Slashdot Mirror
Police Chief: Uber Self-Driving Car 'Likely' Not At Fault In Fatal Crash (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The chief of the Tempe Police has told the San Francisco Chronicle that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg. "I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said Chief Sylvia Moir. Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic." After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that "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 added that "it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available." The police said that the vehicle was traveling 38 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone, according to the Chronicle -- though a Google Street View shot of the roadway taken last July shows a speed limit of 45 miles per hour along that stretch of road.
And it will kill again.
Why does it look like an sidewalk?
Mark my words, it's going to be something illegal about the payments to all these women that ultimately brings him down.
>> Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags,"
And thus appeared to be a member of a lower caste, said police authorities. Clearly, the driver or owner, who is of higher caste, as demonstrated through auto ownership, cannot be at fault.
A human driver generally would have had the intuition the the walker would or could have walked into the path. How much pronostication does AI do?
There will be a thorough investigation of the vehicle, the programming, all of the data and details. Even if it is decided that the victim acted imprudently, such accidents always (at least around here, unless it was the police involved) are fully investigated, and the driver is rarely exonerated from all blame, just the proximate causal fault.
Now, for you ignats who see class discrimination in the description that the victim was pushing a bicycle laden with shopping bags, a word; the police are the upper caste in these situations. Corporations will be prosecuted more often than police officers, and more often than reputable members of the community, IE, government. Or favored citizens. This is not new.
There was more than one factor leading to this tragedy, and if the end result is change in how these vehicles monitor their surroundings to have more time to analyze and react, excellent, and if the result is a recognition that even self-driving vehicles are unable to avoid such accidents, just as even skilled and careful human drivers are, well, then we've learned that self-driving does not equal infallible. That's important, and useful information.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
In my community, we have great sidewalks, many crosswalks and all that needed to create a safe and walkable community. What do the pedestrians still do, you ask?
Walk out into traffic if it's more convenient. If a car hits them after taking reasonable measures to stop, they ought to be liable for all of the damage caused including to the vehicle and the driver's therapy if required.
My wife knew someone who killed a pedestrian who just walked out into traffic like this without thinking. Totally unavoidable. The "victim" was the driver, not the pedestrian because the driver was obeying the law and some stranger decided "fuck the traffic laws" and made her party to an accidental vehicular homicide.
Traveling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone on Sunday night, the Uber self-driving car made no attempt to brake, according to the Police Department’s preliminary investigation.
Not only was this car speeding, but it did not recognise a road side hazard and drive by cautiously.
Here in Australia we now have "Incident" laws which requires the driver to slow down to 40km/h (25miles/h). Clearly this cyclist was an incident and the uber car would definitely be at fault.
And to just openly say that if there are hazards and an autonomous vehicle doesn't recognise these then it is not the auto makers fault.
Yeah right.
The police chief needs to get some facts straight about the technology of autonomous vehicles work. LiDAR comes from LASERs. From the VEHICLE.
Unclear which "shadows" Chief Moir is talking about. Streetlights are but a one illumination source at play here.
Humans can adjust to changing situations, they can also ready body language. Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. An AI cant read that sort of thing. They can only react tl basic things presented to them.
Doesnt the car have sensors that could have detected the person and her bike with bags? Dont get me wrong it appears that the pedestrian was in the wrong but something should have been detected and the car should have done something to try and avoid the accident. Maybe these cars are not smart enough yet. Though once fully certified I would expect them to be better at driving then people. Something to work towards I guess.
Interesting series of tweets: https://twitter.com/EricPaulDe...
The median looks like it has fancy, inviting paths, but it also warns you not to use them. And the actual crossing is kind of daunting...
It is a rather bad design, but it does look dangerous in any case, so if I wanted to cross that way I would exercise extreme caution...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
What a coincidence that it just happens to be a SDC that just happens to kill a pedestrian! What are the odds of that happening?
Were there any tire marks indicating the car tried to swerve or brake to even try to miss the pedestrian? Or did it just roll right over her like she wasn't even there?
