, so Uber will probably be in the right. Although IIRC you never have the right of way if it would cause an accident in Az.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Outside a crosswalk does not always mean jaywalking. In many jurisdictions if you are a certain distance from the next corner it is legal to cross. So she may or may not have been legally crossing.
We're 50 years out from a working self-driving car.
Thank you Mr Luddite. It's a shame that we currently live in a perfectly safe world where no pedestrians ever git hit and these darn self-driving cars come along and...
Wait, what? Drivers hit pedestrians all the time? Especially so when they cross in the middle of the street at night in the rain?
Remember, there WAS a human sitting behind the wheel. The fact that he didn't see here / could not react in time means she was (A) really hard to see, and (b) probably came in front of the car very suddenly.
We are not 50 years from self-driving cars. We are *0* years from self-driving cars. They are being deployed today and the ramp-up will only continue, because even if they make mistakes it's still FEWER mistakes than people will make, on average.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way -- cars are expected to exercise due care not to hit someone, and "jaywalking" as a legal concept does not exist.
But yeah, Tempe (and Phoenix sprawlopolis) in general are terribly designed for pedestrians -- you often have to walk a long distance to even get to a crosswalk, and traffic light timing can be too short to allow pedestrians to cross without running.
So many missing details here. Was it raining causing limited visibility? Did she dart out between two cars right in front of the moving vehicle? Was she crossing and then doubled back? Did the human behind the wheel have time to try and react?
The good thing about this being an autonomous vehicle is that there are likely cameras and sensors all around the vehicle that will be able to tell investigators exactly what happened.
And while jaywalking is certainly not a capital offense, it's hard to argue that this would have happened if she'd been in a recognizable crosswalk with as many miles and hours as have been racked up by self-driving vehicles already.
Realistically, the robo-cage should react appropriately or slow way down in zones with pedestrian traffic.
Depends on the state/country. In most of the US, this isn't true, unfortunately. The US is generally very abusive to pedestrians and cyclists.
There was an operator behind the controls in the test vehicle. He didn't hit the brakes or steer around the pedestrian.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This incident makes no one a "monster" -- just like CSX and Amtrak aren't "monsters" when a pedestrian gets struck by one of their trains (which is almost universally because someone trespassed onto the right-of-way, or just plain decided to commit suicide by train). You can't bubble wrap the world.
Nope, your spin is 100% bullshit. "Death penalty" is a legal sentence, and that is not even applicable here.
If you do something obviously dangerous and stupid, and you get hurt doing it, that is your fault. If someone plays with poisonous snakes for fun, and gets bit, our sympathy level isn't very high. The same goes when an idiot decides to illegally cross the street, at night, without bothering to make sure cars aren't approaching.
Sheesh.
There was a human behind the wheel, just not holding onto it. So the answer is no, a human WAS NOT able to stop in time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I feel bad for the lady As well as the first responders who couldn't save her.
Uber and the team -- working for a company that wants to eventually replace private and public transport with their "rented" autonomous vehicles, nope. Uber's long-term model doesn't allow for privacy, since each rental is tied to a profile, reputation, and bank account or credit card. The data will be there, to be sold to marketeers and governments.
The "team" and "Uber" itself can go eat a week-old spoiled sausage.
While it's hard to say what happened yet, what I can say with confidence is that we should be able to figure out what happened far more easily than if any non-self driving car had hit her...
Why? Because of the vast amount of sensor data collected by the car every second. We should be able to see exactly when she left the sidewalk, exactly where she went in the road, and exactly what led to the car not "seeing" her.
Otherwise you'd MAYBE have some dash-cam footage and some super poor traffic camera footage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What is the recent introduction that caused this shitty situation? People jaywalking, or companies testing self driving cars?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
" autonomous cars need to drive more like humans"
You mean poorly and distractedly? ;)
also criminal liability and civil liability are not the same and this case needs to go down both routes. criminal cases have more power to override NDA's and eula. Also they can get around an log list of subcontractors
We make a lot of assumptions about the events - perhaps the woman jumped in front or placed herself in danger neither a human nor AI in the wrong place at the wrong time could have saved her from. Let's see what happens...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
If the sensors were not adequate for the conditions, I would expect a criminal vehicular homicide case against Uber. If a human was driving with their eyes closed and it could be proven, they would suffer the same fate.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You misunderstand. No one, I repeat, no one is saying that the operator of a motor vehicle that hits and kills a jaywalker is a monster. NO ONE.
What is being said, is that people who say the jaywalker got what they deserved, they are the monsters.
As I suspected, a bunch of people blaming the pedestrian for crossing the street wrong. Cars still have to stop for them legally, and autonomous cars are no less liable. Once again, autonomous cars need to drive more like humans, not the other way around.
I suggest you test this theory by jumping right in front of a speeding car with a driver, and see how it goes.
Both you and the people you are arguing against don't have all the facts. Anyone who hasn't seen the evidence is just talking out of their asses if they're trying to assign blame already.
It's a pretty good bet that the car has a video record of what happened, so it should be possible to determine what really happened here.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
How many fucking times have people said these cars won't kill someone?
How many fucking times have you fucking morons said,m "It can't happen"?
These things are dangerous and need a shit ton more testing before being allowed on the road.
And don't fucking start with, "Jay Walking". You don't think that was one of the first things they supposedly planned into the system? Children, animals, etc unexpectedly in the street?
Oh good, the first autonomous vehicle liability test case. Uber has really deep pockets and probably not a lot of sympathy from the jurors... I'm thinking maybe $10 million? Of course, it might be just like the Ford Pinto gas tank economic calculation: the cheapest thing to do is to pay off the occasional lawsuit rather than fix the problem.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
a driver sitting ready to take over is not the same as one driving in manual mode
J pop, on the other hand...
Ezekiel 23:20
There was an operator behind the controls in the test vehicle. He didn't hit the brakes or steer around the pedestrian.
Fortunately, they have a brilliant plan to prevent this in the future.
"autonomous cars need to drive more like humans" How the hell are you going to program the car to spill it's beer and throw it's lit cigarette butts out the window?!?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
With autonomy the question isn't whether the car is to blame, the question is whether a human driver would have avoided the accident.
"autonomous cars need to drive more like humans" Engineering note: add a robotic hand to flip off the drivers that cut off the autonomous car.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
no one is saying that the operator of a motor vehicle that hits and kills a jaywalker is a monster.
Depends on the situation. If the operator was drunk or playing Pokemon Go and the accident could have been avoided, that's pretty monstrous.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Now no one will be safe.
Can't happen? Zero fucking times. Prove me wrong with a link.
I'd have a lot more trust in Uber's autonomous car program if they hadn't used the project name "Skynet"!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g...
And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.
It can also be no-fault if you prefer. Not every pedestrian death is avoidable by the driver - especially with sudden moves and a high speed limit paired with obscured viewing from parked cars.
In Illinois, pedestrians only have the right-of-way at a marked crosswalk. And even then, they must clearly start crossing early enough to give drivers time to react/slow/stop. Drivers aren't technically required to stop for someone who hasn't decided whether to start crossing yet or not. It's legally allowed to be more cautious and courteous, but not required from a liability standpoint.
a driver sitting ready to take over is not the same as one driving in manual mode
There are plenty of times drivers behind the wheel remove hands from controls to reach for something, or simply get sleepy, or are singing along to a song not paying attention... or maybe reactions are slowed because they are tired, or have had a bit to drink.
The truth is a human driver out at 10pm at night in an empty downtown would not expect anyone either, and would almost certainly have hit the same women crossing in front of them well away from a crossing. Why is that so hard to believe, when it happens all the time?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These cars have multiple sensors to detect obstacles; ultrasonic/sonar, stereo vision systems. If something is detected, then the vehicle stops. That really moves the blame onto the person. I've seen people who would run across the road when they saw a truck or bus come up the side road. Motivation being that those vehicles would completely block the ability to cross the road because they take up so much space when they try and turn the corner.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
One wonders what instructions the drivers are given. At what point does the human realize the car is not taking action?
Or death penalty for the self-driving car that refuses to crash itself to save a human life?
Assuming that the car is driving around with no passengers aboard, the decision to avoid a pedestrian and crash is pretty easy. When you're hauling cargo as precious as the jaywalker, you need more advanced logic.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Working in Tempe AZ I am familiar with the area of the intersection. This area is not a high volume pedestrian area like South Mill Avenue. I really can't imagine anything more than infrequent pedestrian traffic on a Sunday evening at 10 pm. You go a mile south on Mill Avenue (walk under the 202 Freeway overpass, and then cross over the Tempe Town Lake bridge and yes you will find plenty of pedestrians. But looking at the Google Maps this area is pretty much undeveloped desert park on the east and a theater venue on the west. O.T. Genasis was playing at the theater Sunday night at 7:30 so if I had to guess I would place money on the pedestrian having attended the show (bar in the theater) and may have parked in the park parking lot some distance to the east (free parking versus pay or full parking at the venue). I am just guessing, but this is a plausible informed guess. https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
We're working on it.
Have gnu, will travel.
Despite the pedestrian jaywalking, Uber's had a LONG history of problems with their self-driving program. The worst google's self-driving program has gotten itself into is having cars crash into it because of confusion between right of way. Meanwhile Uber's managed to rollover one of their cars in a collision. At this point, I think Uber's rushing to have a successful IPO, Google is taking the time to do it right. So no thanks to Uber for giving self-driving cars a bad name...
While incident is unfortunate, this will likely settle a number of legal questions:
a. Is non-driver human behind the wheel held responsible for the accident?
b. What is the liability model would be used in such cases.
These, and not technical limitations, would likely determine the direction of self-driving cars would take. Considering precedent, self-driving is likely dead. All cars would require hands-on-the-wheel, relegating self-driving to assistive technologies.
That would require these machines to be capable of actual cognition, which they absolutely are not. They're pseudo-intelligence, not actual 'AI'.
If you can invent a machine, any machine, that is even capable of interpreting the laws, let alone understanding them, let alone applying them, let alone formulating enough decision making to adjust their world to allow them to be applies, then you will be the richest person on the planet overnight.
The original reporting on ABC15 Self-driving Uber car hits, kills pedestrian in Tempe actually includes a video that has the caption "Self-driving vehicle hits BICYCLIST". The video also shows a crumpled-up bicycle.
Unfortunately, ABC15's text article says "a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck" and that is what the rest of the media is regurgitating as their own reporting.
There is a reason why we have lighted intersections, and crosswalks with bright signs calling them out to cars.
Jaywalking is intrinsically dangerous. Physics can't be escaped. Reaction time and stopping distance mean that even under perfect circumstances a jaywalker could wind up dead (depending on the road).
It is ridiculous to say that a jaywalker is 100% not responsible. Jaywalker is knowingly putting themselves in the path of fast-moving vehicles in a place designated for the vehicles to have the right-of-way (and, in this case at a time of low visibility!). This is a dangerous, stupid, and illegal thing to do! So, doing it puts you partially at fault.
If by "mistreat" you mean "jail and deport" and by "undocumented worker" you mean "non-us citizen here illegally" then I don't see where your argument is.. It's not right to enforce some laws but not all. Regardless of your feelings, if you want it to work another way lobby to have he law changed.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react. I know I have mistakenly crossed at the wrong time before and the human driver usually gets pissed and honks but they usually don't mow over the human. Unless she literally jumped out in front of the automated car (which people say an automated car should handle anyway) then this car screwed up with a factor of driving and that is all there is to it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Not true, I live in Las Vegas.. In 2011 or so we had so many idiots J-walking and getting hit by cars(multiple a week) the city made it legal to run over anybody J-walking as long as you were sober and driving legally.. The rate of people getting run over in Vegas has fell through the floor since then.
They mean income taxes, and most of them do not, or do so under a false social security number, and almost never file. Douche.
