It's the person's fault for not being detected by a sensor? Doh, maybe they shouldn't have worn their 'automated driving sensor invisibility suit' that day!
I disagree. We obviously don't know all the details yet, but if a car was on a road being driven by sensors that were not adequate for the conditions then the people who put that car on the road are the real monsters. If the sensors were fine and the woman literally ran out from behind a brick wall and in front of the car (ie was not visible for even a brief moment before the collision) then Uber is excused. Otherwise, they are the monsters for putting a car on the road that can't detect a person crossing with a trajectory that would meet with the car.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react. I know I have mistakenly crossed at the wrong time before and the human driver usually gets pissed and honks but they usually don't mow over the human. Unless she literally jumped out in front of the automated car (which people say an automated car should handle anyway) then this car screwed up with a factor of driving and that is all there is to it.
Even still, perhaps the people who insist that automated cars can see everything everywhere all the time will be quiet now. It is simply not true, we know this for a fact.
The problem is, there can be no truly independent study because a full study would require a lot of proprietary data to be given and I doubt any self driving company would agree to that.
It's beside the point. If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong. We wouldn't be pointing fingers at the pedestrian. In my mind the fact that it is a wide expanse should have made the sensors work better, not worse.
You're not allowed to use the 'obstruction' argument. We have been through this on Slashdot, and it has been decided that automated cars can see anything, no matter what is in front of them. I've been told that they can skip sensors off the ground to see people emerging from behind cars and that there is no tree or fence or wall in the world that is close enough to the road that can beat an automated car's reaction time.... so try again.
If the sensors were not adequate for the conditions, I would expect a criminal vehicular homicide case against Uber. If a human was driving with their eyes closed and it could be proven, they would suffer the same fate.
I'm waiting to see what happened to the sensors. If the sensors failed then that is tantamount to a human being proven to cause an accident by driving with closed eyes. I would expect legal penalties to Uber to be along those lines.
That's an oversimplification. The question in my mind is what happened to the sensors? If the sensors were not adequate to see this woman then that amounts to a person hitting a pedestrian while driving with their eyes closed. That may come to a charge of dangerous driving and vehicular manslaughter. So, if some Uber executive is willing to accept the same charge as a human driver would, then fine they only need to be slightly better than a human. Otherwise they need to be much, much better than a human.
Besides, I thought autonomous vehicles could see everything around them, all the time, 24/7 at 1000 cycles a second? That leads me to believe that this car must have WANTED to hit the women.
As I suspected, a bunch of people blaming the pedestrian for crossing the street wrong. Cars still have to stop for them legally, and autonomous cars are no less liable. Once again, autonomous cars need to drive more like humans, not the other way around.
I just like to stop at a gas station for 10 minutes and go and not break up my day to stop somewhere I don't know. We don't use restaurants when we travel, we pack food and eat on the road.
The point is about whether these places are anywhere where you would want to spend at least 1/2 hour of your time. I've checked the ones in the places I know and I can say that there is nothing around them that I would want to do for that time. I'm assuming you're going to need 1/2 hour there at least.
Sure but if you go too far from home, what are the chances there will be an electrical charging station nearby at a place you can afford to (and want to) hang around for 1/2 hour?
Uh, no. If that car is my only means to getting around a city in the case of emergency and my way of making it to my job it's getting charged every night.
So you're paying almost as much for a car that can only take you around a city. A car that does half as much should cost half as much, barring all the other inconveniences.
Because if tax payers don't "provide parking" then you drive the price of commercial property into the toilet and your city makes less tax in the end not more. Besides, isn't it the "tax payers" that are using the parking to go to that business anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the person's fault for not being detected by a sensor? Doh, maybe they shouldn't have worn their 'automated driving sensor invisibility suit' that day!
I disagree. We obviously don't know all the details yet, but if a car was on a road being driven by sensors that were not adequate for the conditions then the people who put that car on the road are the real monsters. If the sensors were fine and the woman literally ran out from behind a brick wall and in front of the car (ie was not visible for even a brief moment before the collision) then Uber is excused. Otherwise, they are the monsters for putting a car on the road that can't detect a person crossing with a trajectory that would meet with the car.