A human driver, valuing the life of a fellow human being (or any other living creature for that matter) would at least try to not hit them, even if that meant swerving into a stationary object (parked car, lamppost, etc) or having to brake so hard they were struck from behind by another vehicle. Did any of these things happen? Or did it just digitally shrug and keep going? The answer to these questions matters greatly. These so-called 'self driving cars', with their 'pseudo-intelligence' (I will not use the term 'artificial intelligence' because it is not accurate, there is no 'intelligence' in there) are, supposedly, watching in all directions all the time and supposedly has a reaction time better than a human driver; sure doesn't look like it from here.
Not.
Robot car kills human.
That's the take home for the family.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Not only was this car speeding, but it did not recognise a road side hazard and drive by cautiously.
The police said the woman came "out of the shadows", it's likely that the car couldn't see the women before she stepped out, any more than a human could have (or did, since there was a human driver in the car too who said she had no idea anyone was there to step out).
Most self driving cars DO respond to anomalies by the side of the road and slow down or move over... but again, they have to be things that can actually be detected.
Also, 38MPH on a speedometer is within the margin of error of measurement that it was probably going the speed limit. All speedometers are set to read a bit high, in any case 35 vs 38MPH would not have made a difference to the pedestrian or ability to stop (and some people are saying the speed limit is actually 45, which makes way more sense with a divided median)..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I hope Google's car and others are better than Uber's efforts. If a deer jumped in the road in front of your self-driving car, I guess in Uber's case, it would just plow through it. Aside from any injuries, that could mean costly repairs for the sensors that absorb the impact and to re-certify, calibrate the vehicle.
Humans can adjust to changing situations, they can also ready body language. Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. An AI cant read that sort of thing. They can only react tl basic things presented to them.
My impression is that they detect and react to the actual physical posture and motion. But they can't read the person and tell if he appears drunk, high, mentally challenged or in some other way odd and likely to do odd things. It's a bit like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog with no leash, to a human they pose very different risks. But without programming in a ton of "human" logic they'll look just the same to a computer.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
An AI cant read that sort of thing.
First of all, self driving cars are not run by an AI.
Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out.
A self driving car can judge such things. And the cars I was involved in do!
The problem imho is that some idiot companies in the USA wanted to reinvent "self driving" technology instead of either partnering or buying european know how.
We have self driving cars on the roads since a decade or longer. Of course only a few still doing their required 100 miles test run (or how many miles that are), of course under supervision of humans (usually a crew and not a single "ersatz driver")
There is no single published incident involving a selv driving car.
And now two companies in the US who are "new to that business" already have several ... yeah, I know "autopilot" is not "self driving", but it is pretty close.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure...only 3mph, but my Cruise Control can do better than that.
Plus, any reasonably good driver is always scanning the sides to see what might be coming out of driveways or the side of the road.. This time it was a person. What if it's a car next time.
Can the AI spot a car traveling at 50 MPH approaching a 4 way stop and not slowing down? Happened to me just last weekend.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
An AI cant read that sort of thing.
Why not?
Without the video itself we won't be able to tell for sure. However, from the streetview imagery, there's a number of places she could have emerged from that would've kept her her hidden behind bushes or trees. And I don't think she stopped at the side of the road at all. If she did, she would have had enough time to see the car that clearly was not slowing down for her.
Another key takeaway is that this scenario can now be analyzed and applied to millions of future situations. I just wish all the various autonomous driving companies were sharing their work.
What reason did the Uber car have for going 38 in a 35 zone?
Surely the speed limit was lowered from 45 to 35 for a reason, probably for safety reasons.
Can the car not read road signs? It doesn't have the excuse of "I was watching the road, not my speedo" for a minor speeding offence. Did Uber fail to update the map data when the speed limits changed?
The risk of death being hit by a car below 30mph is relatively low. It increases rapidly as speed increases.
9% chance of death at 30mph.
50% chance of death at 40mph.
Starts reaching 100% fatal over 50mph.
There's a reasonable chance the woman, who may well have been in the wrong, would still be alive if the car was traveling at or below the 35mph limit.
source: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/re...
There's another study that showed a reduction in speed by 5km/h would result in 30% fewer deaths. That happens to be how much the Uber car was over the limit.
http://humantransport.org/side...
Feminists be like: Go blame the victim, why don't you?