Realistically, you have no idea what happened or who's to blame.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Did you mean criminals? FTFY
The sensors we're human eyes.
That's why there's a person there watching, to assure adequate sensors and processor (human brain) are on the task.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I disagree. We obviously don't know all the details yet, but if a car was on a road being driven by sensors that were not adequate for the conditions then the people who put that car on the road are the real monsters. If the sensors were fine and the woman literally ran out from behind a brick wall and in front of the car (ie was not visible for even a brief moment before the collision) then Uber is excused. Otherwise, they are the monsters for putting a car on the road that can't detect a person crossing with a trajectory that would meet with the car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Civilized, but no watching porn or having sex!!
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
It's not a "penalty". It is an unavoidable consequence of some kinds of jaywalking --- for example, running off from the side into the street just ahead of a vehicle approaching that point in the road at the speed limit. It is possible there was no "obstacle" for the car to detect Until it was already too late to avoid an incident.
There is a certain minimum sight distance required for an approaching vehicle's driver to recognize that there is a pedestrian in the road, AND react, AND take action, and then even after the breaks are being applied -- there is stopping distance.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
Yes, and based on driving 30 miles to and then from work each day, plus other driving, you have to be extra careful because most people are poor drivers
Illegal aliens do not pay federal income taxes. A social security number is required for that.
It's worse than that. The "fake" social security numbers they used are stolen from real taxpayers who are then on the hook for the unpaid taxes years later.
And yet the human driver failed in this case, just as they do every day.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way
They don't have right-of-way. Cars are not under any obligation to stop to let you cross a road, except at a zebra crossing.
Just because there's no offence of jaywalking, that doesn't mean pedestrians have priority over cars on the road.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
poor a/c, the "do not drink" warning on bottles of cougar urine is for you.
This is stupid... Why destroy the caches instead of dropping a small wireless camera to monitor them, and catching the (well-hydrated and not dead) people who end up using them?
...if these cars can't avoid an adult jaywalking, how can they avoid:
Large Animals? Deer, and other wildlife that often end up as hood ornaments.
Children? They are famous for unexpectedly running out into the street.
Other obstacles?
You would have thought that these considerations were first and foremost on the minds of the software folks.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But if the sensors cannot e proven to work in all situations before getting into an accident, then that IS like impaired driving in a human. The safety driver is just a passenger being driven by a drunk in this case.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
While I was driving down a residential street, I had a child on a bicycle come flying down from a highly sloped sidewalk-street interface... got about half way into the lane before stopping; fortunately, I saw it coming a mile away (kid well ahead of pack, paying attention to nothing but what was immediately ahead) and I was already slowing/in the other lane (oncoming!)... be careful about letting your children ride fixies unattended... (i'd have footage of this, but my dashcam had glitched and was recording a ~45 second loop for some reason... so also, one should periodically verify proper function of such things)
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
It's called aiding and abetting. If the police know about a drug stash and they don't have the resources to actively set up a sting operation, simply passively monitoring is not sufficient to protect the public.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There isn't a way to prevent deaths from Automotive to be 0%. People die from Jaywalking every day. The real question is how reckless was the jaywalker.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It has long been proven that humans get complacent behind automation and cannot take over effectively in all situations. Even if that's their job. It's just human nature and should not be used as a defense.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't know where this idea comes from. You can't pay taxes legally if you're not a legal resident. There is no checkbox ANYWHERE on the IRS forms that say "I'm an illegal resident of the US" and checking any of the other boxes on your taxes, if they don't apply, is a felony and non-citizen (legal) residents are deported if they ever do check a box that claims they have a status (eg. citizenship) that they do not possess.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Because humans are never, ever hit/killed by cars with human drivers!
There is nothing in the constitution about MJ dispensaries. There is, however, plenty in the constitution granting control of immigration policy to the federal government.
These vehicles are coming, like it or not. They will be safer. Even if they are not safer now, not by a long shot; technology will do what technology does. It will improve.
Unless you are advocating altering humans to make them better drones to drive, technology is the answer. Any moron can see that. Humans will never be able to compete at driving where technology can make huge strides in so many facets of driving.
Even if we have to sacrifice some level of safety now, the payoff will be massive.
They use fake numbers. The tax burden is passed onto its owner.
The difference between human's and computers, isn't that computers will never make mistakes. It is that when a human makes a mistake, and you retrain him not to make the same mistake again... you probably can fix that one human once... and a very slight chance you can get some details from that into the training for some of the next humans, which may or may not teach it correctly and some will and won't learn the lesson. Meanwhile you fix that on a computer software.. you literally have the opportunity to teach the lesson to every existing and follow up AI in the world at the same time. Seriously how many human caused accidents probably happened the same minute as this event... and how few people has it crossed the minds of to suspend human drivers for a little bit while we get this thing figured out
The sensors may become better and react faster than any human at some point, but even in that case there may be situations where a pedestrian who is walking where he shouldn't gets hit. An accident unavoidable by human or machine. Self driving cars cannot and will not be able to account for every situation, and there will be accidents. Who has right of way then becomes an important question to settle the legal matters... but in this particular case, with self driving cars still being in early experimental stages, the real question is whether self driving cars (or at least the Uber ones) are really up to the task yet, or if this was one of those all but impossible to avoid accidents.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
It comes from the millions of people each year who file their taxes and the IRS comes back and asks for W2s from jobs they never knew they had. The criminal is falsifying documents to collect the paycheck, and the tax liability of the person who's social was stolen has to prove it wasn't him. #nowyouknow
Where's your source that the woman was jaywalking?
It isn't legal if you do it on purpose (that is called murder) but if you accidentally hit someone who is jaywalking, the jaywalker is responsible for the accident and may be prosecuted both criminally and civilly.
Obviously if you are DUI or driving dangerously yourself and that caused the jaywalker's demise, then it could be considered manslaughter or you may also be prosecuted criminally and civilly, the onus could also revert back onto the driver to prove the person was not jaywalking, you can 'legally' walk across the street if it was safe to do so and you would not have to expect a car coming at 90mph around a corner.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Not perfectly.
needs to be an criminal case!
While I can't comment on the proportion of autonomous vehicles to human-operated vehicles, there are multiple thousands of pedestrian hit and killed each year. Multiple tens of thousands hit and injured. I would expect this number to go down dramatically for every increase in autonomous cars.
You can't pay taxes legally if you're not a legal resident.
Yeah you can. You sign up for an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) and use it for your taxes when you don't have a social security number. Please stop spreading misinformation when you don't know what you're talking about.
(1) We're talking about water that saves lives, not meth that destroys them. (2) The water cache is usable by anyone lost in the desert. Hikers, ranchers, even a Border Patrol member in need. (3) Nothing illegal about drinking water or offering it. Just monitor who is using the cache.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Not dying the first time (or the first hundred times) you do something stupid and dangerous doesn't make the action any less stupid or dangerous.
I'm not saying, one way or the other, if the change in outcome was due to a failure of the vehicle or some other change in circumstance. We don't know that yet. But your conclusion that jaywalking isn't dangerous or stupid because most people don't die while doing it is, frankly, dangerous and stupid.
Breaking a law like jay-walking is stupid and dangerous. These laws exist for our own safety, and choosing to ignore them puts us in jeopardy. Just because you got away with a crime doesn't mean you will always get away with it. Her luck ran out.
It's never legal to intentionally run someone over and it has always been the pedestrian's fault if they cause an accident jaywalking. You cannot legally run anyone over, regardless of their position, you can however be indemnified for hitting a jaywalker.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Not if one sets their withholding to zero on their W-4. You've never filled out a W-4 have you?
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid
Jaywalking in such a manner that it forces traffic to brake for you is dangerous and stupid.
Fake SS numbers are rejected very quickly. They use stolen numbers from identity theft instead - another felony.
It's a new thing. Literally everyone on the planet foresaw the potential for this has very very high. I'd be amazed if the developers themselves found themselves in a quandray that often occurs in machine learning: holy crap these are amazingly good results but we can't tell you when it will fail. After not seeing failures in all the test cases you find yourself letting go of that worry that it will fail catastrophically.
When cars were new themselves there were some remarkably crazy pedestrian protecting rules put in place such as requiring a flagman to walk in front of a car. But the thing about cars was that they really weren't a big leap from horses,trains, or boats. Propulsions systems controlled by human drivers are dangerous too of course. But were used to them and have mental models to protect us well ingrained.
Not so with driverless vehicles. And everyone thought this would happen even if they hoped it would not.
The whole tesla didn't see the truck thing should have been a tip off that the system wasn't flawless yet.
As usual it's the race to market that takes off the safety restraints. This is why we have regulations. To add some friction into the tragedy of the commons.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
No, streets belong to the state (or fed, depending on the road), or private property. As a public, we have decided what the right-of-way laws are governing these public spaces. I hope you go to jail or are fined until you come to your senses. If you get run over, I hope they find this post.
For some reason, and I do know what they are, I keep half-expecting "mating season" anecdotes in reference to the zebra crossings in this comments section.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
For those wanting the text of laws for pedestrians in Arizona: Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk.
perhaps the people who insist that automated cars can see everything everywhere all the time will be quiet now.
You were probably the only one insisting that.
Naw, that just feeds the lawyers, we'll just run you over eventually when you cut it too close.
Yeah, it's a darwin award.
Also we get to find out an answer for who is at fault when an autonomous car causes harm, and to what extent are they liable. These will be precedent setting questions. The circumstances of the actual accident will influence the answers, but don't fool yourself, they won't drive it.
What operator? This is a Level 3+ system, not a Level 2 system like Autopilot. There is a person in the driver's seat, but they're not an "operator" unless the car tells them "I give up, you take over."
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
Minor correction: Lawyers are #2 on the list of 'Careers with highest percentage of psychopaths' (per Dr. Dutton's extensive studies), after CEOs, but politicians don't even make the list. Really disturbing are the others one are likely to come into contact with: Sales weasels (#4), Police (#7), and Clergy (#8).
Could you bubble wrap this red herring for me? I'm afraid he might get hurt by your straw man.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
Yes, illegal aliens often pay taxes, approximately half according to the article linked below. They apply for an ITN, which is something they're allowed to do, and pay taxes using it.
Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
There is nothing in the constitution about MJ dispensaries. There is, however, plenty in the constitution granting control of immigration policy to the federal government.
Yes yes.. only the constitution matters. No other law is viable right? If it's not in the constitution why are we even talking about it. What next? we listen to people who hold "court" in rooms with fringed flags?
Just another second banana
We don't know what happened.
If the woman jumped in front of the vehicle, 10 yards away from it, while it was going 70, no sensor, computer or algorithm in this world would have prevented the collision.
Having an instantly reacting computer in control doesn't abolish the laws of physics.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Sure that would be great, but someone has to figure out how to get there without *killing people*.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Close enough -- #2 and #7 are both involved in interpreting and enforcing the law. Also, guess which profession most politicians come from? :)
yes but that's circumstantial. They're monsters for driving when they should not be. They're not monsters for driving. Nothing inherent in driving and hitting someone makes the driver a monster. It's when it's revealed the driver was drunk or POGOing or speeding or what not that they become a monster.
Just another second banana
That Vox story is ludicrous. They even say very clearly that they have no statistics to back up any of their suppositions. If illegals were interested in following US tax law and identity theft law they would've followed immigration law as well.
Apparently they are paying about $12 Billion a year that remains with the US government
Ugh... people...
right of way, not right-a-way
jaywalking, not J-walking.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
Scroll down past the two images and take a look at the fourth video:
Driving in SF (4 of 4): Cyclists are everywhere
https://www.recode.net/2017/10...
Cyclist cutting off a car at night. The driver took over, but post-analysis shows our vehicle was already braking and would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.
