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.
Why does it look like an sidewalk?
Much like a river kills the person jumping in it?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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.
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.
One advantage autonomous cars have is that even if they are found not legally at fault they don't go around feeling guilty about the incident like a person would.
Yes likely. Look, the guy who's seen the video says that a human driver probably wouldn't have averted the accident. You, who haven't seen the video, are only going on "generally." This incident isn't "general," it's very specific.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You forgot to put a "lol" or "=-)" at the end of your post
The police have said that even reviewing the video the pedestrian is walking in shadow until they step out into the lane of traffic. A human driver texting on their smartphone in one hand and stuffing a double 1/4 pounder into their face with the other would have had a much slower reaction time. They likely wouldn't even have noticed they ran someone over until the next time they stopped for gas.
I modded you up although I suspect this will soon be negative.
I don't think auto-ownership is the reason though I agree with the analysis of caste.
I bet the police chief got a phone call from the mayor, something along the lines of "We get a lot of tax revenue and good will from this". You know, like the mayor in "Jaws" not wanting to close the beach.
Hmmm..not much humor here today I guess.
FTFY.
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
A big reason why I'm still on this board is that no self-respecting SlashDot user would stoop to using emojis or first-generation Internet abbreviation in their posts. We generally grew out of that twenty years ago.
As I read the article, the video evidence shows that there was no possible way to avoid the pedestrian who stepped in front of the car. She wasn't visible until it was too late. Unfortunately by the time the conflict became apparent, there was no avoiding contact.
Now, perhaps a human might have realized the limited sight lines and the possible pedestrian conflict and slowed down before arriving at this location? Maybe, maybe not, I've not seen the video yet so I cannot say. However, I'm guessing this will be litigated by both the woman's estate and Uber and the trial will be very interesting.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If it kills something we eat, like a cow, I think a cookout would be good.
Why would a machine have trouble seeing someone moving out of a shadow, are they telling us that they didn't bother to use something as simple as infrared sensors for night vision to avoid a dependence on visible light?
and they would rot in jail for it, just like uber should
check has cleared i guess
>> even if they are found not legally at fault they don't go around feeling guilty about the incident
We often tear down buildings where mass shooting occur. Not sure about train cars; I think we generally just clean them up and put them back into service after they run someone over. Cars? Well, I'd love to be able to "run a carfax" and tell how many peds this particular jalopy's mowed down before climbing in. But I'd feel ever better if they shredded people-killers after downloading their innards and inspecting the relevant equipment.
Probably. Very convincing. We keep being told that AIs are safer and better. Apparently, not so much. Shadows or not, there is no reason to believe she was invisible in IR. The AI failed to slow in anticipation of odd pedestrian behavior. Exactly what a sane driver should do.
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
Is that why the cop says: "I suspect preliminarily it appears that..." ?
In a microsecond, it will request the files of each person from Facebook, Google and the IRS and calculate the value of each person' life. If the one person is more important than the other four, those people will be dead before the car even hits them.
#DeleteFacebook
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
You are overcomplicating it. If a car ends up in a complicated situation where it has to guess at how many will get killed, the answer is always to just brake. Get the amount of energy in the collision down, and who knows, some people just might survive. If not, too bad.
Squirrels don't count for the evaluation, you are obliged to not risk anything to avoid a squirrel.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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.
Those are valid ethical questions that have to be answered by the AI and the programmers. If a car is forced to make a choice between killing a squirrel or killing a child, will it treat them the same?
This is not a "valid ethical question". It is just silly.
How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
Unlike most humans, the SDC will do the right thing.
But these rare corner cases are not that interesting, because they are ... rare. Far more common are accidents where the correct course of action is obvious: hit the brakes. And SDCs are FAR better at that. A typical human takes about 1.5 seconds to realize what is happening, move a foot to the brake, and start depressing it. An SDC can do it in less than 10 milliseconds. At 70mph, a car travels more than 150 feet in 1.5 seconds. The response time will be even worse if the human is not paying attention.
The car makes no choices.
If there is a potential to crash into someone/something it breaks. And usually it breaks long before that, so that the situation does not even escalate to such a point (decission)..
What the fuck is ethical in avoiding hitting 4 people who cause an accident and hitting a bystander instead? You have some mental problems I think.
What is next? 4 sick old retirees versus a young pregnant mother?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
An AI cant read that sort of thing.
Why not?
Well automation is usually better than this.
Alrighty, then...
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.
But I'd feel ever better if they shredded people-killers ... they should be smelted, with just 1C degree above their smelting point to make their death painful and s_l_o_w!
Tz tz tz
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Or used the next lane over. Either way, inadequate visibility is a road design problem.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What a coincidence that it just happens to be a SDC that just happens to kill a pedestrian!
Uh, yeah. 15 pedestrians are killed every day by human drivers in the US alone. What kind of simpleton freaks out about one pedestrian killed in the entire history of self-driving cars?
Dog should be avoided (as should all property damage)
A cow should be avoided (as should all property damage)
Cars hitting bugs is generally acceptable (I've never gotten in trouble for my windshield)
These aren't very difficult.
More interesting is should it protect the driver? Do drivers protect themselves (perhaps swerving onto a sidewalk of people to avoid getting T boned)?
I'd think breaking in an attampted to minimize inact damage is a good enough response when coupled with faster reaction time, the trickey part will be for human drivers to learn that they need a bigger following distance.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
Roughly 3000 people in the US are killed each month from cars, or 36000 a year. Many times that are injured. Less than 10% of these accidents are due to mechanical failure, so in a perfect world we could save 32,400. While I doubt that we'll achieve a perfect world, anything lower than 32,400 is an improvement. Thus delaying an improvement over the status quo due to hypothetical and unlikely events may kill people by delaying progress. Stop killing people :-)
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...
No one is programming a car that way.
The first rule is to anticipate and slow down before anything could happen.
The second rule is to brake.
And the third is to stay on your lane. Except you have a spare lane going same direction.
Neither a programmer nor a car is deciding if it hits 2 3 4 or 1 person. If the thing in its lane is not going away, and the car has not stopped in front of it: it is hit. As simpel as that.
What is next is a realtime auction between the life insurance companies of the potential victims to determine who gets hit.
Run by AI bidding bots?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I've seen Christine, I know how this is going to end.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Police said the the car was doing 38 mph in a 35mph.
Google street view shows this strip is 45 MPH.
There's contention on the speed limit in the press.
It will, but each time, the software will be improved to nearly eliminate the chance of it happening again. Over time, through iterative improvements, driving software will be near perfect.
Meanwhile, no matter how many laws you make, humans will ALWAYS: eat, text, do makeup, yell at their children, look down while searching for something, drink and drive, and engage in every other manner of distraction or impairment that cause accidents. You will NEVER be able to fix this without technology.
AI cars will kill people in ways that humans won't because but car AI "thinks" and operates differently than the human brain. But ultimately it will kill far less people in total than humans, and that's what's ultimately the most important.