Is usually around 5mph. It's difficult to keep a car at a rock solid 35mph, even for a computer. Changes in elevation can quickly alter your speed and religiously adjusting for it isn't even always the safest thing to do.
One of the hard lessons I had when driving is that if you slow down too much aggressive or stupid drivers will take that as a signal to go. My first accident was a t-bone where a girl hit me because she was trying to do a left into a busy road. I saw her start to move and put on my breaks. She saw me coming and did the same, but then saw me breaking and decided this somehow meant I was going to come to a complete stop in the middle of a busy street (the only option that would have stopped the accident by then). If I had not breaked she wouldn't have gone and the accident wouldn't have happened.
What I'm saying is there's such a thing as too much caution. Now, maybe if we can get the meatbags off the road that won't be true anymore.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Francis :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The fact that someone was killed in an incident involving the car is sufficient. Many of you are talking about the tech as though it's a pet or has sentience - it doesn't. You can't make a human comparison. This doesn't bode well for autonomous cars dealing with mixed traffic, either. The world is not a perfectly flat, smooth, and dry grid consisting of perfectly predictable, logic-based variables like a testing facility is. Tools that kill people performing their intended function are tools that will likely not be adopted by society. There will probably never be fully autonomous cars, deal with it.
The police chief is using non-technical, human terms, rather than quibbling over semantics of idioms.
"Shadows" can simply mean "obscured from view," and is a common American English idiom.
It could also mean "shadows cast by the headlights" or "shadows cast by the LIDAR beam".
If you're in the shadows of a car's headlights, it's a sure bet the driver can't see you.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I've seen enough road fails youtube videos to have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that people do not slow down and react extremely poorly when the person does step out.
Also the police chief, who has seen the video, made it clear that the person "stepped out of the shadows" and "would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) "
Seems like people are hell bent on the belief that autonomous cars can't be better than the amazingly faulty human.
How far do these cars look ahead? In defensive driving, they teach you to look WAY up the road. 150 yards back from the intersection, you are more likely to see people running onto the road than 5 yards from the intersection; it may just be a flash of them seen between vehicles up ahead. Are these cars properly watching as they pull up? They should have to submit high definition video from the moment the car starts to when it stops, from the perspective of a driver. If that person that it hits becomes visible at any time and the AI doesn't show any reaction in some way, "she ran out in front of the car" isn't good enough if you're only paying attention 20 feet before the intersection. I know some people don't notice these things, but a lot of people do and it prevents accidents. I would rather have autonomous cars be modeled after defensive driving techniques and I am concerned that they are not.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
doesn't it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you disobey the jaywalking laws and a reasonable driver hits you, you are objectively the perpetrator of the accident. What is so hard for you to understand about that? If I'm driving 45mph down street and a pedestrian decides to run across the street, odds are good that I won't be able to break in time. People like you think that'd make me the bad guy if I hit them, despite it being likely impossible between the sheer Physics and normal driver reaction time.
I see this shit all the time where pedestrians will simply disregard the law AND Physics like oh yeah, that big SUV can just stop on a dime if I keep walking despite them having the right of way.
If anyone is the [insert proper medical term defining asshole who doesn't care] it's the pedestrians who smugly walk out in front of vehicles expecting the forces of nature to bend to them.
'Shadows' could also mean "Uber already payed me a shitload of money to downplay the situation".
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If it is clearly the woman's fault, then produce the video for us all to see. Please blur the impact though. I just want to see for myself how much time before the woman entered the lane until impact. Simple, where is the video?
My brain is magic. It's such a common (and strong) reaction whenever anyone mentions automation or AI that it almost seems like some kind of instinct.
Maybe this has all happened before....
If not guilty the question will ALWAYS be, could the accident been avoided IF a real person had been driving? Could the accident been prevented or if not lessened if the driver tried differently to avoid the death. The machine and it's AI has no value for life. It makes decisions base on logic that no one understands or knows other than a few programmers. Do they decide to be careful and brake when unnecessary 'just in case' or do they program the AI to drive like an 18 year old who has his daddy's hot rod for the weekend?