Granted, this is not the video of the woman in Arizona who got killed. No one got hurt in this one. But this just goes to show you that some collisions can be super difficult to avoid.
That doesn't make us "monsters". That makes us pragmatic human beings, that need to travel at above 5 miles an hour (despite all the pedestrians, skateboarders, and bicyclists who are so used to getting the right of way, they'll gamble with their lives over this expectation).
On a side-note, if you have a skateboarder in your family, go out with them to make sure they get the right size, and buy them a helmet. I know it's not cool to wear helmets if you're a skateboarder. But I was giving a ride to someone recently and their friend had just died from head trauma while skateboarding. The skateboarder was 21 years old, he was going to a local University. Everyone liked him by all accounts. But he struck a car and suffered injuries that he would have easily survived, had he been wearing a helmet.
Also, if you see someone wearing headphones while they're riding their electric skateboard going up to 35 miles per hour right in the middle of traffic (this is especially a problem in San Francisco, hopefully, it hasn't reached your city yet). But please yell at them and tell them that they're being idiots. No one should be riding with headphones on. I'd rather those guys wear a boombox that's blasting music to everyone, instead of just wearing headphones. At least with the latter, people might hear them coming. But right now, these guys are super stealthy, they don't make any noise, they go very quickly, and top of that, if they're listening to music on their headphone, that means they're much less aware of their surroundings.
What operator? This is a Level 3+ system, not a Level 2...
GP specified "operator of a motor vehicle". I inferred a dumb vehicle.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
give us the logs or it's contempt of court!
Waymo says they have logged 5 million miles of testing. But what sort of testing it is really? There's these safety arresters for table saws that stop the blade harmlessly if a human finger touches it. While you can run 5 million hotdogs through it, do you really believe it works till some person actually tries it? And who's going to do that? And Is testing under controlled conditions with well maintained saws any test of neglected heavily worn saws in real shops?
Same with car testing. If you aren't having real bicyclists darting in front of these things under bad driving conditions at lethal speeds how are you testing these things for real? Perhaps they should require car company execs to actually perform these acid tests.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Proving criminal negligence is extremely difficult.
love is just extroverted narcissism
You can't pay taxes legally if you're not a legal resident.
That terminology isn't correct. My wife had a social security number and paid her taxes while she was living here on a non-resident visa (H-1B). So, she was not a legal resident. Resident is a legal term.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Writing about "J-walking" is an offense of both capitals and omitted letters.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
You know, not all crimes are felonies and the IRS wants to tax undocumented workers and even illegal income.
Here's an article that explains it. Instead, she has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), created by the IRS in 1996 so people who aren’t allowed to work in the United States could still file taxes on any money they earned. (The IRS does not share ITIN information with immigration authorities.)
Cheap storage VM.
SAE Level 3:
Once you get to Level 3 automation, the primary responsibility no longer relies on the "driver"; it relies on the car. It only becomes the driver's responsibility if the car tells them to take control.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
This accident happened about 1 mile north of Arizona State University's Tempe campus. The Uber cars (grayish SUVs) all look the same and run similar routes around the campus, along Mill and Rural Rd (parallel major roads that run north/south), and Apache Rd (southern border of ASU's Tempe campus) every workday. You kind of know where they're going to turn on what appear to be predefined routes, and they had blended into the car landscape enough to where you'd just think, "There's another Uber," without any novelty.
On those routes, I've never seen one do anything that appeared to be dangerous or erratic in traffic or around pedestrians.
Mill Ave. up near Curry is just across the Salt River bed, is in a patch of undeveloped desert between developments, next to the First Solar headquarters building, a theater, and not too far from a light rail stop.
I'm not saying Uber isn't at fault at all, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was a jaywalker hurrying to catch the light rail. Despite the signage and engineering, people frequently jaywalk near light rail stops along the route.
Well hopefully the determination is made how visible the pedestrian would have been to a human. If you are in a street and you see someone 200 yards down stepping off the curb, you slow down. I find it hard to believe that the situation in a wide road could be such that the pedestrian was totally obscured. If a human could see it then so should an automated vehicle.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So Phoenix, as the Uber test city, has registered its first fatality. With no information made public other than it involved a jaywalking pedestrian, we have 250 posts predicting the entire future of the automated car industry. And illegal aliens, for some reason.
I can't wait to see what the all-wise multitude will say once we actually know what happened.
I wonder if uber's cars use lidar or radar? That one Tesla hit the firetruck. It was explained to me that the radar systems tend to assume anything stationary and in front is a small obstacle like a hubcap in the road, or they would be stopping all the time.
Cheap storage VM.
It's the person's fault for not being detected by a sensor?
Not for not being detected, they probably were detected, but detected too late. If someone sprints from behind an obstacle, like a parked truck or stopped bus, onto a roadway without looking for traffic, then yes, regardless of the nature of the vehicle that hits them, it's their fault. There are loads of videos online where you see exactly this thing happen, where the vehicle had no chance to stop or even react.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Isn't that one way that the system learns? Are you suggesting that we remove all autonomous vehicles, and have everyone still subject to the failures of human drivers, until we can guarantee with 100% certainty that an autonomous vehicle will never hit a person in any situation? What if, in order to avoid a collision with a human, the car rams the vehicle next to it off the road, is that really a better outcome? What if hitting one person is in fact the lesser of evils?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid... then this car screwed up with a factor of driving and that is all there is to it.
That's a lot of "ifs" and conclusions when you have zero information about what actually happened. What if the video gets released and this person jumped out 3 feet in front of the car from behind a bus? What's "all there is to it" in that case? Why even bother with posts like this when you have zero information beyond the fact that a car hit a person?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Except not hitting pedestrians is kind of important. Knowing you're in a residential area and being on the lookout for kids chasing balls is important. Regardless if you had the right of way your not going to win any brownie points by saying that after you run down a kid.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
As a pedestrian I can often look at the driver and determine if they have seen me. They're looking in my direction, or at me directly, or they'll wave/motion their hand for me to proceed across the street. This is very often the case when there's a crosswalk with no light/stop-sign.
How can a self driving car provide this acknowledgement? So that I know that the car sees me so I know for a fact it's safe to cross the street?
that this software is somehow any better than the human in the driving seat (who also didn't spot her).
You just proved the point you were trying to refute. The human backup didn't see her in time to react either. And you have absolutely now way of knowing, unless you were the driver in question, whether they were paying attention or not.
"Jaywalking" is a stupid law
In a perfect world wouldn't need any laws, but we don't live in one of those. Now, should it be perfectly legal to cross a street outside of a cross walk? Absolutely, assuming it's safe to do so. Should it be legal to literally run out in traffic without checking to see if it's safe? Maybe, maybe not. How about this, maybe we make it illegal to run someone over and we also make it illegal to run into traffic? That way when something like this happens (whether it's an automated vehicle or not) we can let the courts figure out who was in the wrong? That's how I taught it to my kids anyway: If you get killed crossing a street, it seems kind of irrelevant as to whose fault it was. Maybe it's just better to pay attention, and not cross the road unless you're damn sure they saw and acknowledged you.
No, jay walking was invented by car companies and entrenched through a massive advertising campaign. It's not the as simple as you think it is.
Cheap storage VM.
OK. And maybe the people who insist that autonomous cars should never, ever, ever have even the smallest possibility to ever hit a person, ever, should likewise come back to reality.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And suggest you test it in a court of law and see how fast your ass gets convicted of manslaughter... ass hole.
While I can't vouch for the data, it is pretty clear that illegal aliens can, if they choose, pay taxes.
As to your other point, if you decided to go live in Germany or Italy without going through the proper process, or having been rejected by the proper process due to a lack of relevant skills, would you have a total disrespect for the law once you got there?
Where I live, snow and ice gathers on the windshield. Some people get lazy in the morning and only scrape away a small section; just enough to see out of the windshield. We get tickets if we are seen operating a motor vehicle in this way. However, people still do it and can drive for quite a long time in this way without having issues. If we hit a person crossing the street while our vehicles were this way then we would surely be at fault. How do we tell whether sensors put on an automated vehicles are enough to consider that vehicle to be in a reasonable safe working condition? Or is automation just peeking through its hole in the windshield?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If it can't drive at least as well as a human -- i.e. be able to respond to outside environment, signs, road markings, other vehicles, and follow a generalized map of how streets connect to one another, it's not "self driving."
Humans don't need a map to the nearest half-inch to drive a vehicle. An autonomous car should not need that either.
You have to violate criminal law to be considered a criminal. Being undocumented is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
According to this list, the civil service. Though, the one you were thinking of, law, seems to be the #2 professional background. According to this article the percentage of lawyers in Congress is actually shrinking, it used to 80% in the 19th century and had fallen to 40% as of 2016. For reference, according to Dr Dutton's list, civil service is 10th on the list of top 10 jobs with the highest rates of psycopathy.
Maybe congress needs more healthcare aide workers? That's the job with the lowest rate of psycopathy.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Don't be an idiot, it's not even close to the level of drunk driving. The system has a reaction time far better than people, and reaction time is one of the major factors of drunk driving. It's not even close. Look at stuff like this, and imagine if that white BMW was a bus or large truck that no sensor could see through. How is it going to avoid hitting her, should it just ram cars next to it and hope that slows it enough? What about the passengers in those other cars? I mean at some point you need to put accountability where it belongs, and when people run out into the street without looking and get their asses hit, they are accountable for that. It does not matter what the nature of the vehicle is which actually hit them, whether it is a Soviet Lada, or a motorcycle, or a bicyclist, or a Ford F-150, or a Volvo with sensors all over it. The person who got hit is still at fault. And if you look at that video and think "well, if that car had magic sensors then that must reduce the braking distance from 120 feet to 10 feet" then you're an idiot.
Autonomous cars still have to follow the laws of physics, and if the car is going the speed limit at 40mph, on a street with no room to swerve, and some idiot who isn't paying attention sprints out into the roadway 15 feet in front of that car, tell me math major, how long does it take the car to get to the person? What is the minimum stopping distance of a 3,000 pound car traveling at 40mph with good tires and a dry road surface? Is it 15 feet? Do autonomous cars get to ignore physics? If they don't, and that person gets hit once the car travels the 15 feet to get to them, whose fault is it?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Implement autonomous pedestrians first, maybe?
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Right, and people on bikes should stop at all stop signs and red lights and otherwise follow the rules of the road. Imaginary land is fun. And there is no evidence that the car did not react appropriately. Wait for the video before deciding who's at fault.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If the sensors are blind to humans crossing the road
If that were true, the vehicles would have never been on the road at all. Sensors that aren't blind are kind of a pre-requisite, so you must be talking out of your ass.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If someone is in the road, you do have a legal obligation to attempt to stop, even if they have absolutely no right to be there.
Sure that would be great, but someone has to figure out how to get there without *killing people*.
Speaking rationally, that's not a good policy. As long as the automatic systems are killing *fewer* people than manual operated vehicles would, that should be good enough to continue working on them, even if the goal of 0 deaths by car accident a year is unattainable.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I guess you have not filled a W4 either.
0 means you pay maximum tax
A large number means you pay minimum tax. But over a given number about 9 the W4 is forwarded to validation.
1 for you, 1 for blind, 1 for spouse, 1 more for blind, 1 for each kid, 1 for every x dollars on schedule A.
Anyone who sets an autonomous chunk of steel with enough mass to kill free to roam in an uncontrolled space (i.e. onto a public road), with no one *attentive* at the controls, is a dangerous sociopath.
The matter of shitty human drivers is an unrelated matter that could easily be addressed but is instead conveniently being used as a strawman to distract from the insanity of forcing this farcical shit on us.
If the sensors were not adequate for the conditions, I would expect a criminal vehicular homicide case against Uber.