Tire markes would mean that you braked to hard locking the tires, causing you to lose traction. A system breaking at optimal efficiency would and should not leave tire marks under any circumstance.
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?
The last time I hit a deer, it came out of the shadows at the side of the road, and stepped out just in front of me. I didn't mean to hit it, but it got inside my reaction time. I didn't leave swerve marks (well not much), I rolled right over the poor thing like it wasn't there. I don't hate deer. It wasn't callousness or indifference. I was just not fast enough to do anything.
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?
It's not that the machine didn't care, but a human would. There was a licensed human driver sitting in the driver seat. They weren't fast enough to do any of these things either.
Or did it just digitally shrug and keep going?
No, you can see that the car is still there in the various photos.
The answer to these questions matters greatly. These so-called 'self driving cars', ...supposedly has a reaction time better than a human driver; sure doesn't look like it from here.
I have no trouble believing that a machine can react faster and often more reliably than me. It cannot however react in zero amount of time. We don't know how to do that. I am running wetware that has a million years of field testing behind it, and yet I am still not perfect. I do not expect the first generation self driving cars be infallible when I am not myself.
Given time they may become the safest drivers on the planet, but not yet, not right now. Besides, even if it reacted in some vanishingly small fraction of a second, it takes time and distance to bring a ton of rolling steel to a full stop.
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 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.
Unlike most humans, the SDC will do the right thing.
The point of the trolley problem is that there is no correct answer. That is how it was formulated by experts in the field. Claiming that there is a "right thing" comes off as cringeworthy levels of ignorance.
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.
Actually, most self driving cars don't simply brake. I was in my Tesla S in the leftmost lane of a highway - doing about 65 mph - with auto steer enabled. A car drifted into the lane from the right. The Tesla did brake but it also swerved onto the shoulder to avoid the other car.
This all happened so fast I didn't really have time to react until after the fact. ( It's sort of an interesting question if it knew there was a shoulder to drive onto or if it would have driven me into a ditch if there wasn't one. )
doesn't it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But if that deer was in the middle of a wide open road at night, would you have missed it?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The next generation of self-driving cars will be able to run a hundred different braking and steering simulations in a fraction of a second. There is never going to be a 'HAS to hit someone' situation in real life.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
We often tear down buildings where mass shooting occur.
If a mass shooting occured, then chances are the walls and ceilings have been penetrated by bullets, and that building may no longer be safe to use --- E.g. hidden damage, potential threats to the structure, electrical, etc, could have rendered the place unsafe.
Clippy: "It looks like you've hit a cow. Would you like help writing BBQ invitations?"
"How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?"
How would you?
'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?
Who knows what a human driver would have done.
If there isn't enough data available for submission in order to make that determination then there needs to be more requirements to collect that data.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Now, perhaps a human might have realized the limited sight lines and the possible pedestrian conflict and slowed down before arriving at this location?"
Ha ha ha, sure. Unless drivers in Phoenix are very different from drivers, well, everywhere else?
So what? We're not talking about 'human drivers' we're talking about your Savoir the Self Driving Car that's supposed to be so goddamned wonderful, and it just killed a human being. That's what's on trial here. I don't give a flying fuck about how many people are killed by human operated cars every day.
I appreciate your honesty, but don't worry, we could already tell. It's obvious that you don't care about how many people are killed, and you don't care about whether driverless cars are safer; all you really care about is finding an opportunity to rant and rave and generally act like a dick.
The rest of us DO actually care about how many people die, and we care about reducing that number. This is why you'll never be part of any actual discussion on the subject.
Human drivers cover more miles in a single day than SDCs have covered in their entire history.
So, in other words, driverless cars are 15 times safer?
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....
Are you a relative of this woman or something? I'm just reading through the thread and my first impression was that you were a corporate sock puppet, maybe for some Uber competitor, but the hysteria in this post seems more like someone emotionally involved.
The first rule is to anticipate and slow down before anything could happen.
The second rule is to brake.
And the third is to stay on your lane. Except you have a spare lane going same direction.
And the world is rarely that clean. Random shit happens and you have to make a decision. You're on ice, your brakes don't work. Do you ram into a group of people in your lane, or do you hit the parked car? A child darts out into the road in front of you, close neough that you're not going to stop. Do you hit the kid, or go into the ditch?
Vehicles are 1500+kg of mass and momentum, they can't stop on a dime. At some point something will happen forcing the driver (be it human or computer) to make a least bad decision.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I've hit a deer in the middle of a wide open road, at night, while I was going 60 km/h. Something coming at you from the side can be VERY hard to avoid, particularly if it jumps out from cover after your headlights have swept over.
No you're not picturing it. You're in a road, and there is a deer crossing the opposing traffic lane; you would see something like that.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Aye. pedestrians try really hard to be pedeadstrians some days.
Part of the problem is I've seem people post that "pedestrians *always* have right of way!" Which is wrong and dangerous. (even if you are right- you will be dead right.)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
I assume it can just follow right of way laws.If 4 people that jump out in the middle of the road, and the car has the choice of hitting them, or 2 pedestrians lawfully on the sidewalk, or kill the driver by plowing into a concrete post, it should hit the 4 pedestrians in the road.
It's possible the car may misinterpret who has the right of way, but it should be the basis of the decisions of what to hit.
A human driver generally would have had the intuition the the walker would or could have walked into the path.
Yeah? Is that why 5,000+ pedestrians were killed by cars in the US in 2015, while this is the first time a pedestrian was struck and killed by an autonomous vehicle since they started on roads in 2009?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
We keep being told that AIs are safer and better. Apparently, not so much.
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S. (roughly one every 1.6 hours). In ~9 years and ~10 million miles driven by autonomous vehicles, one person has been killed in a collision. So, yes, much.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Why would a machine have trouble seeing someone moving out of a shadow, are they telling us that they didn't bother to use something as simple as infrared sensors for night vision to avoid a dependence on visible light?
Are you telling us you've seen the IR video? No? Is it not possible that the person was in a place where IR couldn't detect them against the background?
Or, you know what, you're exactly right. 9 years of testing, who knows how many man-hours developing and researching, around 10 million miles driven, but all of those people just plain forgot that IR was a thing. Yeah, you're probably right, anonymous genius.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
These pseudo-intelligent machines have no consciousness, no ability to actually 'think', and don't know the difference between a living being and an inanimate object
So they're just like regular drivers then.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Less than 10% of these accidents are due to mechanical failure
This research indicates mechanical problems are about 2% of accidents.
Enigma
The two pedestrians on the sidewalk have the strongest right-of-way. By law the driver has the least, which is a sucks-to-be-him deal. When you get into and drive a car you assume risks that cannot be reassigned to anybody else who is not driving a car, even if they are out in the street in your 'right of way.'
You should put that on a bumper sticker. I bet there are cyclists with cinder blocks in your neck of the woods.
Not only was this car speeding, but it did not recognise a road side hazard and drive by cautiously.
Are you really 100% confident that you, or most people, would have been able to avoid the accident? Without seeing the video? And with the chief saying it looks like the car wasn't at fault?