Until there are standards and rules defined as to what is acceptable AI behavior and wht is expected to be programmed AND that expection is in writting by companies as to their liability should they fail meeting those requiremens, we should all be avoiding this disaster. Most of you have already forgotten Volkeswagon's diesel gate which IS STILL being investigated. Companies cannot be trusted.
In the same way that you could be a paid shill for taxi drivers, I guess you have a point. If you want to see a conspiracy no one can stop you.
Fuck it, just destroy his character anyway. It's the American thing to do. In fact, threaten any children he might have while you're at it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Ah there he is. I knew we'd hear from our resident Cab Company Shill.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Can a self driving car tell if 2 people on the side of the road are drunk and wobbling all over the place, or if its 2 friends horsing around. Or as another poster said a stray dor or a dog on a leash. A human can see these things and knkw they pose different risks to the driver.
I have to agree, fault has little to do here. The fact is the sensors failed to pick out a hazard. I highly doubt that the car goes into super sensitive mode when approaching a known crosswalk. If it were a kid chasing a ball people would not have the same reaction. They'd say the car needs to do better.
However there's still a lot to know. Mostly where the car did start to react, if at all. Talking about lighting and shadows to me makes little sense.
The car was driving 38 in a max 35 mph zone. The car was speeding, so Uber is at fault.
If it had been a white person that ran over a poor immigrant carrying trash bags you dam well know that that person would have been totally accountable for the actions of themselves , the maintenance of their vehicle and for not properly anticipating the likely actions of poor people carrying trash bags on a bicycle. Visibility and darkness be damned. However since this is a robot and there are billions of dollars on the table for self driving vehicles, the police will naturally take a holistic look at the situation and give the self driving vehicle the benefit of the doubt that they would never ever give a white or black person (assuming it was not a millionaire or city council member driving)
"Moir added that "'it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available.'"
Note that it is dangerous to cross a street at night under any conditions. Generally, by the time a driver sees a person in their headlights, there is not enough time to avoid hitting them. That is why you should always use crosswalks at night, (and, as a matter of safety, even during the day.) At a crosswalk, I still wait for the cars to stop even if I have the signal. If there is no crosswalk, I always make sure that I have enough time cross even if the driver does not see me, I would rather be wrong than dead right.
Can a self driving car tell if 2 people on the side of the road are drunk and wobbling all over the place, or if its 2 friends horsing around.
Sure. In either case, the pattern of movement would be different from 2 sober people purposely walking parallel to traffic, and the prudent thing to do is slow down. An ANN should have little problem learning those patterns. Most likely, this is already a solved problem, or considering the millions of miles driven, there would be more than zero avoidable pedestrian deaths by now.
Or as another poster said a stray dor or a dog on a leash.
That also seems like a relatively easy pattern for an ANN to learn.
Do you think the engineers designing these systems are stupid? They have libraries of millions of scenarios, both simulated and real recorded events, which they use for training and testing. It is unlikely that you are going to think of anything new that isn't already handled.
Self driving car doesn't mean it will be able to subvert the laws of physics.
I have a hard time believing if a human was driving at the time they would not see her. I am sure the person in the car did see the girl and thought the car would stop if she stepped into the street.
I doubt most courts could give a fair and impartial trial--with so much money at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
How much do you suppose Uber had to pay out to get the boss cop to exonerate their robot? Bet there'll be a lotta lawyers and coppers shopping at the Tesla dealership next week...
You might find this interesting... it poses an ethical question assuming self driving cars will be able to analyse an accident scenario and decide among various outcomes.. down to including insurance costs etc.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/v...
The article above is informative but if you prefer, skip to the trailer for the "game" ( it was presented at Sundance ):
https://vimeo.com/150956968
You are intentionally comparing uncomparable data ? Or you don't understand elementary statistics ?
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S.
3 trillion miles driven by human drivers in the US in 2016. Suppose it is slightly lower or roughly the same for 2015 - that is one pedestrian killed every 600 million miles in 2015.
Autonomous vehicles : 1 pedestrian killed per 10 million miles driven. Autonomous vehicles are clearly 60 times worse. If you opine that data is insufficient until autonomous vehicles complete a trillion miles - I would not disagree except to say that you don't get to opine autonomous vehicles are any safer than human driven ones.