So then, if Uber does not get convicted in a criminal vehicular homicide case then we can conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Seriously, why are you going on and on like you have data which showed that the sensors just straight up failed to see this person? Why have you latched onto that as being definitely 100% the reason this happened?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I've never understood this. Why is it fine for someone to be a bad driver, hit and kill someone, no prob. However, if you are a drunk driver or a distracted driver you are in super big trouble now! Seems like we are rewarding bad drivers.
The truly strange thing is when a drunk or distracted driver gets busted without even hurting anyone else, while bad drivers hurt people and are not punished.
Man, you really need that seminar!
The recent introduction which caused people to be hit by cars? I'm not sure a recent introduction is to blame for that, that's been happening since there have been cars. What we are reading about here is the first time, in history as far as I know, that a vehicle driving autonomously has hit and killed a person. Now, look up how many people died on Saturday in collisions between pedestrians and human drivers. I'll wait.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I see quite a few comments claiming it's her fault since she J walked... What happens when the 5 year old runs out into the street to get his ball?
Natural selection?
Seriously though, this did not happen on a residential street. You don't usually see 5 year olds running across multi-lane divided roads for their ball.
Outside a crosswalk does not always mean jaywalking. In many jurisdictions if you are a certain distance from the next corner it is legal to cross. So she may or may not have been legally crossing.
True that.
Traffic laws vary widely among the states and change from time to time. I wonder how the self-driving car manufacturers plan to keep the car's AI updated on all state, county, and city laws in a timely fashion.
For example, In Georgia, a pedestrian is required to use a cross walk ONLY if the segment of road is between two consecutive intersections that have traffic lights. Also, all intersections have a crosswalk, even if one is not painted, there is an implied crosswalk.
In Georgia law, cars must always stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and it is illegal to overtake and pass a car stopped at a crosswalk.
In Georgia, cars are required to blow their horns to warn pedestrians, when necessary. (OCGA 40-6-93)
And Ga law requires motorists to take extra care around confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated persons (which means the entire City of Savannah in March)
Nobody said it was okay for a vehicle to it someone. Only an ignornamus would think that. But there is an enormous difference between being okay to hit someone and not being liable if you do hit someone if that person caused the accident. Probably even in your so-called 'civilized' country.
given how many lawyers are in congress, that seems surprising. Perhaps the large number of lower level politicians (city council, mayor, etc) makes the percentage lower. I wonder if there's a way to do a weighted average by power level?
And yet they cannot apply for social services because they are undocumented... you are not very bright if you are really falling for all of the red herrings you are throwing out
these AIs need to assume that all visible pedestrians are a suicidal Usain Bolt and drive accordingly. they must also assume that any area that a human could be hiding also contains a suicidal Usain Bolt and drive accordingly.
Given that at any moment a person on the sidewalk, or hiding in a bush along the side of the freeway, could sprint out into traffic, and the only thing that would save them would be a 10 MPH speed limit literally everywhere... and on Pacific Coast Highway in SoCal that's just not happening. It's already 35 MPH for a lot of it and most people drive 60. pedestrians cross against traffic all the time like frogger taking their life into their own hands.
"the woman jumped out from behind an obstacle in front of the car"
then the AI was traveling too fast near an obstacle behind which it did not have certainty that it did not conceal a suicidal Usain Bolt
"the conditions made the woman hard to see"
then the AI should have known that conditions were making it impossible to react quickly enough to a suicidal Usain Bolt and should have reduced it's speed to 5 MPH or stopped completely and refused to drive.
it's possible to build self-driving cars that are 100% safe, but it would require that they make insane assumptions about the world that no human driver has ever made ever in their entire lives. not that anybody cares but I neither support nor condemn self-driving tech - I think parts of it have value (such as automatic braking which a lot of cars have) and at the same time, companies can overreach in their goals (trying to create an omnipotent self-driving vehicle for all conditions with 100% safety.)
i don't think you'll ever hear any company exec state on the record that they know 100% safety is impossible.
FYI in Germany, if found to be employing undocumented workers the fine is five figures/worker, plus increased scrutiny of your workforce for years to come.
Nobody hires undocumented workers in Germany. That's partly because they're a bunch of god damn law abiders, partly because they think non-Germans are universally non-workers, but 90% because of potential fines and social sanction.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Then again, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc can get work permits in Germany fairly trivially. The situation is more like the US if California had a legal guest-worker agreement with Mexico.
Well if I were them and making low wage earnings I'd be claiming the max number of allowances to ensure I pay almost nothing in income tax. I don't know why they'd do otherwise.
Making low income and claiming 8 itemizations. They pay very little in taxes, less than they owe. When they aren't working for cash.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Often they don't. Basically the only legal way they can work in Arizona (and the only way they can legally work anywhere) is if they can provide proof that they are here legally. Screening is REQUIRED by the employer under rules defined by the federal government. That leaves a few options for work: Either under the table wage (no income taxes paid) or work under a false (often stolen) identity.
A very common sight in some areas (especially downtown areas in suburban cities) is a group of illegals waiting on a sidewalk for somebody to pick them up for some kind of hard labor or yard work. I've done it once, you just pay them cash, effectively under the table, and it is perfectly legal since in a peer to peer transaction there is no requirement to verify, but they'd be stupid to report it to the IRS.
I've also known a few businesses that hire them full time with under the table wages. This isn't a guess, I knew the owners personally.
The only reasonable response to this, in the words of a certain movie, is: "SHUT IT DOWN!"
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This isn't a pedestrian story, but I had a bicycle pull out in front of me and I managed stop without hitting him, but he fell over as he tried to avoid me. He wanted to sue me for his own recklessness, but the policemen onsite informed us both that it is illegal for a bicycle to be traveling (1) on the sidewalk, and (2) against the flow of traffic. The officers gave me the opportunity to press charges. I declined because my only concern was that he was not injured, But if a car hits (or almost hits) someone it is not necessarily the fault of the car. Neither does it mean that the person in the wrong deserves to be hit. I don't know the circumstances of the incident in the article, but it is quite possible that there was nothing the car could do to avoid the collision. My dad will walk right out in front of a car if he is at the crosswalk because he insists he has the right of way. Maybe so, but stepping out in front of a car at the last minute is a good way to get run over.
In fact, in some jurisdictions jaw-walking is only a crime if you actually interfere with the flow of traffic. Crossing an empty street is fine, crossing a busy street where people have to break to avoid you is illegal, in those jurisdictions.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
In most cases no, they do not. They get paid under the table and both the worker and the employer skip out on the taxes.
I guess you have not filled a W4 either.
Of course he hasn't. In Russia, it's a Ve4
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
And in just about every civilised society to do so is perfectly acceptable and you still have right of way as a pedestrian.
Now which civilized society are you talking about specifically? I just checked a bunch of countries and none of them allow pedestrians to cross outside a crosswalk or intersection.
Fact is, all the super-duper software in the world didn't spot her in time and killed her. Which kinda puts a dent in your plans that this software is somehow any better than the human in the driving seat (who also didn't spot her).
Both failing doesn't prove anything, it means the challenge is too hard to differentiate the two. If I put a tow truck up against a human in a competition to move Mt. Everest, both will fail. That does not mean the truck and the human are of equal strength.
Yes and no. Some accidents are unavoidable, but hardly all 'pedestrian pops out' accidents. People can infer intent from behavior.
You can see someone moving towards the street, going behind the obstacle, and react. You wouldn't need to see the person come out to start braking.
Side streets will be the last driving automated. Highway driving effectively already is. But 25 mph residential?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Nearly impossible is an understatement. Given the typical coefficient of friction between asphalt and road in *IDEAL* conditions, the absolute minimum stopping distance at 45mph is nearly 100 feet, and that's before you even allow for reaction time.
However, assuming that you could get reaction time down to zero by using a computer to control braking, you can easily show that the scenario of a person jumping out in front of a car only 20 feet away is not realistic. In fact, if a person tried to jump out in front of a car when it was only twenty feet away, a person jumping out might be suddenly moving at perhaps 10 to 15 miles per hour, and if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him. The car behind, assuming it was at a safe following distance for the speed, would actually have more than enough time to stop.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just one of *many* similar sites which also correct your misinformation...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...
Essentially- pedestrians have right of way in crosswalks. In many states, they are at fault when jaywalking. Not just don't have right of way- they will be the one found at fault if there is an accident and they are outside of a cross walk.
For Arizona in particular,
Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk.
Additionally, as I've been taught in every driver's safety course. You can be 100% right and still end up100% dead.
You need to decide if enforcing your right of way on that 18 wheeler loaded with steel piping is worth your life.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I've been in cars with assholes driving who speed up if they see anyone who looks hispanic crossing in front of them. They don't have the guts to actually hit them, of course, but they love to see them scramble.
Play Command HQ online
Google self-driving cars run literally millions of miles and the worst accident they get into is one of their cars getting rear-ended by somebody else. Uber gets into the game, and 3 months later they've killed someone. Can't say I'm surprised. Google is generally a responsible company. Uber uses a "break things, move fast, skirt the laws and let someone else pick up the wreckage" business model. Expect quite a bit more of this. I'm not opposed to rapid development of new tech like this. Sometimes, accidents will happen. 100% safety isn't a physical possibility. It's just that nobody should be surprised when outfits like Uber rack up an impressive body count.
Moot point. Newton's laws say the object with the higher mass has the 'right of way'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Did you cuff them one in the nose after they safely stopped at a light?
Sure that would be great, but someone has to figure out how to get there without *killing people*.
Well that's easy. We just need to ban all human-driven cars from the road first. Then when self-driving cars is perfected, however long that takes, we gradually allow them onto the roads.
GTF out article reader. We don't like your kind.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Absolutely correct, however it goes further than that.
If someone is likely to enter the road in front of you, you also have a legal obligation to allow for that, probably by slowing or making space.
You MUST be able to stop the the clear road ahead of you, and you MUST allow for foreseeable changes in the road conditions (including someone entering it).
If someone is walking towards the side of the road looking like they will enter it just as you get there, not slowing down IS your fault, and you had better be ready to prove a reason why you didnt if you hit them (even if they were being stupid, perhaps reading their 'device', etc).
This is all pretty damn well established, and its pretty worrying that some people dont understand why.
The fact that the operator/driver wasn't paying attention to their surrounding does not "exempt" the operator/driver from the vehicular homicide.
No matter what the law says, the truth is that some idiot trusted the software for do that they should have been doing, which is paying attention and giving a crap.
What the law will figure out... who knows. The person who initiated the drive is at fault of negligent homicide.
I.E. the pedestrian that has already entered the roadway does not have to yield to vehicles. This is analogous to a vehicle already in an signaled intersection when the light turns red has the right of way even though a vehicle may not enter the intersection after the light turns red.
However, clause (b) of the Georgia law you link to does identify a case where a pedestrian already in the roadway must yield to a vehicle.
Cars are not under any obligation to stop to let you cross a road, except at a zebra crossing.
Really? I mean, how many zebras are there in the UK such that they have special crosswalks? I'm not a zebra--I'm a human being! Is this kind of like in India, where cows are sacred? Zebras are so important that they get their own crossing?
Gads. At least here in the US, crosswalks are for pedestrians. Not Zebras.
It's more about observation than reaction time. So many times I've seen someone dart into the road a block and a half before the intersection. Sometimes you can't see all of them because there are so many cars around, but you see a jacket, or a head or an arm. Then you slow down and remove the requirement to react. I wonder how far ahead these cars are looking and if they are tracking everything moving as far as they can view? Or are they the driver that stares at the car ahead of them (ok in 360) and don't really understand what is happening way up the road.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I see quite a few comments claiming it's her fault since she J walked... What happens when the 5 year old runs out into the street to get his ball?