There are car crashes every day where the driver made no attempt to brake. That is not an admission of fault, it might just mean that there was no time to brake before the collision.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I wonder if they haven't released the actual location, and it was actually on Washington just west of Mill, where the speed limit is 35. They said Curry and Mill, but east of Mill it's Curry, and west of Mill it's Washington.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion.
I can't see government passing up the opportunity to place "road safety cameras" along every street, ostensibly transmitting off-road pedestrian and obstacle movement details to the approaching cars, thereby preventing accidents just like the one that started this discussion. The resulting constant and pervasive population monitoring would just be a pleasant side effect for the new overlords.
Wow, it occurs to me that Facebook would probably put the cameras up themselves, free of charge, just so they could know even more about everyone. Fuck the future, man.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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
You forgot to site how many hundreds of millions of miles the regular cars traveled in your statistic.
Not to mention haunting. Hail fire, the universal cleanser.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
In jail for vehicular homicide? Not necessarily rotting. In jail? Plenty.
Indeed. Good safety engineering practices dictate to always remove system energy as fast as possible when you have no clear strategy. The examples given in the press of these "ethical dilemmas" are bogus. The car in question will not have enough information about the situation and can only a) bake hard without steering (as that could make matter much worse) or only minimal steering and b) tell any following cars what it is about to do. If there is a crash, it can c) directly alert emergency services. This is far, far better than what a human driver could do after his slow brain works out what is happening. Starting to brake that 0.5...1 second earlier an autonomous car will be able to alone will safe countless lives, and that is the comparison with a non-distracted competent driver.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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
It makes for stories that sell well, because they anthropomorphize the car. "See, _cars_ will make _ethical_ decisions!" It does not make for any kind useful description of technology as it is complete horse manure.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The car will go straight on as that gives it maximum brake efficiency. Seriously, this is solved.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Given that there is a lot of distracted driving, unsafe driving, drunk and tired driving in these accidents, at the very least self-driving cars will provide a significant reduction, probably a massive one. Yes, they will still kill people (most technologies do), but far fewer of them than human-controlled vehicles. Control (often craved by humans) does not come with the skills to use that control competently.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yes, I simplified a bit. ...
But it would not pick a small group of people for not hitting the big one
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Apparently, the victim was not visible to either human driver or car sensors and neither had reason to expect an invisible pedestrian there.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
A self driving car knows if the road is iced.
Show me a driver who goes for the ditch when he has to make that decision, and then invite him to the programmers and teach them ho to make the car that decision.
You and other guys here are talking about stuff that is fully out of scope for a normal human but expect other normal humans, the programmers, to blow some artificial ethics into a stupid self driving algorithm?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Bullshit.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion.
Off the shelf cars right now are already networked to inform each other about traffic and accidents an other shit.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Do you have to work hard at being that obtuse, or does it just come naturally to you?
You fanbois keep trotting out how fucking safe SDCs are supposed to be, yet here's a case where with all the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in developing them, all the media hype, all the cheerleading by fanbois like you, touting how much SAFER it's going to be, yet right out of the gate here's someone dead.
Did you realistically think that self-driving cars would always avoid every fatality? Have you seen anyone make that claim, and can you cite it? Do you believe that the fact that a computer is controlling the vehicle makes the vehicle immune to the laws of physics, so that it can stop immediately? Is the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road any different if the vehicle is operating autonomously?
Secondly - "right out of the gate?" Self-driving vehicles have been on public roads in the US since 2009. They have driven in the neighborhood of 10 million miles across several different cities during all conditions. That is not "right out of the gate". And, in all of that time, 1 fatality has been produced as the result of a self-driving car hitting a pedestrian. Contrast that with the fact that in 2015 in the US, a car killed a pedestrian on average every 1.6 hours. And if you're going to try to gloss over those facts in pursuit of your weird agenda, then you're the fanboi, buddy.
Won't be the last person dead because of it, either.
No shit. Name any risky major venture that mankind has pursued over decades without anyone dying from it. When the Apollo 1 astronauts died on the launchpad, should we have immediately suspended all space operations until we were 100% certain that no one could possibly die from any possible cause? You can die choking on food, does that mean you're going to stick to a liquid diet for the rest of your life?
It needs to be able to actually think, like we do and be aware like we are.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot of people are pretty shitty drivers.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Is that what happened here? The road was "wide open", and the person was "in the middle" of it?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Wow. We thought you were here to discuss the topic. And here you are, tipping your hand. You're just here for the snark.
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.
I worked with a lady who killed herself and her child because a cat ran in front of her and she swerved to avoid it causing her to lose control and roll the car. The person in the other lane saw it because they ran over the cat. The irony was overwhelming. I'm pretty sure the SD car would have motored on.
Wow. We thought you were here to discuss the topic.
I'm here to discuss the topic with anyone who is interested in having a serious discussion. I'm not here to discuss the topic with a jackass who is predisposed to demonizing driverless cars and openly admits that he doesn't care about safety statistics.
But ultimately it will kill far less people in total than humans, and that's what's ultimately the most important.
You really have no way of knowing that before it happens. Whether humans will be able to string together sensors and 'AI' to be a successful driver.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So do you think the cop was lying? or do you think that you know more about a collision that you didn't witness, and have seen no evidence on, than the people investigating and reviewing the footage?
You're incredibly arrogant to think that this would be preventable when the investigators don't think so.
I could make a vehicle that doesn't have any collisions, but it also wouldn't go anywhere. If you slowed to a speed where collisions were impossible any time there was another person, animal, or vehicle anywhere that could possibly intersect your path if they performed a sudden, illegal, and unlikely maneuver, you'd be driving on the freeway at 5mph, and you'd be stopped on all residential streets most of the time.
Road safety is a combined responsibility by all parties, and the only way anyone can get anywhere is by assuming that those around them don't have a death wish. Sometimes that's not the case, and there's nothing that can be done because the other party does something stupid too close to you and without enough warning. That's life.
Those who think self driving vehicles will eliminate the laws of physics are idiots. Those who think they'll eliminate all collisions are no better. Self driving vehicles have the potential to eliminate all reasonably preventable collisions, and that's absolutely huge, but it's not the same as ALL collisions.
How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
Oh, that's easy!
It kills the four-person group and then backs up to take out the single person too so as not to be accused of racial, cultural, ideological, gender, wealth, or political discrimination and/or bias by Progressives.
Easy-peasy!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"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.
Unfortunately at this point in self driving vehicle development it's also a meaningless statistic.
Statistics like that are averages, not absolutes. If something happens on average once every hundred million miles, that's no guarantee that it won't happen 4 times in the first 2 miles. The problem is that there are so few miles that have been driven by self driving vehicles, and so few incidents to date, that there's just not enough data yet to make ANY comparison to the safety of the average driver.