If this person has made the same maneuver many times before in front of human cars and did not die then what she did this time is not dangerous and stupid, it is just a wrong belief about how she can expect cars to react. I know I have mistakenly crossed at the wrong time before and the human driver usually gets pissed and honks but they usually don't mow over the human. Unless she literally jumped out in front of the automated car (which people say an automated car should handle anyway) then this car screwed up with a factor of driving and that is all there is to it.
Even still, perhaps the people who insist that automated cars can see everything everywhere all the time will be quiet now. It is simply not true, we know this for a fact.
Wow, you must hit a lot of pedestrians to have the audacity to say something like that.
The problem is, there can be no truly independent study because a full study would require a lot of proprietary data to be given and I doubt any self driving company would agree to that.
The only logical conclusion I can make from the quoted statement is that he/she must regularly hit pedestrians in wide open roads.
It's beside the point. If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong. We wouldn't be pointing fingers at the pedestrian. In my mind the fact that it is a wide expanse should have made the sensors work better, not worse.
You're not allowed to use the 'obstruction' argument. We have been through this on Slashdot, and it has been decided that automated cars can see anything, no matter what is in front of them. I've been told that they can skip sensors off the ground to see people emerging from behind cars and that there is no tree or fence or wall in the world that is close enough to the road that can beat an automated car's reaction time.... so try again.
No, I mean predictably.
If the sensors were not adequate for the conditions, I would expect a criminal vehicular homicide case against Uber. If a human was driving with their eyes closed and it could be proven, they would suffer the same fate.
What is the recent introduction that caused this shitty situation? People jaywalking, or companies testing self driving cars?
I'm waiting to see what happened to the sensors. If the sensors failed then that is tantamount to a human being proven to cause an accident by driving with closed eyes. I would expect legal penalties to Uber to be along those lines.
That's an oversimplification. The question in my mind is what happened to the sensors? If the sensors were not adequate to see this woman then that amounts to a person hitting a pedestrian while driving with their eyes closed. That may come to a charge of dangerous driving and vehicular manslaughter. So, if some Uber executive is willing to accept the same charge as a human driver would, then fine they only need to be slightly better than a human. Otherwise they need to be much, much better than a human.
Besides, I thought autonomous vehicles could see everything around them, all the time, 24/7 at 1000 cycles a second? That leads me to believe that this car must have WANTED to hit the women.
As I suspected, a bunch of people blaming the pedestrian for crossing the street wrong. Cars still have to stop for them legally, and autonomous cars are no less liable. Once again, autonomous cars need to drive more like humans, not the other way around.
I just like to stop at a gas station for 10 minutes and go and not break up my day to stop somewhere I don't know. We don't use restaurants when we travel, we pack food and eat on the road.
The point is about whether these places are anywhere where you would want to spend at least 1/2 hour of your time. I've checked the ones in the places I know and I can say that there is nothing around them that I would want to do for that time. I'm assuming you're going to need 1/2 hour there at least.
Wha? Are you daft? I'm the one saying that Waze is wrong for routing cars through neighborhoods.
Sure but if you go too far from home, what are the chances there will be an electrical charging station nearby at a place you can afford to (and want to) hang around for 1/2 hour?
Uh, no. If that car is my only means to getting around a city in the case of emergency and my way of making it to my job it's getting charged every night.
Anonymous Coward doesn't even get the main detail correct in his one sentence response. *golf clap*
So you're paying almost as much for a car that can only take you around a city. A car that does half as much should cost half as much, barring all the other inconveniences.
Massive rise in crime.... like the 109 school shootings in the last 5 years?
Because if tax payers don't "provide parking" then you drive the price of commercial property into the toilet and your city makes less tax in the end not more. Besides, isn't it the "tax payers" that are using the parking to go to that business anyway?