We determine whether the driver could have seen him, and if not, then we blame the parents for doing a terrible job. I was afraid of being run over in traffic from a very early age, and I never went and played in the highway even though I lived right next to it. I lived on a sleepy little back street with maybe a dozen houses, and even then I wouldn't ride my big wheel down my steep-ass driveway, across the street, and down the dirt lane across the road unless I had a lookout to make sure I wouldn't get creamed by a car. And I had that attitude from damned earlier than five.
This technology has to be better than people before it can be let loose on public streets.
That it killed someone does not even suggest that it's not better than people, let alone prove it. Human drivers kill pedestrians literally every day.
The reality is we are years from this being ready for prime time- aka safe. Unfortunately it will take people dying to separate the truth from the hype.
Human drivers are not ready for prime time by your definition.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Jaywalking" is a stupid law unless you are literally trying to obstruct traffic or cause an accident.
Building your society around cars is stupid, but having done so, not having Jaywalking laws is idiotic. It'd be nice if they didn't come into effect when there's no car anywhere in the vicinity, but they still make sense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well... The DEA was interfering with medical MJ dispensaries, but had the courts shut them down. And law enforcement is pretty keen to keep the MJ laws enforced (even in places where the laws have gotten much looser). If local law enforcement in CA or CO had a notion that a grower or dispensary was shipping directly across state lines, then there would be busts (probably involving the feds). In CO a big dispensary lost their license for selling over the limit to people. MJ law enforcement has typically been carried out by state and local law enforcement, except in cases where DEA or FBI were called in because the investigation crossed state lines or had federal implications. So I'd say the Feds are doing the "right" thing in the case of MJ -- they enforce what they can and what makes sense given their resources.
And when it comes to enforcing laws around immigration, states can't make laws regarding that topic and different localities seem to have different priorities when it comes to directing their own law enforcement agents to enforce federal laws. So why should my state or local police care about enforcing a federal only law? I don't pay them to enforce those laws, after all... I pay the federal government to do that. Which they do... not sure I understand their approach all the time.
In both cases, this whole "lobby to change the law" meme is just stupid. It would rely on the USA having free and fair elections. Which we don't.
I do not have a signature
The problem with the selective enforcement that you advocate is that it gives the police and politicians the ability to jail their enemies at will. Everyone breaks the law, no one is punished, unless you piss off the wrong person, or don't bow low enough.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
The US _does_ have a legal guest worker agreement with Mexico. But it's easier and cheaper to just ignore the border while not paying taxes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Can't happen? Zero fucking times. Prove me wrong with a link.
From the Independent on a system Intel made to ensure the impossibility of fault by self-driving cars:
self-driving vehicles can't cause accidents
Why can't the car calculate the maximum distance that a pedestrian can run from the sidewalk and drive at a speed that makes it impossible for the pedestrian to get hit? The math is quite simple, the difficult part of determining what is a pedestrian has already been solved. The same algorithm could be used to avoid hitting deer, livestock, bicyclists, children, and so on.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
She was hit here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
I know this because I looked at
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
and I know the location intimately. The speed limit here is 40. The road, Mill Avenue, going northbound is two lanes plus it is adding turn lanes to go west and east. There is a bike lane. The road has just gone over a bridge (man-made lake) and under a freeway bridge (202) -- there are no off- or on-ramps at this location. There is a parking lot under the bridge for the concert venue (SW corner: visible in the Reuter's image) plus there's a public park/beach on the north side of the lake.
As
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
states, there was no rain.
http://alert.fcd.maricopa.gov/...
I haven't seen the crumpled bicycle photo, but we JUST started a bunch of "share bike" schemes in the Phoenix metro area (well, Phoenix proper has had one for while -- Tempe/Scottsdale ones are more recent): Limebike is the main one, I think (we have some that have "Ono" on them, as well). So if the bike is yellow or yellow/green, it was probably one of those. Tempe is hugely bike friendly for a US city because it is both (a) the site of ASU (b) progressive.
The southbound lanes are 2 wide at this point, so this lady was riding a bike across ~5 lanes of traffic plus a BIG (mostly paved) median. There's a shortcut trail just RIGHT there to go east, so maybe she was aiming for that.
A sad situation for sure. I see the Uber and Waymo vehicles all the time, so there's no lack of miles in and around that area.
There's a reason people are recommended to wear high visibilty clothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But from the news reports on TV, it looks like the woman was on a bicycle and there was a garden sprinkler nearby.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Why is it fine for someone to be a bad driver, hit and kill someone, no prob.
Depends what you mean by "bad driver". If they violated some traffic regulation, it's not "no prob". If they didn't, who decides if they're a "bad driver"?
The truly strange thing is when a drunk or distracted driver gets busted without even hurting anyone else...
If you're endangering people, why should the authorities have to wait until someone's actually hurt to intervene?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The point of AI cars is that they're supposed to be able to handle things like that with those sensors.
You don't know what "things like that" actually is, because none of us sitting here actually knows what occurred. No number of sensors will prevent an accident if a pedestrian runs out into traffic right in front of a car, for example. It's simple physics.
The discussion will be much more interesting if we find out what the actual scenario was. As it stands now, we've just got a bunch of people doubling down on their predetermined positions.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Sadly someone was going to be the first sooner or later.. And with that in mind Uber's behavior when it comes to self driven cars, and as a company in general has always been a bit sketchy. So one could argue that at least it is good that Uber is the one getting the unwanted (but perhaps needed?) attention now.
What on EARTH is with your policies regarding pedestrians? My girlfriend was happily walking directly in front of cars on any streets sub 20mph
Shopping centre car park, intersections, etc, no hesitation just waltzing in front of cars and the cars have to make way.
What? ...... What?
In Australia, unless you're at a crossing, the car has right of way. At an intersection, if the car is turning into a road, the pedestrians have right of way _only_ at that intersection.
I was endlessly seeing people walk in front of cars and while in a vehicle we were constantly stopping for people to just walk in front of us. It's pretty crazy.
Also, while I'm at it, I feel terribly sorry for the software guys having to code in the 4 way stop sign, it's a laughable piece of 1400s technology or something. There's this thing called a roundabout,..... Good god is the 4 way stop sign horrifically inefficient.
(Love your turn on red, if safe though, bravo)
In most areas you are criminally responsible for hitting any pedestrian, jaywalking or not. Dosent matter if they are hiding between two cars and throw themselves at you. If they die, you could face manslaughter charges unless you are lucky and have a good lawyer.
I remember seeing this as a pedestrian. Mother and grandmother were talking to each other with their back to the traffic. Two small children were beside her. One decides to run out into road past the parked cars, pause, turns around and runs back again. Second later, a large container trucks zooms by. Didn't see the child, and the adults didn't even realize that an accident very nearly happened.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We also have crossings just for Pelicans.
Nobody hires undocumented workers in Germany.
That is so not true. They just hire them indirectly by paying a foreign company for services instead. That keeps their hands clean.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If self-driving cars rack up fewer pedestrian deaths per mile driven than human drivers, that's the critical metric.
No. What matters is whether the self-driving car is as a practical matter perfected and trustworthy --- and that is nore than a purely statistical calculation. The numbers may be on your side, but what people will see will be the bodies on on the road and no driver behind the wheel.
That foreign company would be shutdown in a day. They do send work over borders.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Frankly, it doesn't need to look any farther than the distance required to stop. And, again, adding sensors to a vehicle does not magically affect the friction coefficient on the tires and give the car braking abilities that defy physics.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
A bus passed me today while I was walking on the pavement. It was less than 10cm away, it practically touched. The only way to guarantee not hitting me if I decide to jump in front of it is to go below my speed. Even worse, if I had been walking TOWARDS the bus, it would have to drive backwards to be safe.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Why can't you drive in the left (inside) lane? Being farther from the sidewalk, you could drive faster without being in danger of hitting someone who suddenly steps off the curb into traffic.
If you're driving in the right lane because you're about to make a right turn, then you should be slowing down anyway.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You're not understanding me. A human might well have seen the girl from 100 yards back but the AI might not have detected her until it was coming around the other stopped vehicles. A human would have 100 yards to slow down and be prepared to stop. If an AI is not looking that far ahead, it might end up with no time to stop.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And how many people die in or by hand driven cars?
Why can't you drive in the left (inside) lane?
If you are asking why the bus did not drive in the inside lane, that is because there was only two lanes and it would have been kind of annoying for the cars coming the other way if the bus picked their lane.
If you are proposing a 10MPH speed limit on all two-lane roads, well that is certainly a valid proposal. I wish you good luck in your attempts at getting it through.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If pedestrians on the sidewalk are really only 10cm from fast-moving automobile traffic, the street is inherently unsafe and needs to be redesigned. Until then, the Basic Speed Law legally requires traffic in the right (outside) lane to be especially slow and careful. If that means going only 10 mph, then so be it.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
If this girl could have been seen 100, 200 yards back by a human, who would have slowed down by the time they reached the intersection, then the accident shouldn't have been a reaction call at all. How far ahead are these cars able to notice and track someone who is walking onto the road a block ahead? I know I see things like that all the time. And I might not see them again until it is too late because they go behind cars. But I would have slowed down and it wouldn't be an issue.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And a driver should watch what is happening as far down the road as possible. How far are automated cars watching down the road? Are they giving themselves time to slow down?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Whats important to learn here is the computer system in control of the car is taught differently. If a human makes this kind of error, we have a legal punishment system and just hope it doesn't happen again. Except it does, frequently. More 'care' is taken, but it seems we have some hard limits. But software cannot ignore updates. If this kind of error occurs, and something was noticed, it will never go unnoticed again, for any model. They are a slave to the update.
Sure that would be great, but someone has to figure out how to get there without *killing people*.
No, they really don't. People will be killed by cars. Period. If self-driving cars are safer than human drivers, that's a victory for everyone.
Testing at limited scale, high diligence all around, and stopping everything when there's an accident until root cause it know, that's the right process. Was the car even at fault? Could it possibly have stopped in time? We don't yet know.
Human driver or robot driver, don't step out in front of a car until you see it stopping for you. That's just basic "how to cross the street" we all should have learned by 8, but phone zombies have added to drunk pedestrians to swell the ranks of attempted suicides.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As I have a friend awaiting trial for manslaughter next week, I imagine I know it better than you do.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
>> The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said.
I love (not) how they kill someone then this idiot spokesman is apparently trying to make it sound even possibly like it was her fault.
Inferring the intent of 'objects' is a very tough problem for an AI.
Find me an image processing algorithm that can tell the difference between 'child's toy' and 'road debris'. Cardboard can be either.
50 mph streets with sidewalks and roadside obstacles is a design failure IMHO. Aren't their standards for such things...Traffic engineers? Civils? Those guys love codes, likely have 3 conflicting ones though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's not the real problem with Level 3.... the real problem is that Level 3 basically says, "You can stop paying attention for long periods of time".... but then suddenly demands that you instantly take over to rescue a situation that the vehicle doesn't know how to deal with.
Level 4 is problematic too, although not as badly. Level 4 says that the vehicle can safely get itself out of situations that it doesn't know how to deal with, but can't drive in all situations. E.g. if it start snowing and the car doesn't know how to deal with snow, it doesn't instantly demand that you take over, but it gently pulls over. Then what? Let's assume that you still have steering controls and the like in the vehicle - do you demand that the person drive? Make them wait out the snowstorm? What if they're inebriated, sleepy, someone without a license, someone too young to drive, no people in the vehicle at all, etc? Basically you still have to have a person in the car who is capable and ready to drive in Level 4 unless they want to be able to get stranded.
I think it's smart of Tesla to take the roadmap of 1-2-5, skipping over levels 3 and 4 entirely. I actually have some concerns with how good the latest autopilot update is turning out to be, which they rolled out last week. Because it's really good, even handling things like construction zones like a champ. And because people aren't going to be as concerned with it, I expect a lot more people to start slacking off when it's driving than they used to, just tapping the steering wheel when the car says to without paying attention. Aka, treating it like it's SAE #3. Model 3 has a driver-facing camera and I imagine they plan to implement it as an attention monitor as a second check that the driver is truly paying attention.
Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was a jaywalker hurrying to catch the light rail. Despite the signage and engineering, people frequently jaywalk near light rail stops along the route.
Tempe PD say she was going from the West side of Mill to the East side. Maybe just walking her bike over to the bike lane to go north?
There is plenty of brush in median to obscure someone coming out onto the road. And yes, the "no pedestrians/use crosswalk signs" in the median, although there also is a trash can in the median, and for the life of me I can't figure out how you would get to the trash can without being a pedestrian unless you have a jet pack.
Video of the accident scene shows a damaged bicycle on the adjacent sidewalk. Was the victim attempting to cross Mill Avenue on foot outside the crosswalk as suggested or is it possible she was cycling northbound in the cycle lane along Mill Avenue? At the site of the accident, the cycle lane crosses the vehicle right turn lane to continue across the Curry Road intersection. There is a street sign just a hundred feet prior to the beginning of the right turn lane warning drivers to yield to bikes. The victim may have had the right of way. I reserve judgment. Presumably the Uber car was video recording its trip. That video hopefully provides some clarity about what transpired. https://www.abc15.com/news/reg... https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
Exactly. This is why I say automated cars aren't ready. If you can't see a hand while you are coming past a row of cars and not deduce that you should slow down, then AI will be killing people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If its about saving lives then invest in your streets and sidewalks as well (tech). Clear some of those Vars the Car has to deal with.
[($)]
That's totally right. Consider another thought experiment, one driver plays soccer, realizes the ball is about to be kicked into the road by some kids, slows down while another doesn't and nearly hits one. It shows how prediction of actions by intelligent actors is required for perfectly safe driving.
Driving requires courtesy beyond right of way all day long as well, which comes from knowing what other drivers want.
The only way forward I call ORDO, one road dual observers, where self driving system can override human drivers for safety on the backstreets but not drive, and a second DOT system monitoring on main roads that can override self driving system. It's not what Uber wants to hear but it's fine for them: Walk a few blocks to get an Uber, drive it anywhere, walk a few blocks to get back home. Or allow remote drivers.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
And in just about every civilised society to do so is perfectly acceptable and you still have right of way as a pedestrian.
Now which civilized society are you talking about specifically? I just checked a bunch of countries and none of them allow pedestrians to cross outside a crosswalk or intersection.
Like most of Europe?
In France, it is illegal to cross the street away from a pedestrian path IF there is a pedestrian cross within 50 meters. But in any case, once the pedestrian is on the street, the pedestrian has right of way, even if the cross is illegal.
The only place where pedestrian do not have right of way is on the interstate. (Autoroute.)
Payroll tax.
crossing the street carrying the f'n bike with a cross walk and green walky person. It was at an intersection where the light only turns red if somebody (me) pushes the button to cross. She didn't even register I was there. The lady clipped my rear wheel. Nice big SUV at 45-50 mph. If the lady had been driving half a mile faster I wouldn't be typing this right now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him.
The pedestrian's "reaction" performance is irrelevent --- point is, assuming the pedestrian failed to adequately look before they leapt into the road, and entered the road without seeing the car at the time.
Ofcourse, another permutation is the pedestrian grossly misjudged the distance of the vehicle travelling 50MPH less than 100 feet away and assumed the vehicle would stop for them.
I always drive as if people are going to jump in front of me. Just last week it saved me from running over an idiots dog that did just that. Further I always look for feet under vehicles or people about to open thier car doors. I'm pretty sure that's saved at least one life. Just because you fixate on a gibbering nut-job posting to Facebook dosent mean half decent or even average drivers behave that way.
I always drive as if people are going to jump in front of me.
It is physically impossible to always stop if someone jumps in front of you. Your argument is with Isaac Newton, not with me.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
This isn't the case you're looking for. There was a driver behind the wheel, and he (or she) was responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
I haven't heard of any good cases regarding autonomous mining trucks like CAT 794f, but those might come first.
Bruce Perens.
Sympathy=0
You'd be happy if your child, not well-versed in road diiscipline, was run over and killed?
At least from what Google has said about their testing, I think the safety driver is trained to take over immediately. They can take the data out of the car later and replay it in simulation to see if the car would have handled it correctly or not, so there's no point in taking any risks to try it out in meatspace. (They can also then tweak the scenario in many ways to see what would've happened in thousands of similar scenarios, and to make sure that future versions of their software continue to behave appropriately.)
I have no idea how Uber does their testing, but I really hope for the sake of the whole self-driving industry that they take it a little more seriously than they do for literally anything else they have ever done...
Children die needlessly from lots of things. That's why there's a concept called parenting.
Yeah the Netherlands is better. The same laws along with the missing porn and sex.
It's like Britan with real beer and hookers.
Like most of Europe?
In France, it is illegal to cross the street away from a pedestrian path IF there is a pedestrian cross within 50 meters. But in any case, once the pedestrian is on the street, the pedestrian has right of way, even if the cross is illegal.
If you're in a city, almost all roads will have a pedestrian crossing within 50 meters. And though I can't read French, I'm going to assume there's some wording in their laws that says the pedestrian is to wait until it is safe to cross and not to jump in front of cars.
As to right of way, of course the vehicle should try to stop if the collision is imminent, but the laws of physics take precedence over the laws of people.
So, in your opinion, we should just pick and choose which laws we'd like to obey and which we wish to ignore. In other words, anarchy, right?
Just another day in Paradise
That doesn't change the fact that these laws exist for our safety. All that article spells out is that as cars began using the roads, it was soon recognized that the streets were no longer a safe location for pedestrians. We could either make cars practically useless, or pass laws to try and keep pedestrians out of the road and put some liability on the pedestrian if they enter a road in an unsafe manner at an unsafe location.
Or we could still be living with ridiculously slow vehicles only owned and operated by the filthy rich due to government mandated governors and driver liability for all accidents.
The Automotive industry saw a threat, yes. But they avoided that threat by getting pedestrians out of the roads. Which is for our safety. Not just so they can sell cars.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
"If the operator was drunk or playing with their cell phone and the accident could have been avoided, that's pretty monstrous."
FTFY
Just another day in Paradise
Sensor that are connected to software that makes the decisions. That isn't infallible, does not necessarily move the blame onto the person. I have sensors in my car that flash at me to brake whenever I approach an onramp a bit faster than the software likes because it thinks I'm going to run into the guardrail. That's poor coding, when it can't tell by the angle of the steering wheel and lateral g-force that I'm not going to hit it.
My previous vehicle (Infiniti FX45) had a rangefinding cruise control system that would keep you at a distance from the vehicle in front of you. Frequently, if I was overtaking an 18 wheeler in the next lane, it would suddenly put on the brakes. That kind of shit can get you rear ended, but let's all keep trusting in these wonderful sensors that can do no wrong.
Having been a software developer for many years (prior to becoming a pointy haired manager), I won't be giving up full control to an automatic vehicle w/o the ability of human override any time soon.
Just another day in Paradise
Unless you are advocating altering humans to make them better drones to drive, technology is the answer.
Then technology is STILL the answer, which is obviously cyborg drivers.
Part man, part machine, ALL chauffeur.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It's an issue of liability. If a human-controlled vehicle hits someone, or otherwise causes an accident, someone directly involved in the situation is held to account, and the world moves on.
If the accident turns out to be the fault of a car component, like the brakes, or the steering, or the car's AI - which basically falls into the same safety category - then the situation is very, very different. Expect to see some protracted legal battles over exactly who should shoulder the blame - all I can say is I'm very glad not to work directly on any safety-related software.
oh no, they will hit you right-a-way if you're standing in the, middle of the road. Ive seent it! O.o
Interesting how Musk is all worried about killer robots and killer AI used by the military, but can't wait to get killer robots out on our streets. What? Yeah, self driving cars are exactly that, killer robots. I work with real time software, flight software, and robots. There is no way these "autonomous" vehicles should be allowed on the streets. We keep people outside of the workspace of robots because they can crush your skull in an instant. Not malevolently like a T-800, because we write the software, but through software, electrical, or mechanical defects. What's the going metric for bugs per line of code nowadays, it used to be one bug per 5000 lines of code. Even if the software had to meet DO-178B standard I wouldn't want them on the road because these are consumer grade devices. Air traffic is much more tightly controlled and much sparser with the only equivalent to a pedestrian being birdstrike.
It's sad that it will take injuries and deaths for ignorant politicians and greedy tech "visionaries" to put the brakes on these public roadway death tests. It's not a smartphone for crying out loud, it is 2000lbs + of metal and plastic capable of causing lots of harm.
You obviously haven't lived here very long if you do live here. Local laws are easy enough to google. Hell google '2011 las vegas jaywalker hit' should get about 100 or so pop up.. Its one thing to not believe somebody, but to lie and say you're from Vegas(you would know otherwise) just to help cast your shadow of doubt because YOU dont believe something. You could have easily spent that amount of time searching for the law.
quote from P AND A Las Firm
According to Nevada Statute 484B.287, pedestrians using a crosswalk, or obeying crossing signage at a local intersection, usually have the right of way, and vehicles are expected to yield to them while they're crossing the street. The only time a pedestrian wouldn't have the right of way is if they were to step off a curb or dart into the street suddenly, obstructing the path of vehicles and giving cars too little time to brake or move out of the way.
If you're a pedestrian, and you don't cross a road at an intersection or in a crosswalk, you must yield to vehicle traffic in all cases. Some roadways lack a crosswalk or intersection, offering you no choice but to cross wherever you can do so safely. Failing to use crosswalks or intersections on streets that do have them, however, is considered jaywalking and could earn you a ticket.
Essentially its legal to run over a jay walker for 2 reasons, dead people cant defend their self, and its not so clear cut to define jumping in front of a vehicle. As I said as long as long as you're sober, you're legal, and you stop IF you run somebody over, you wont go to jail in Las Vegas. I've seen it. and now its all over the news when it DOES happen.
That's not true, and as a frequent pedestrian myself, even though I may have the right of way I'm still going to lose in the battle of Me VS Vehicle. Better off to just wait the extra few seconds-minutes to safely cross. It blows my mind how many people are willing to risk it all just to shave a few minutes off of their trip.
Correct, for example it was on a residential street with no oncoming traffic. I drove on the wrong side of the road illegally and Avoided killing that idiots dog (who then flipped me off I guess for driving on the wrong side of the road).
As humans driving we often weigh the probability of trouble and the convenience of getting to our destination.
Perhaps the AI was like "no way she'll be so stu#@#$(^*THUD*THUD*" but more like EAX,AX,AH,AL IF&256?
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
EXACTLY. It's unreasonable to expect traffic to impede itself based on theoretical possibilities.
Some people seem confused of what is required, and seem to have the belief that the driver is required to slow down to a speed where they can guarantee to avoid or yield to a reckless animal or pedestrian ---- merely because there's an obstacle on the side of the road, or off on the shoulder of a highway which could theoretically be concealing such creature or person that if dumb enough could spring into the road.
When in reality the rule is generally the pedestrian must yield to traffic if not at a crosswalk, and the driver is only required to make a best effort at stopping to avoid hitting them --- if the pedestrian comes into the road, and the car is at a distance capable of stopping, they must try to stop.
There is no requirement to slow down to a pedestrian waiting at the road for your vehicle to pass.
Thus in fact: it is irrelevent whether it is physically conceivable that a hidden pedestrian could leap into the roadway with reckless abandon; unless a person can be seen visibly entering into the street or one step away from it while the car is still reasonably far to take steps --- most humans will not slow down at all at the "anticipation" of pedestrians coming out from potential hiding spots --- and they aren't required to, either.