If anyone from either side of the argument states that self driving vehicles are more or less safe than the average driver, they are not basing that on any form of fact, just guesses. These vehicles have the POTENTIAL to be much safer than human drivers, but so far we don't know. It all boils down to whether better programming and sensors, and the impossibility of distraction are enough to make up for the lack of intuition, ease of pattern recognition, and versatility of a human driver.
Right now self driving cars can't handle adverse weather. They also can't handle anything unexpected, only things they've been programmed to deal with. But they handle those situations and those conditions extremely well. Over time they will handle more and more situations well, and fewer will fall in to the not handled category. I do truly believe that Self Driving Cars will one day replace human drivers and be far safer. I also don't think we're there yet, nor that we'll be there for quite a while yet. I don't think it's a problem of safety right now though, I think it's a problem of ability. There are just too many "corner cases" where self driving cars can't handle a given situation at all, that would prevent most people from being able to rely on one as their only means of transport without the ability to take over when the system can't figure out what to do next.
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.
Or maybe the person wasn't doing anything that would appear to be a problem until they suddenly changed direction immediately in front of the car?
You can't have the vehicle assume that all people have a death wish and are likely to dive in front of the car at any moment. If you program it like that it will never be able to move if there are pedestrians anywhere nearby. You have to assume that the person will behave in a somewhat rational way or your car will never be able to actually get anywhere.
I had an incident a while back where I was driving on a residential road at fairly slow speed, there was a kid running all out on the sidewalk beside me, I was watching him. As I passed him, without looking, he made an abrupt 90 degree turn straight in front of my truck. I slammed on the brakes and barely stopped. Had he turned 1/4 second later I wouldn't have been able to stop in time, had he turned 1/2-1 second later the best computer wouldn't have been able to stop in time. But there was also no reason to stop or slow down until he'd already made the 90 degree turn, as it was a highly unlikely thing for him to do. It was illegal, it was dangerous, and it wasn't something you'd expect anyone to do. I thought about it a lot afterwards, and have many times been in similar situations but where the kid didn't make that 90 degree turn. There's just no way I can justify driving with the assumption that every person on the sidewalk, median, lawn, etc, could at any time make that abrupt turn in front of me. I'd never get anywhere, and I'd likely get in a different type of situation caused by the road rage from any driver behind me.
Not all collisions are preventable. They never will be, and no technology can ever prevent all collisions. What we can do is prevent all AVOIDABLE collisions, and doing that would save millions of lives. Is that not worth doing, even if a few UNAVOIDABLE collisions still remain?
Highly unlikely. You can't drive assuming that all places that someone could step out from are likely to produce such a result. You'd never get anywhere.
It seems many people on here are advocating that self driving vehicles drive with the assumption that all other road users are about to swerve in to their path at full tilt at any given time. That's just not practical, and although driving schools say you should do that, it's obvious that there isn't a driver on the planet that actually does. You'd never go more than 5mph on the freeway if you thought that way. On streets with people on the sidewalk you'd spend most of your time at a stop.
Safety is a collaborative effort for all. You need to drive with the expectation that not everyone will follow all the rules, but they also have to behave in such a way that doesn't demonstrate a death wish. Not all collisions are avoidable. Sometimes people do crazy stupid things, like jump out in front of moving cars, sometimes they do it without any warning, even if you could see them ahead of time. You can't live your life assuming that they will do that or you just won't be able to actually get from A-B.
Self driving cars have the potential to completely eliminate PREVENTABLE collisions. But not to eliminate ALL collisions.
We already know the answer. There was a human driver, he did nothing. We also have a second opinion from a person that is presumably a qualified driver, who reviewed the footage. He agreed that the human driver, and the AI driver, likely followed the appropriate course of action.
So we know EXACTLY what a human driver would do, AND what the AI would do. They were the same.
While I do agree with you. Don't try the statistical approach here. Just because this is the first doesn't mean anything, there simply isn't enough data on self driving vehicles yet as there just aren't enough miles driven to run the analysis. Especially not enough where no human driver could intervene. The 5000+ number everyone quotes is over a LOT of drivers covering a LOT of miles.
The car was not traveling 38 in a 35. that was the preliminary investigation. It turns out it was under the speed limit.
It also currently appears that it didn't "try" to stop because there was no time to do so (not even for a machine).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
One problem is that self-driving-cars will lead to human drivers becoming increasingly poorer at driving. If you don't practice driving under 'good' conditions, when the storm hits and your self-driving-car isn't up to it, you won't be either.
There are 210 million licensed drivers, so maybe comparing stats for more vehicles than there are drivers isn't the most intelligent analysis.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Point taken, but I'm refuting the "ban all autonomous driving, the sky is falling and people are dying" rhetoric that is all over these comments.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
When I see a squirrel in the road i stay the course. All but twice they've moved out of the way at the last second.
Scott
Read, humans agree with humans in the trolley problem.
And I agree. That said, while I believe that self driving vehicles at this point are probably fairly safe, I also think they're quite useless. There are far too many corner cases in driving, and I can come up with dozens of them off the top of my head that I've seen no evidence that current generation self driving vehicles can actually handle. I think we're still a very long way away from true, practical, self driving cars.
Which is one reason why I don't think we're there yet.
Come back in a decade or 2 and we might be, but right now it's too early.
That doesn't mean I think Self Driving Cars are dangerous, just that they're not capable enough. YET.
I doubt most courts could give a fair and impartial trial--with so much money at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Cyclist was pushing a bicycle laden with plastic bags.
Cyclist was on a median strip which is:
- Covered with bushes
- signed as not to be used by pedestrians
The pedestrian stepped out in front of vehicle
All of the above hinder sensor detection of the person as an obstacle with potential avoidance required.
Be interesting to see the video/IR footage though.
No one is programming a car that way.
The first rule is to anticipate and slow down before anything could happen.
The second rule is to brake.
And the third is to stay on your lane. Except you have a spare lane going same direction.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
You might want to have the batteries replaced in your sense of humor.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If there is a potential to crash into someone/something it breaks.
It breaks down, the wheels fall off....? What? How does it break?
No sig today...
Quickly making a sponge cake to lessen the impact damage?
Pedestrian has the right of way where law of the land dictates so. In other cases, they don't. However a reasonable person driving a vehicle understands that he is commanding a heavy and well protected metal cage on wheels, which will maim an kill even if pedestrian makes a mistake that was fully his to make, and as such will invest heavily into actions that will avoid maiming or killing the pedestrian.
Basically, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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...
Humans should be nowhere near the car traveling at 70 mph, and vice versa.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Breaking and swerving simyltaneously sometimes lead to additional probability of sliding
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
Neither a programmer nor a car is deciding if it hits 2 3 4 or 1 person.
Interestingly neither are humans. Anyone who thinks that humans attempt to make a rational choice during an emergency situation has never been in the situation before. People at best slam on the break and try to avoid hitting something. Rarely if ever are they even able to register if that something is a child or a deer.
I remember slamming on my breaks one day to avoid a wallaby which jumped out from behind a car. My wonderful passenger armed with all the hindsight in the world smugly said that it was illegal to swerve avoid wildlife. Reality: The fact it was wildlife didn't even register until the car was nearly stopped.