Most of those 10 million miles have been supervised by a professional human, and most of the 3 trillion miles by human drivers have been unsupervised by a(nother) human. So autonomous vehicles themselves deserve much lower credit for the safety their 60 times worse records show.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Why do we assume that our cities should be places for cars and motor transport? Why do we assume that it's okay to drive at lethal speeds routinely? Frankly, even if you drive safely, you are still contributing to the hidden massacre caused by pollution (in the UK that's about 40,000 deaths per annum, or 10 times the numbers killed by motor traffic).
Still, it's easier to blame pedestrians, so let's stick with that rather than asking the difficult questions of why we think its okay for so many people to die every year.
The problem imho is that some idiot companies in the USA wanted to reinvent "self driving" technology instead of either partnering or buying european know how.
There is plenty of American know how to partner with or buy, but Tesla and Uber thinks that they know better than those with experience.
Well, from what I've heard Uber will shut down their self-driving project so there is always that.
Typically the police say "it would be inappropriate to comment on an active investigation".
How much money was this doofus paid by Uber to issue this uselsss wishy-washy statement. It's only purpose is to keep the Uber share price buoyant.
""Shadows" can simply mean "obscured from view,"" - no, it can't. I've never heard anybody use "shadows" to mean "obscured from view". They are two different things. You could be sunbathing in direct sunlight behind a wall and be "obscured from view", it has nothing to do with "shadows" whatsoever.
Can a self driving car tell if 2 people on the side of the road are drunk and wobbling all over the place, or if its 2 friends horsing around.
Sure. In either case, the pattern of movement would be different from 2 sober people purposely walking parallel to traffic, and the prudent thing to do is slow down. An ANN should have little problem learning those patterns. Most likely, this is already a solved problem, or considering the millions of miles driven, there would be more than zero avoidable pedestrian deaths by now.
Or as another poster said a stray dor or a dog on a leash.
That also seems like a relatively easy pattern for an ANN to learn.
Do you think the engineers designing these systems are stupid? They have libraries of millions of scenarios, both simulated and real recorded events, which they use for training and testing. It is unlikely that you are going to think of anything new that isn't already handled.
I think he is questioning the state of current AI technology rather than trying to insult you and AI engineers. If all these scenarios were already 'handled' and considering that this car can effectively see in the dark with it's LiDAR and night vision cameras, you'd think that this Uber cab would have spotted that woman, identified the threat she posed, slowed down and then stopped in response rather than running her over. Clearly something is not quite as advanced and 'handled' in the world of self driving cars as you'd have us believe.
The National Transportation Safety Board usually takes a minimum of a year to complete an investigation with as many complexities and contributing factors as this one; they must have put in unbelievable effort to get the investigation done and the report written in less than 36 hours.
It's probable that these cars are just not even looking to the sides in that way. They likely do not track all pedestrians close enough to be a problem like a human driver, and just assume that anything not right in front of them can be ignored for the most part. I don't think image recognition is really at the state where a car can have a live understanding of its surroundings in this way. And predictive pathing sounds like it is probably hard enough that they just didn't want to spend the effort.
A human can see another walking in some direction and deduce what their intentions are. A car is not going to see the worn down grass path indicating a crossing point. It is not going to use predictive psychology if its sensors are turned in that direction.
It is likely closer to: if(At this time there are no obstacles in front of me) Drive
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This should be assessed as if a human was driving the car.
It’s profoundly unwise to attempt for a company to bribe the police in the US. Given the NTSB is involved, it would be exponentially worse of an idea.
The NTSB’s standard faire is investigating airline accidents, and are used to far higher stakes than a mere traffic collision.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Or it could be that he is saying, "Had a human been driving, they'd have hit her too."
* Self-driving cars are required to have three green flashing lights, front and both sides (LED green)
* Newly produced human driven cars are required to have purple flashing lights, same configuration (LED purple)
* By 2025, everyone will be driven nuts by the flashing lights, and we'll all figure out how to ride bikes while wearing pajamas on our way to the broom factories.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
When walking, riding a bike, and riding a motorcycle I always try to make eye contact with drivers coming up on me that could cause me problems. I think having someone behind the wheel who isn't in control of the vehicle is particularly dangerous for this reason. I can look someone in the eye to make sure they see me, and assume that means I am OK to do something when the vehicle really has no idea.