Unless there are traffic controls on the street requiring it, or hazardous weather, or other adverse driving conditions: the appropriate driving speed is the speed limit.
Slowing down might have been able to avoid an incident, and an abundance of caution is reasonable if erratic pedestrian behavior can be observed ahead of time
--- BUT NO MORE than an abundance of caution is required.
If the driver's current speed is safe: drivers are not expected or required to attempt to stop or slow down in anticipation that another driver or pedestrian will violate the rules of the road and enter the roadway unsafely, until after evidence that they will is observed --- for example, you don't slow down to 5mph when approaching a green light: in case a car going the perpendicular chooses to run a stop sign or red light (when there's no way you can see down the street both ways from afar), and doing so would cause more dangers of accidents due to congestion and inefficient usage of the roads.
The correct context is probably passenger-miles per equivalent death (pedestrians hit by vehicles). But finding that data is waaaaay beyond the abilities of a 24x7 news cycle.
If Slashdot is so smart, why aren't we able to help with this problem?
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Let's write an accurate story here.
Woman Dies After Walking Into Traffic
A woman in Tempe, Arizona died of her injures after walking into traffic and being struck by a car.
Wow. Take out the 'self-driving' part and it's just another story about someone who jaywalked and got hit. Didya know that there were 10 pedestrian deaths in Tempe in a single week this month? Didya know that Arizona ranked 3rd in pedestrian deaths in 2016? No? That's because it's not sensational enough to make the news outside of that area.
It isn't the cars that's the problem. It's the people who don't pay attention to the large metal death machines,
How do towns work where you live?
This is literally how roads are in basically every town and city I have ever been to. Pavement, kerb less than 10cm wide, then road. Requiring cars and particularly bicycles to go at only 10MPH would bring everything to a halt.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Itâ(TM)s property taxes that fund school. If they pay rent they are paying property taxes. Inadvertently
It's a risk, not a penalty. There are no exemptions from the laws of physics relating to mass in motion.
Only boring people are ever bored.
True.
Only boring people are ever bored.
No car can stop when at speed and an object rapidly appeared in front of it. Automated cars can't read minds any better than humans can.
Only boring people are ever bored.
If you got someone in a zebra crossing and they die, your almost certainly looking at jail time in most jurisdictions in developed countries. Third world...... You just accelerate for a bit and keep gonna and bribe the cops if they catch you and there is no video. It won't be cheap though.
Only boring people are ever bored.
What "the girl" are you talking about, the one in the video I linked to above? The one who actually got hit by a person, who did not might well have seen her? Or one of the other hundreds or thousands of people who get hit by humans every day? I hope you're not talking about the one who got squished next to Marquee Theater by Uber, because when a show lets out there, there are people running all over the street (right next to a bus stop, 4 or 5 story parking garage, and light rail stop - AKA, obstacles).
There's no reason to freak out.
If an AI is not looking that far ahead, it might end up with no time to stop.
Well, if my aunt had balls, she might end up being my uncle. All of the speculation is a fun exercise and all, but let's go ahead and assume that the people who have been working on autonomous driving for the last decade haven't been sitting around doing nothing all day.
Also, I like how you're assuming the best for humans, who "might well have" seen someone 300 feet in front of them and they're getting ready to respond to them. Have you seen actual human drivers? Often they have no idea where they're heading or where they're supposed to go, much less anything going on around them. But then, just like you assume the best for humans, you assume the worst for AI, like the AI is sitting there texting its friend instead of watching the road. Come back to reality. Yes, in the reality you're describing where humans are always aware of everything within 100 yards, and AI just straight up doesn't see a person right in front of them, it's safer to keep AI off the road. That is not the reality in which we live though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
OK so the bad news is that an exception was thrown, but the good news is that I caught it. Wait, no, that's also bad news.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
What vehicles can or can not do is completely irrelevant. What vehicles should and shouldn't do is completely irrelevant.
A single claim was made. That claim is "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".
That quoted law says " Every pedestrian ... [a bunch of cases here ] .... shall yield the right of way".
It doesn't matter what the [a bunch of cases] actually are just that they exist. It doesn't matter where that law is valid (state of GA) just that it is valid somewhere.
"ALL" claims are simply disproved with a single counter-example - I'm pretty sure they still teach that in school.
OK, in 2015 5,376 pedestrians were killed by cars in the US, which averages to about one death per 1.6 hours. For autonomous cars, Waymo alone (this doesn't include Uber or Lyft) has driven over 4 million miles on public roads. I'm not real sure how to translate that to hours, but it took them about 6 months to do the last million miles. Uber did 1 million miles across 30,000 trips in 1 year in "Steel City" (Pittsburgh maybe?). So autonomous cars have driven over 5 million miles at a minimum, and we have 1 pedestrian death. My quick math shows me that 1 death over 5 million miles is somewhat less than 1 death per 1.6 hours.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The claim was "Pedestrians ALWAYS have right-a-way over cars".. I only need one location and one specific set of criteria in which pedestrians do not have right of way to show the claim as false.
That pedestrians often have right of way is irrelevant. That you can't just ignore and hit those who don't have right of way is irrelevant.
It's not speculation at all; it's an understanding of what successful human drivers do. It is a physical reality about the world that a car approaching that intersection needs to have an understanding of exactly what is going on in an intersection as it approaches. Information about the intersection may be 300, 200, 100 yards back and not available 5 yards away. And yes most people do do this, otherwise there would be a lot more human accidents. Every defensive driving course tells you to look around you. Some people stare at the car in front of them, agreed, but those are bad drivers. If AI is not capable of replicating all habits of good drivers then it is truly too early to have these things on the road. Despite the number of human accidents, the fact is that there are millions of cars on the road being driving by humans NOT getting in accidents and they are doing something right.
If an automated car is not gathering all information about an intersection from the visibility point on then AI is failing us, and will continue to kill people. Furthermore, people like you will continue to shrug their shoulders and wonder why.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That's irrelevant to the claim in question, so why?
People literally have the same problem, as attested to the over 5,000 pedestrian deaths due to crashes in the US in 2015. So, we can conclude that human drivers are not ready.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Despite the number of human accidents, the fact is that there are millions of cars on the road being driving by humans NOT getting in accidents and they are doing something right.
Waymo and Uber combined have over 5 million autonomous miles driven on public roads since 2009 (that includes only 1 city in which Uber operates, I don't know the numbers for all of the rest; we could be talking about 10 million miles). This has resulted in 1 pedestrian death. There is no reality where this means that autonomous driving is more unsafe than human driving.
If an automated car is not gathering all information about an intersection from the visibility point on then AI is failing us, and will continue to kill people.
What information do you have about the information gathered by the vehicles? Are you just making assumptions about what they are or are not doing, or do you have actual insight? Do you think you have more insight than the people actively working on the problems, or are you just going to second-guess everything that you imagine they're working on?
Furthermore, people like you will continue to shrug their shoulders and wonder why.
Oh, is that what I'm doing, just wondering why? I've been to that intersection many times, I bet I know exactly what happened. I think that a rational response would be to study the interaction, the inputs, and the decisions by the computer and determine 1) if a human would be expected to respond any differently, and if so, adjust the system; 2) if the system failed to react appropriately. Yanking all autonomous vehicles off all roads is not a rational response, it's a knee-jerk panic response by people who don't understand what happened in the first place. If a plane crashes we don't ground all flying vehicles until we figure out why that one crashed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Can't happen? Zero fucking times. Prove me wrong with a link.
Wrong assumption. If it appends, its a bug and can be fix. Humans are full of bugs with no hope to fix. Next génération will found us weird to give cars in the hands of humans.
- 10 million *carefully selected* miles with optimal conditions
- I asked an honest question if they are looking ahead at intersections. If they are gathering information about what is happening down the road then all my comments are moot. Companies don't seem to want to be open about this kind of information so assumptions are all we have to go by.
- Well, if there was a collection of experimental planes and one crashed, yes they would yank all the planes until they know what happened. Even now if a plane is found to have a serious flaw they do ground all planes that may have that flaw until it is checked. They certainly don't fly them over populated areas.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Her death wasn't deserved but when you make bad choices in life (like walking in a median and crossing outside of a crosswalk) bad things are bound to happen. I feel sorry for Uber that they were dragged through the mud by the media yesterday for what was obviously something outside of their control. I'd be really interested to know what the car DID do though even though the result was accident. This one event could possibly serve to prevent a future one.
Scott
10 million *carefully selected* miles with optimal conditions
Seriously, do at least the minimum research. You'll find out, for example, that the reason they test in San Francisco is because of the very high density and the number of obstacles they run into per mile (construction zones, vehicles improperly parked on narrow streets, streetlights without power, jaywalkers, cyclists being cyclists, emergency vehicles, inclement weather, etc etc etc). They even specifically compare the conditions and "value" between center San Francisco and the Phoenix suburbs, which are wildly different. In fact, you can even find a handy table where they list the frequency of encountering these obstacles in Phoenix vs. San Francisco if you're into the whole data thing instead of just trying to make statements that you don't know are true. Carefully selected miles in optimal conditions? You made that claim, you really want to try to back it up now? Go see how many cities Uber operates these vehicles in. Really, expecting someone to do the absolute bare minimum of research before they try to act like an authority shouldn't be asking too much.
About the fatality, that happened at 10pm at an intersection with a theater which lets out a ton of people when the show ends, with a lot of traffic turning there and people walking across the street to the garage, with a bus stop and light rail stop next to it also. Yeah, that's the optimal condition in which to do a driving test, that's totally the reason they chose that time and location.
I asked an honest question if they are looking ahead at intersections.
1) it sounds like you were making an assumption; 2) why are you asking that question on Slashdot? Is it rhetorical, and you're implying the answer is no and that helps your argument, or are you honestly looking for a response from an automatic driving engineer at Uber? Because so far you've just been speculating. I guess you're going to go with the "I'm just asking questions" excuse when I start challenging your assumptions.
If they are gathering information about what is happening down the road then all my comments are moot.
I'm glad we agree that all of your comments are moot. Unless you honestly believe that they are not gathering information about what is happening down the road and that the sensors are there just for people to look at.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
- Ok well if they have tested that extensively then I guess there will be a completely believable reason how the Uber car completely failed to miss a person running in an open road. I guess she is invisible.
- There are a lot of people on slashdot who know these things, but normally they are the type of people that speak up only if it supports automated cars. So I'm thinking they don't look ahead at all, or are very bad at recognizing shapes that are far ahead or obscured. Oh! I think there have actually been articles on how AI is easy to fool recently.
- I honestly think they are bad at recognizing objects from far away, especially when partially obscured. I hope they are eventually forced to demonstrate that they are actually catching everything that happens in front of them on the road, maybe then I will be proved wrong.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I honestly think they are bad at recognizing objects from far away
Well, try not to worry about it too much, honey. Go to your room, put on some comforting safe music that won't trigger you, I'll make you a cup of tea, and we'll lock out any opinion or fact that in any way threatens what you want to think.
Ok well if they have tested that extensively then I guess there will be a completely believable reason
Thank you. I agree. End of discussion.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's funny how you can cut off half way through a sentence and make it say what you want to say! Classic manipulation! Classic!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The rest of the sentence was more baseless assumption, specifically, you're assuming the vehicle (or a driver) was able to see the person, and also able to react in time. But no, she was "invisible", let's go with that. Sorry if I don't want to respond to all of your baseless assumptions.
Since this is so full of assumptions, let's start with evidence.