Is that why the cop says: "I suspect preliminarily it appears that..." ?
No the reason the cop says that is because he legally is required to until the investigation is conclusive.
That sounds more like an error, than planned action.
Tesla autopilot isn't designed for that kind of avoidance. It's a driving aid that keeps you in a lane and at a constant speed. It can only change lanes when the driver tells it to.
More likely the other car obscured its view of the road markings, and it suddenly thought it was way off the centre line for the lane and moved over. The only emergency action autopilot is designed to take is braking.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
What kind of simpleton freaks out about one pedestrian killed in the entire history of self-driving cars?
Human drivers : 30 trillion miles driven in last decade, 50,000 pedestrians killed.
Self-driving cars : 10 million miles driven in last decade, 1 pedestrian killed.
Humans 60 times better than machines restrained by humans from killing pedestrians.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Sad story. We learn in driving school to only break and not swerve ... but even then you can be partly guilty when one crashes into you from the rear.
Reminds me about a friend of mine who came late to a party ... brought by an ambulance. He had a collision on his motorbike with a wild boar. The bike was a complete loss and he was pretty bruised.
Next morning a score of hunters went out to find the boar and shoot it (assuming it would be heavily wounded and would be suffering) ... they found lots of blood traces and skin but never the animal ... it seems it also only got a bit bruised.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
By pushing the breaks ...
If that is incorrect english, correct it, instead of trying to make a smart comment. After all your comment looks pretty retarded to me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Understandable, I actually never had an encounter with wildlife on the road.
Only saw them on the meadows or in the trees besides the road.
The only nearly accident was a bird of prey that nearly crashed into my windshield. No idea what it saw there and was trying to catch. But with far over 100km/h on the highway that probably could have ended very nasty for me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I looked up "break" in the dictionary and found a verb.
break brÄk/ verb
1. separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain. "the rope broke with a loud snap"
2. interrupt (a continuity, sequence, or course). "the new government broke the pattern of growth"
https://encrypted.google.com/s...
How do I push one?
No sig today...
Okay. The word you were looking for is "brakes". English has a lot of homonyms, which are differentiated in writing by spelling...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
No, kind of like a gun kills its victims.
That's why it's imperative that we ban humans.
And this is relevant to what the OP said, or the article, how?
You push the brake with your foot.
Some people call it "slam" though.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thank you :D
The smart ass is still harassing me with stupid comments, like "look what I found in the dictionary about 'break'" instead of pointing out, I made a typo.
I hate stupid people that think they are smart.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A computer does NOT have to be programmed on what is acceptable to kill just like drivers don't have to think that way. Furthermore, the word "kill" is inherently inflammatory in this context. A car is not programmed to kill and your claim is absurd on its face.
It is not acceptable to "kill" a dog or a cow nor will a car even detect a spider. A car will avoid collisions always but cannot avoid them when put in a no-win situation, just like human drivers.
Ok so if I promise you a bridge, will you give me $10,000 now? Because that's basically what the "self driving will save lives" promise is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Then a reduction needs to be demonstrated. They aren't doing that by hitting pedestrians so soon in the game.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
That's not really the point though. A computer is not a human. They have a chance to program the choice in a computer, unlike a human. So what are they programming?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Exactly. We have to drive with certain assumptions about how people will behave or no one would get anywhere. There are plenty of times making turns where you have to assume the other driver will slow down rather than plow right into you. Otherwise there would be traffic jams everywhere while everyone waits for the opportunity to turn without relying on the other driver reacting.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Unless the squirrel and the child are the same size, the answer to this is pretty straightforward. Furthermore, a squirrel is less predictable. Behavior and size will dictate this every time regardless of the value you place on the respective lives. Teach your child not to run in front of cars, problem solved.
Regarding the 4 lives vs 1, it is unlikely that an AI would encounter this hypothetical in a context where its programming would be able to make a difference, however one could argue that it could "choose" to "kill" all 5 and that would be acceptable since that car iwould not be the cause of the accident in any case.
The responsibility to avoid these situations lies with the people who cause them, not with the computers that can't solve them. It's not the train that's to blame when a person jumps in front of it.
Somehow this girl managed to be totally invisible to the car. That doesn't happen in a road; sure people get partially obscured by other vehicles and traffic controls and the like but they have been designed not to obscure vision. It is important to know why the car didn't see the girl.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is a great way to monetize! Buy the Super Life Value subscription so Uber cars weigh your life more favorably!
"So do you think the cop was lying?"
He didn't say that.
I get the impression that the cop voicing how he feels about it is inappropriate especially considering the context.
And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me.
All we really seem to know clearly is the car was going over the speed limit.
"You can't drive assuming that all places that someone could step out from are likely to produce such a result. You'd never get anywhere."
Humans can take that into account emotionally and slow down a corresponding degree if they're paying attention. But the car didn't, it was even driving over the speed limit.
Rich people rarely have any skills, so they're much lower on the priority list.
#DeleteFacebook
So in other words, the car was driving at least as well as, and probably better than, a human driver would.
So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence.
Wow this forum is just full of arrogance today!
Mod up, mod up
If the one person is more important than the other four...
The problem where you have to decide whether to let a train run straight and kill 5 people or switch the track so that it only kills 1 becomes more complicated when that one person is the president and the 5 people are his bodyguards. My guess is that passenger safety outranks jaywalker safety, but I'll bet a lot of situations are covered by "panic and brake".
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Squirrels are fine. You could blow a tire on a bunny.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
Those are valid ethical questions
I wouldn't say that. At least not in the near term. Currently, the programming or "AI" we are talking about can't distinguish between a living thing and an inanimate object. We've even seen cases where they have difficulty distinguishing between a large white object and empty space (or perhaps a close vs. distant object). If it sees something in its path, it will stop. If something enters its path in less than its current stopping distance, it should brake and attempt to steer away from the object if there is a clear path. If there is no clear path, it should just attempt to stop.
So, what about in the future when the machine is smart enough to distinguish between a person, a dog, a trash can, churches, lead, a duck, whatever? It might not be an issue at that point. With that much intelligence in the machine, it should have much better predictive ability and much greater ability to process larger amounts of incoming sensor data. Meaning it can have more and/or better sensors that can see farther outside the vehicle's path and process the data more accurately to estimate whether something outside its path is likely to move into the path, which could necessitate decreasing speed in case it has to stop, or changing lanes if it seems likely (perhaps even slightly) that a vehicle/pedestrian/whatever will move into the SDC's current lane.
"So in other words, the car was driving at least as well as, and probably better than, a human driver would."
No. What follows from what I wrote was: The car was driving as badly as *some* drivers would be in the same situation.
Do you think the car should have been driving above the speed limit?
Ok so that changes the number to 0.000024 accidents per year per licensed driver. Is automation looking better now? Should we go with hours driven by humans? That's bound to look a lot worse for automation.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So what are they programming?