I really think that cars need a clear indication to traffic when they are being controlled automatically verse when a human is actually steering.
Why do we assume that our cities should be places for cars and motor transport?
Because they are designed that way (at least in North America)
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Many people were expecting this to happen sooner or later.
Thanks to nearly a century of lobbying, the USA has a pedestrian-hostile culture and many states have car-centric laws (eg, jaywalking) which state that pedestrians must give way to cars except at designated crossing points and even then can only cross on a green light.
Growing up with these kinds of rules translate into assumptions that people generally don't walk ontot he road unexpectedly, which translate into robotic rules that people NEVER do that - meaning they're not setup to "expect the unexpected"
A human driver should have seen the pedestrian on the median some distance off and reacted (slowed down or changed lanes) even if she was stationary because someone standing there is likely to move. The robot just kept going thanks to cultural assumptions programmed into it that became rigid operating rules.
(Anticipating kids running onto the road is one of the classic tests for danger perception in many countries. Virtually all US drivers fail such tests badly, which is why trading your USA license in for any EU one generally involves at least a full license test.)
Sure, there shouldn't be a pedestrian on the freeway (or a deer either) but I'm not going to run him over. I sure as hell don't want my robot car to do so. Nor do I want it to ignore the 12 point stag, or cow on the road - one of those would come through the windscreen and kill the vehicle occupants. Ditto for the unexpected solo road cone. There might be a pothole behind it.
Arizona has to be one of the worst possible places to test self-driving vehicles. It's extremely car-centric, shitty and hostile for pedestrians and the number of edge/corner cases that happen is low, meaning the human supervisors get complacent. My bet is that the twit in the driver seat didn't even have eyes outside the cabin until after the poor woman in question was bouncing down the road.
They likely do not track all pedestrians close enough to be a problem like a human driver, and just assume that anything not right in front of them can be ignored for the most part.
As a runner and cyclist, I can assure you that most human drivers don't bother tracking pedestrians.
my problem was I slowed down. e.g. speed limit was 45 and I dropped to 35. If I'd kept an even speed no harm or foul.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Pedestrians are willfully ignorant of the law and violate it under a potentially fatal misunderstanding of physics. In general, across the US the only place where pedestrians have the right of way over cars is at crosswalks at controlled intersections when signally indicates that a pedestrian may pass the cross walk. At all other places where it is legal for a pedestrian to cross a road they are almost always required to yield the right of way to traffic on the roadway. Another common law is that pedestrians are not allowed to cross a roadway between two controlled intersections where crosswalks exist.
70% of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at crosswalks. 34% of pedestrian fatalities involve a pedestrian with a BAC .08 or greater.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If a ball comes into the street from behind a parked car, I assume there's a kid following, and react accordingly (probably slamming the brakes). AIs can do the same. If a person just comes out from behind a large vehicle at the exact wrong time, without any warning, I'm going to hit that person.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not all of us with reduced or absent empathy are psychopaths. That isn't even an APA diagnosis anymore, it is a pejorative. Antisocial personality disorder, the preferred term, requires multiple criteria, and diminished affect is just one.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Humans can adjust to changing situations, they can also ready body language. Most people slow down when they see someone on the side of tge road looking like they are going to step out. An AI cant read that sort of thing. They can only react tl basic things presented to them.
This is absolutely the kind of thing that AI can do today. You just need enough data to train a classifier for pedestrian propensity to walk into the road. With enough AI miles driven, there will be enough data. Google and Tesla almost certainly already have enough data for that. Though in this case the problem was likely visibility, so it's not really relevant.
The CAR failed to see the pedestrian the car is 100% at fault if it was running in auto-drive mode. The driver was doing just what an auto-driveing car would have done NOT pay attention to the road the car is doing the driving and that's what the automaker advertised auto-driving abilities..the car failed badly. cops an idiot go back to writing tickets to people who don't stop at stop signs..or get some tech company to do that for ya too.
Jack of all trades,master of none