This story shows the stopped vehicle, with damage to the right side. The sign in the photo looks like this sign. Despite articles claiming she was walking in a median, it looks like she was on the right sidewalk, especially considering the right-side damage on the car and the fact that the driver said it "happened in a flash" and that he only became aware of the collision because of the sound. If you look south in the direction where the car was coming from, there's a tree there covering part of the sidewalk. I'm going to assume that's where the woman was, maybe in the grassy area near the bench trying to cross the street to the median and ran or rode her bike off the sidewalk directly into the path of the car, which based on the picture looks like it was entering the right turn lane. The Tempe police chief, Sylvia Moir said this:
From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said.
So, from the evidence I'm looking at, and acknowledging that I haven't seen the video, it sounds like this woman came from behind a tree into the roadway and directly in the path of the car, with the driver first becoming aware that she was there when he heard the impact.
Now, what conclusions are you going to make about the capabilities of the sensor array, cameras, and software of the car? The driver himself says he never saw her - are you going to continue to assert that a human would have performed any differently? Could the driver have even seen the woman from behind the tree from 150 yards away like you keep saying?
If you want me to go look at the current state of that tree I can, I'll even check for recent marks where it may have been trimmed over the last day or two. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, the east side of the street right there does not receive heavy foot traffic at 10pm at night. The only destination is that theater, and it's on the other side of the street.
OK, your turn. Tell me all about how a person definitely would have seen her from 150 yards out and how the car lacks sensors and cameras.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This incident makes no one a "monster" -- just like CSX and Amtrak aren't "monsters" when a pedestrian gets struck by one of their trains (which is almost universally because someone trespassed onto the right-of-way, or just plain decided to commit suicide by train). You can't bubble wrap the world.
Terrible analogy alert. A pedestrian is not expected to enter a railway track without notice. However in the UK where many tracks are electrified, there are reasonable steps taken to ensure that people cannot accidentally step out onto them. Pedestrians and other objects (like animals and children) are expected to step out onto the road and drivers (and other road users) are expected to be able to deal with it without hitting them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The driver is in a car that is driving itself, she was probably not attentive as a result. How big is this freaking tree? Why was the car driving faster than it takes a person with a shopping cart loaded with bags to walk from one side of a tree to the other? Was the other side of the tree obscured?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Furthermore, she was in the CENTER MEDIAN, which means at one point she walked clear across the oncoming lane. Was the car not around when she did that? Is there a bend just up the road?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way
They don't have right-of-way. Cars are not under any obligation to stop to let you cross a road, except at a zebra crossing.
Just because there's no offence of jaywalking, that doesn't mean pedestrians have priority over cars on the road.
If you had of said "I've got no idea what I'm on about" it would have been faster and saved me from writing this post.
If you hit a pedestrian in the UK, you are considered at fault unless you can demonstrate you had no way of stopping in time. I.E. they stepped out of a blind corner such as from behind a lorry and even then you still should have been travelling slow enough to expect it. At the very best you can expect a charge of "driving without due care and attention" (AKA: careless driving) which will carry some points and a fine (3-9 points and up to £2,500), however if it were deemed preventable the best thing you could hope for is a charge of dangerous driving but there is the potential to be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
So yes, even if the pedestrian is not meant to be on the road, it's still the onus of the driver to watch out for them.
Defensive drivers like me watch out for pedestrians on the foot path (side walk for the Americans playing along at home) because they can change direction and head out onto the road without warning. The Uber car was clearly not doing this.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Go ahead, try and plow through a stationary massive object.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The driver is in a car that is driving itself, she was probably not attentive as a result.
OK, once again, do you have any evidence for anything you're saying, or do you just feel things in your gut and decide to spew them out? Seriously, any evidence at all?
How big is this freaking tree?
Fuck, if only I had linked to a picture of it. If only I had done that, then you could not ask stupid questions with obvious answers. If only...
Why was the car driving faster than it takes a person with a shopping cart loaded with bags to walk from one side of a tree to the other?
Shopping cart? What shopping cart? Are you inventing things again? Did you just completely ignore everything I wrote? Is it necessary for the woman to traverse the entire width of the tree for some reason, have you added that as a requirement? You're having a really hard time keeping this discussion on the rails, you know that?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The article says center median, but it also says 35mph speed limit. Based on the actual physical location of the vehicle in the picture (I know, fucking evidence, it's fucking crazy!), it looks like - in reality (reality is the set of things that are true, not the set of things you feel in your gut should be true) - that the car was in the rightmost lane of a street with a speed limit of 45 getting ready to turn and the woman came off the sidewalk on the right side. But this is just what I see, based on reality, based on the actual evidence that I'm looking at, and the fact that I have actually been there plenty of times.
Everyone knows that... sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to. Most rational adults are aware that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, so I don't know who said the phrase "center median" to a reporter ("she was going to the center median", maybe?), or if anyone did at all, and why the cop said the speed limit was 35 when the nearest speed limit sign on the other side of the 202 shows 45. But what I see from the actual picture of the actual stopped vehicle next to the actual bike that it hit, this occurred in the right hand turning lane on a street with a speed limit of 45.
I'll bet that if I go down there some night, there will be a group of homeless people hanging out on that bench/table in the grassy area near the tree that obscures the road, and I'll also bet that they can tell me that the woman took off on her bike from that table, went into the road, and got hit immediately. I'm not going to actually assert that all of that is true, because I don't have evidence of that, but from the evidence I do have it looks highly likely. What I do have evidence of is where the car and the bike came to a stop. You, I don't know what hopes and dreams are pushing all of your assumptions that, for some reason, after well over a decade of development, the sensors on an automated car can't detect a person. I don't know why you're assuming that the sensors on a car designed specifically to see people in any condition from a distance are lower quality than the automatic door sensors on a Wal-Mart, but for some reason that's the hill you've chosen to die on. It's a stupid argument, this entire discussion is completely stupid. I'm trying to force evidence down the throat of someone who doesn't give a shit about evidence. Listen, if you want to go on your stupidity hunger strike and refuse to eat anything based on reality or evidence, then I'll let you do that. There's no reason to fight stupidity, it's like playing chess with a pigeon. It's just going to shit all over the board and strut around like it won.
It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Ok well then don't use articles that are inaccurate to state your case then.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Let me simplify this, because I had some bad information before. The woman was walking a bike across the road. It is not clear to me how a car could approach and not once see any evidence that there was a human there that may walk onto the road. It comes down to how long she was behind the tree whether it fully obscured her for the entire time that the location was in view of the car. If a human saw a bike tire moving from behind a tree, they would slow down because they would come to the conclusion that there is a person there. Why did the self driving car not make the same inference and slow down?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Let me make an apology, because that comment wasn't fair. You only referenced the picture in the article.
This is what it comes down to. A woman entered a roadway with her bike and was hit by an automated car which did not slow down so we can conclude the car did not see her at all. I find it hard to believe that there was not some indication that there was a person there that a human would have noticed. Even with a tree in the way you usually see a bike tire or something that would indicate that there is a human there. How did this car not see any sign of a human that would walk onto the road?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
None of that changes the fact that pedestrians don't have right of way on the roads, which is what was originally claimed, except at specific crossings and a couple of specificed circumstances. I didn't say anything about cars being allowed to mow down any pedestrians in the road, did I?
Defensive drivers like me watch out for pedestrians on the foot path (side walk for the Americans playing along at home) because they can change direction and head out onto the road without warning.
That doesn't mean you will never be involved in an accident involving a pedestrian.
The Uber car was clearly not doing this.
You have no idea of the circumstances. No-one here does. Not every accident involving a car and a pedestrian is the car's fault, even partly.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Over 3 trillion miles/year are driven. That's about one pedestrian death per 600 million miles driven.
The claims I've seen are 4 million miles _total_ from Google, assuming another 4 for everybody else, automated cars aren't doing well at all. Even ignoring the number of times humans had to intervene.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And instead just make wild assumptions with zero evidence, like you've been doing? I'm not sure that's any better.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
A woman entered a roadway with her bike and was hit by an automated car which did not slow down so we can conclude the car did not see her at all.
Well, there's one mistake. No, we can't draw that conclusion from that evidence. It would be more accurate to say that the vehicle did not have time to identify her and react (more likely), or for some other reason chose not to react (less likely). That's all we can say.
I find it hard to believe that there was not some indication that there was a person there that a human would have noticed.
I don't see what your personal beliefs have to do with the facts of the case, which may or may not be known to us. For example, what specifically was in the field of view of the vehicle is not known to us, so I don't know what your personal beliefs have to do with anything.
How did this car not see any sign of a human that would walk onto the road?
Is this just a rhetorical question? Because none of this can even be addressed without seeing the video and other data from the car. Are you "just asking questions" again? No need to wait for any evidence, right? Your gut is a'feelin', so better jump in and shit out your opinion for everyone to smell.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Pedestrians DO have priority on the road.
Having the right not to be run over is not the same thing as having priority.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The woman was walking a bike across the road.
This is becoming a broken record, but maybe I enjoy pain or something, so let's try this again - cite your evidence from that claim. How do you know she was walking across the road? How do you know she wasn't running, or riding the bike, or tripped and fell off the sidewalk?
It is not clear to me how a car could approach and not once see any evidence that there was a human there that may walk onto the road.
It's not clear to me either, that's why I'd love to see the video and other data so that we can actually figure this stuff out instead of guessing.
If a human saw a bike tire moving from behind a tree, they would slow down because they would come to the conclusion that there is a person there.
That's pretty idealistic. You know very well that a lot of people would not slow down even if they noticed the person.
Why did the self driving car not make the same inference and slow down?
Again, a question in need of evidence to answer, so excuse me if I don't just jump to a conclusion.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
30 to 40 feet away would work just fine though.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ok well now the video is out and you can clearly see the woman... don't get how camera+lidar+radar didn't see this coming.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because articles... anyway the video that just came out confirms it.
Video is out, and it still isn't clear to me. Especially with lidar.
I've never said everyone would, but I think it is a realistic expectation that automated driving be modeled after good driving habits. Defensive driving is mostly about the physics of driving a car; something that is the same regardless of who or what is driving it.
Seen the video now, still don't understand it. Especially considering the video is way darker than it would have been in real life.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Me neither, that's exactly the situation where anyone would expect an autonomous car to perform well. Anything running that software or with that hardware should be off the road until they figure out what went wrong and certify a fix. I doubt I would have been able to avoid that because she's only visible when the headlights hit her shoes (although, for some reason people think Twitter is a video distribution service so the only video I saw had a lot of artifacts, maybe she was more visible than it seemed), but something with as many sensors as those cars should be expected to avoid that situation. The fact that the car took no action while she was in the headlights is worrying also. We know for a fact that the cars (should)have a very low reaction time, so the fact that it didn't react at all needs to be analyzed. It could just be a simple hardware failure right at that time but, again, this is exactly the situation where anyone would expect an autonomous car to perform well.
This is the kind of thing you'd expect from a car running Windows 98, not something bristling with sensors and cameras.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Especially considering the video is way darker than it would have been in real life.
That really is a very dark stretch, there aren't a ton of lights there, and her choice of clothing wouldn't help a human driver see her. It's just coming out from under a bridge overpass. But lidar should make all of that a moot point. She was even moving at nearly 90 degrees to the car. I don't know if it got confused by the bike spokes, or plastic bags, or if a wire fell out right then, but something obviously went wrong. Hopefully they have enough data to know what that is. I'm a little surprised that the police chief said it didn't look like Uber was at fault so quickly, although I don't know what the police would do if that was a person with a dashcam. If that's a human driver I'd say it's almost 50/50 whether she gets hit or the car swerves across the road at the last second once her shoes became visible in the headlights. I don't know how long she was in the headlights for, but even without lidar it should have recognized an object and slowed and turned. It has the reaction time to avoid that accident, but it didn't react at all. I wonder if the "safety driver" did anything to interfere, maybe she was turning it to manual control in between checking her phone for some reason.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Drill big holes.... Let people auto drive in them :)
[($)]
...How many vehicular deaths did humans cause in 2018?