Stop in case of obstacle. Change lanes if clear. That is what they have been programming from the start and that is precisely the best outcome. The other possible scenarios are littered with a stupendous amount of variables that make programming them impossible.
Point is that this isn't a case of ethics, it's a case of best normal response. If that response involves killing a family with 5 children while the elderly person in the car survives in order to claim that there was an ethical problem you need to first prove that the decision wasn't the best course of action which is impossible to do given the variables involved.
I've seen this framed as a "protect the driver" vs "protect the pedestrians" but the reality is the former simply isn't possible. Any action that puts the former in threat involves a whole lot of variables that are impossible to predict: e.g. do you swerve to avoid one child at the expense of the driver in the car and how can the car tell the difference between hitting a parked car as a result (the protect the pedestrians route) vs hitting a car full of children (same scenario as protect the driver but with a now even worse outcome than just running over the single child in the first place).
What we program is what we can control: Stop. Change lanes (on your side of the road only) if its safe to do so. Its exactly how existing collision avoidance systems have been programmed thus far and these have already saved an incredible number of lives.
"So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence"
No. That's in no way implied by what I wrote.
And it wasn't about 'the people' or 'the evidence', it was about one person and his thoughts about one part of the evidence.
38mph in a 35 zone as measured by the speedometer would presumably put it almost exactly the speed limit as all speedometers read slightly high. Beyond that there's reason to believe the actual speed limit in that location is 45 not 35, or that it is in the process of changing from 45 to 35 at that intersection. In any case, the car was not driving at any excessive speed. Additionally, we usually refer to people who drive at exactly the speed limit, or below the speed limit, by the term "obstructing traffic".
The chief of police did not think the speed was excessive, and he's reviewed the evidence. I'll take his word for it over some random slashdot poster who neither witnessed the incident, nor reviewed any of the evidence.
All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable, by even the best possible driver (Human or computer).
And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me.
Actually, yes, it's exactly what you said.
Ok so that changes the number to 0.000024 accidents per year per licensed driver.
That means absolutely nothing, it's literally a meaningless statistic.
Is automation looking better now?
Yes it is, every day. Every day the systems improve, and eventually we will get the point when private ownership of vehicles is completely unnecessary for the vast majority of the population. There's no reason to stop that progress because we broke an egg. That's a reason to improve the process.
We might be living near the historical peak of private vehicle ownership. The future is in fact automation and shared resources, there's going to be a day when a garage is just another room where the whole wall opens.
Sorry, but we aren't going back, there's no reason to. We aren't where we want to be yet, but that doesn't mean we stop trying to get there.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
* 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.
I don't think it actually was, from what I can tell the speed limit where it was is 45. I don't know why the cop said 35. This comment and my follow-up should explain why I think that. I don't think she was coming off the center median either, I think she was coming off the right sidewalk based on where the vehicle actually stopped. The speed limit on that street shows 45 at the closest sign on the other side of the 202 though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Given 210 million licensed drivers and 13,500 average miles per driver, and 37,500 traffic deaths per year, you end up wityh something like 75 million miles per death, not 600.
One death in 10 million miles is probably reasonable given some statistical variance.
But you never had any math classes beyond high school algebra, so alarmism.
He may be mistaken on the speed limit, kind of his field though, and if his ability to get that right is put into question then the rest of what he said becomes even more questionable and leaving pretty much nothing to helps us find out if there was anything the uber car, or its driver, should have done but didn't.
Ok keep dreaming the dream, that automation will ever match humans. Not sure how that will happen if they are missing people with bikes stacked with bags. Doesn't sound very hard to miss.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
With your limited brain capacity, try to get simpler data .
Pedestrians killed (remember the topic being discussed) : over 5000 per year. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehic...
Miles driven : over 3 trillion per year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
Demand back your money from your "algebra" classes. Because they admitted ineligible students like you who failed arithmetic.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
No, when you have every opportunity to make the choice before it happens then it IS a case of ethics. Perhaps the AI is too simplistic for that kind of reasoning, in which case it is too early to have automated cars on public roads.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I said "And a lot of what he says seems suspect to me."
You said "So you also think you know better than the people who have actually seen the evidence."
No, I suspect his off the cuff interpretation may not be a completely accurate interpretation of events, and that there may be other evidence that needs to be taken into account also, before conclusions can be reached.
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.
"I had an incident a while back where I was driving on a residential road at fairly slow speed, there was a kid running all out on the sidewalk beside me,"
Which was your first warning sign.
"I was watching him."
And thinking what, exactly?
"I slammed on the brakes and barely stopped."
Why didn't you anticipate that he might do that?
Kids do this kind of thing.
If a ball bounces onto the road you need to assume that a child WILL follow it, because whilst it's not true most of the time, there are enough cases where it does happen that you can't take the chance.
If kids are playing on the sidewalk, you need to assume a high probability that one will run onto the road. Again, most of the time they won't, but sometimes one will.
If you're driving past parked cars, you need to be looking for feet in the gap underneath and anticpating what happens next.
Humans can only handle 2-3 hazards at most. Robocars can pay 100% attention 100% of the time, should be looking for all these hazards (and more) all the time and dealing with it accordingly. if that means slowing to a lower speed then so be it. 30mph is quite often dangerously fast in an urban/suburban environment.
"There are plenty of times making turns where you have to assume the other driver will slow down rather than plow right into you."
Speak for yourself.
I assume he _will_ plow into me and make ready to stop, until I've assessed where his tyres are pointing and where he's looking. These tell me where he intends to go. Only when I'm happy that he's registered my presence is when I keep going.
She, actually, the Tempe police chief is a woman. But from what I can tell the car could have only stopped in 1 location, and if it's going north on Mill the speed limit should be 45. The assumptions I am making are that the speed limit doesn't change after crossing the Salt River/202, and that the speed limit shown on Google Maps is current. Maybe it changes without a posted sign, or maybe the imagery is not accurate.
But the speed limit isn't really a major factor. It's a minor detail to how the car struck the person.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Thought exercise for you: is it possible to develop an autonomous vehicle that will always, and I mean with 100% certainty, avoid an accident with a suicidal person trying to get the vehicle to impact themselves? If that is not possible, then isn't it also possible for a person to unintentionally enter the street at that exact same time from that exact same location?
Haha, "thought exercise", who am I kidding?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
He says that for the reason cops call people "suspects" even when they clearly did it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I'm not seeking to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out someone who has seen the footage - which you haven't - and probably has a better understanding of how accidents occur says that a human driver probably would have been unable to avert the accident as well.
The AI failed to slow in anticipation of odd pedestrian behavior.
How do you know it didn't slow? Maybe it did. Maybe it did everything a reasonable driver would be expected to do, but then something unreasonable happened.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
But sometimes they don't, then watch out.
http://lifeisaroad.com/stories...
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.
The woman was in a situation where a human driver would have also hit her.
Ok, run your time machine, replace the car with a human driver at the same place and same time. Let us see.
If your time machine is broken, shut up about what would have happened and concentrate on what happened. And learn some math.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
"All evidence so far points to this collision being completely unavoidable, by even the best possible driver (Human or computer)."
But why then didn't the car or driver break or do anything?
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/
Because there wasn't any time to do so?
Yes, I know your definition of evidence "only things which agree with my preconceived notions".
No thanks.
It's not a relevant comparison anyway. A more apt one is when driving straight (as this car was doing) do you always assume that the car in the next lane is going to do a hard 90 degree turn in to your lane with no warning?
If you answer yes, you do, you are either lying, or you are a hazard on the road because you drive under 5mph on all freeways.
I didn't anticipate it because it was an unlikely illegal event.
If you answer that you would have anticipated it, than one of 2 things is true: 1) you're lying. Or 2) you're an extremely hazardous driver because you never drive more than 5mph on freeways and sit at a stop most of the time on side streets.
There is no possible way to actually get to your destination if you assume everyone around you has a death wish. It simply isn't possible.
In other words, experts who have actually reviewed the evidence contradicted you uneducated preconceived notions, and therefore you are going to treat THEM as being wrong instead of adjusting your preconceived notions.
I'm sorry, there is no possible way to convince you because you aren't interested in evidence or truth.
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
I just read about how AI isn't sophisticated enough to pick strawberries out of a plant. Personally, I'd like to see footage of this accident and judge for myself.
I'd also like to point out that this person seems to be suggesting that the presence of a nearby crosswalk made crossing the street more dangerous.
How come the radar didn't see what's coming up to the point of not even trying to slow down to reduce the impact.
"In other words, expert*s* who have actually reviewed *the evidence*"
See my previous comments.
"I'm sorry, there is no possible way to convince you because you aren't interested in evidence or truth."
What are you trying to convince people of?
Or if you're living under a government that's figured out how to leverage social media, you can look for all that info in just one place.
fluffernutter:
But if that deer was in the middle of a wide open road at night, would you have missed it?
If I had seen it, I would have *attempted* to miss it. Where I live every adult has a when-I-hit-the-deer story. Sometimes people joke about putting tape over their deer whistles and going out to get them some venison, but really everybody knows it's a bad idea to hit them. You can pick up a thousand dollars worth of damage in just the time it takes to move your foot from one pedal to the other.
The point I was trying to make is that it does not look (at this point) like the car demonstrated what in humans would be called "Depraved Indifference", (which is what I think the poster ahead of me was concerned about,) it looks like it failed an impossible test.
There is of course a lot that we don't know yet. The N.T.S.B. report won't be out for a while yet, none of us have seen the dash cam video from the car, we don't know what the cars black box says, we don't have testimony from the human backup driver, we don't know if the bike with all the bags may have hidden the human being behind it, we don't know if she waited until it was right on top of her and then stepped out, etc, etc.
I do expect that some very bright engineers are going to go over the events with great care, and if it is possible to improve their algorithms I'm sure they will. Of course the engineers may be up against the limits of what physics permits, in which case the car will only be as good as an alert and attentive human would be.
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
fluffernutter :
It is important to know why the car didn't see the girl.
It may have seen her, but assumed she would stay on the sidewalk, not jump out in front of it.
I fail to see the moral quandary in that particular dilemma, at least with the current President.
The AI doesn't have to be programmed with any fancy criteria. It can brake as hard as possible. It can swerve if safe, if not not it can just brake.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You must be new here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My father-in-law was hit by a deer once while driving to work.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Self-driving cars, when widely deployed, will save lives. (Otherwise, they won't be widely deployed.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well that's not likely to happen. Is there any reason to doubt the word of someone who has? Someone who, presumably, has experience of road accidents and their causes.
I just read about how AI isn't sophisticated enough to pick strawberries out of a plant.
It's also not sophisticated enough to write an Oscar-winning screenplay, but it can kick anyone's arse at chess or go. Driverless cars have come a long way - they still have a way to go, but scoffing at them because AI can't do some other entirely unrelated task - which is probably having far, far less money and time spent on it - is silly.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Same as when the nuclear power station has a bug and blows up: Boom. Then, if the industry is smart, it fixes that bug in future instances. (The nuclear industry is too greedy for that in many instances.) Also, system like these come with a lot of redundancy, so "one bug" will never do anything like that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
at least with the current President
Well, yeah. I meant in principle. I'd be just fine with DJT stepping in front of a bus if it wasn't for Pence.
It can swerve if safe...
That's a big "if" with a TBD definition of "safe".
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
1. But what if the machine "driver" kill one pedestrian every 1 million miles, but the human "driving assistant" stops them initial 9 times and lets a pedestrian be killed the 10th time?
2. If data is not enough, one can't say that "machines are better drivers" either.
3. Nobody is "killing" all machines.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
They actually did release the video.
It was quite dark, but I expect that human eyes would do much better than the camera. She was at the end of crossing multiple lanes of traffic, she certainly didn't abruptly step into traffic at the worst possible time. The car made NO attempt at slowing down or maneuvering.
Even in the video, I can clearly see movement that would have alerted me about 3-4 seconds prior to impact.
You kinna change the laws of physics, jim.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Have you tried interacting with the topic of dicussion instead of just spouting random phrases that bear no relationship with the topic of discussion?
He does. That's why driver doesn't get convicted of whatever version of vehicular manslaughter there is in legal code of your state if pedestrian is at fault.
Driver does get increased responsibility because his ability to cause damage to the pedestrian is massively higher than vice versa. With great power comes great responsibility, and commanding a heavy metal cage with immense amount of kinetic energy is very powerful in relation to a human being wearing nothing but clothing for personal protection.
There are a number of problems with that reasoning:
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence. The fact that one pedestrian was killed after 10 million miles does not mean that driverless cars kill 1 per 10 million miles. It could be 0.01 per 10 million, or it could be 10 per 10 million. We won't really know until we have a larger sample size.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles. AFAIK the majority of testing for driverless cars has occurred in city settings, while the majority of miles driven by humans are on highways. One of those environments is far more risky than the other.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole. If the number of fatal crashes as a whole is significantly lower then driverless cars may still be safer, even if they do turn out to cause more pedestrian deaths.
Still, at least you're actually talking about the numbers, which is a big improvement over the OP. I'm fully willing to accept that driverless cars could currently be less safe than human drivers, but I'm not going to accept that conclusion based on the emotional ravings of some lunatic. Show me the numbers!
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence.
That is fine*. But I see people here drawing conclusions that self-driving vehicles are far safer than human driven ones, from nothing other than their own imagination, or far less data, or misleading data like yourself. And I also see you not correcting most of the ones I noticed.
Your own conclusion is highly suspect. 15 pedestrians killed per day is not comparable at all to "entire history of self-driving cars" for anyone with a clue in statistics.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles
Yup, most self-driven car miles have been overseen by humans - so if they avoided accidents it is completely unknown how much credit can be given to the humans.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole
In many places, self-driving cars are prohibited from carrying passengers** . Why would you ask for evidence that legally and likely cannot exist in large quantities if you have a clue about statistics ?
Show me the numbers!
That is a big problem. With the available data you have made misleading statements, what would you do with more numbers ?
The raw data is "proprietary". These vehicles would drive around, potentially killing people. The data we have is for miles driven with human oversight, potentially sanitized to remove their culpability.
This is absolutely worth freaking out. The burden of proof is on these companies about to profit from firing human drivers. One important strategy for nurturing a conspiracy theory is to invert the burden of proof. You are doing that nurturing, not the critics of self-driving vehicles here, like it may seem to shallow readers.
* : I mentioned as much in one of my posts where it was more directly relevant. I don't mind mentioning it again, except to conserve a semblance of readability by not flooding a post with disclaimers.
** : Even though the "driver" or "driving assistant" in this case looked more like a passenger.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
A good rule of thumb is never to swerve to avoid an animal. This should be the default. The risk to human life is too great, generally. The unpredictable always occurs. In individual situations, there may be enough time or sufficiently low risk that swerving reduces all damage. But the bias for not swerving should be so strong that leaving your lane abruptly should be a final choice, not an early or first choice. When you and those you share the road with finally die of old age, there will be enough gratitude among everyone to compensate for the odd blown tire.
A good rule of thumb is never to swerve to avoid an animal.
There's a world of difference between a squirrel and a moose. If there was room, I'd absolutely swerve to avoid a moose.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
We can define "safe" conservatively here. If the car can determine that swerving would be safe, it can swerve.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not sure "safe" is as simple as you're trying to make it. A person steps out in front of you. Is it safe to swerve if it means hitting a dog? A curb? Is it safe to swerve into the oncoming lane if there's no traffic there? Maybe you're defining "safe" as not hitting anything or violating any road regulations, but a slightly more liberal definition could save lives.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Certainly true. However, SDCs need to be able to refine their assumptions based on observed behavior. Not just with pedestrians, but cars also. We learn to drive differently if passing a drunken, unruly crowd of pedestrians, or if a ball enters a street (meaning a small child might be following behind), or a car that's weaving all over everyplace while its "driver" is talking on the beer bottle and trying to drink the cell phone. SDCs will have to learn to do the same. That might not have prevented this particular collision, but it certainly will help to prevent others.
Nonaggression works!
Because there wasn't any time to do so?
Asking the question while inserting another piece of technology doesn't change the answer.
God. How dense are some people?
You cannot stop a car in 10 feet. Not even 30 feet. You can not change the laws of physics (i.e. friction and velocity). You can't improve human reaction time.
And it is also a reference to a star trek song, just in case you missed that too. /facepalm.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Maybe it would save more lives in the long run if they didn't. After an initial peak of accidents the survivors would know enough to be cautious.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
"I didn't anticipate it because it was an unlikely illegal event."
Unlikely: Hardly. Kids do it all the time.
Illegal: Only in the USA.
Grow up.
I don't live in the USA, And yes, it was highly unlikely, and no, kids don't do suicidal things "all the time" our child mortality rates clearly show that.
As for "grow up", says the person who can't even drive a car...
No, because the system didn't perform at all as expected.
I don't understand your second sentence.
This is a BS ethnical question: If the driver (human or AI) has time to ponder ethnics then it has time to avoid both. Thereâ(TM)s a reason the speed limit in a parking lot isnâ(TM)t 65 mph.
I literally have a video for you linked above where a truck was stopped in about 15 meters. While you cannot "change the laws of physics", you can eliminate various uncertainty factors.
I really recommend you look up that breaking system in Volvo trucks which saved the child in the video I linked. It demonstrates my point.
Because the careless idiot is a human being. The rest of your claims are bold faced lies and inventions.
I'm thinking of "known to be safe", which presumably means if the area swerved into is going to be free of obstacles for a moment. That would rule out hitting the dog. Other definitions are possible, but that's the one I think is likely to be applied.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It was expected to defy the laws of physics? That seems unlikely.
As for your reading comprehension. I can't help you there.
I can see you thought out a well reasoned and logical retort. To respond to your definition of "a BS ethical question" imagine if you will....
A self driving vehicle is driving on a highway with a posted speed limit sign of 65 mph. The vehicle is tracking and monitoring all traffic and pedestrians around it. A child on a bicycle darts out 10 feet in front of the vehicle. Next to the vehicle is another vehicle with an elderly person in it. An example of an ethical question in this case would be "do you swerve into the vehicle carrying the elderly person or run over the child?" The self-driving car has broken no laws at this point, but simple physics would prevent it from avoiding injuring or possibly killing one or the other.
And yes, parking lots don't have a speed limit of 65mph, but highways do. Once you've progressed past the point of sitting on daddy's knee to drive around the parking lot you'll learn these things.
"It was expected to defy the laws of physics?"
No, even if we don't know the exact cause of the failure, experts, quoted in various news stories, said there was ample time for the system to react long before the impact.
Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree.
Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide, however so far the people who've seen the evidence are the ones I believe.
"Experts who haven't seen the evidence, vs the experts who HAVE seen the evidence who disagree."
I'm taking about experts in autonomous cars and radar systems who said the autonomous system failed badly. The low resolution and low contrast video the cop saw is not what I'm talking about, and the cop surely isn't an expert in autonomous systems or an expert in the interpretation of low quality night time video footage.
"Everyone wants to assign blame here, and it's unpopular to blame the person who committed vehicular suicide"
I'm not trying to assign blame, the courts will do that.
In short, I think a j-walking person didn't notice the car was there or didn't care, the car driver was not paying attention to the road, and the Uber car's systems failed badly.
So you are saying that when you sit in the drivers seat of a car, you have license to run over anybody in your way?
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
That should be 'police chief' instead of 'cop'.
I don't live in the USA either and I've been driving since I was 8 years old (on roads since 16).
The fact remains that kids don't appreciate the laws of physics (and nor, apparently do most drivers). They run out on the road often enough that you MUST assume it's going to happen. I live in Europe and in most cities I see it a couple of times per day, especially around school closing time.
I have a bunch of advanced driving qualificiations to my name, but more germane to this wee discussion I showed your anecdote to some driving testers I know in the UK and France. Every single one of them regard this poor a level of driving as an automatic fail - and two of them would have reported your poor driving abilities to the police for immediate action had they been observers - if you think that's an empty threat, an incident like that did occur in the UK in mid 2017 and the resulting dashcam video from a 3rd party resulted in the driver concerned getting a 6 month driving ban.
You weren't there, so your attempt to rationalize that my driving was poor is laughable.
I can 100% guarantee that anyone who drives differently has been rear-ended many times, and been involved in many road-rage incidents. You can't stop on all roads all the time, and drive on highways at under 5km/hr and not get in trouble.
There is no possible way to drive and actually get to your destination if you assume everyone around you has a death wish.
As for "advanced driving qualifications"... sure... talk all you want. We won't go down that road as I feel no need to explain the various qualifications that I have, but suffice it to say that my license is of a significantly higher class than the average driver on the road.