Self driving car kills pedestrian.

[Cyril Haearn]

Sadly the first on many, machines can not work by themselves they need a minder

Alas so do many Human drivers!

'Person and Machine in perfect harmony'
Slogan for Ford Sierra c 1983

[Mr Evil]

Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.

Can't argue with stupid.

That's what Tesla's statement tried to imply, but if you read it closely that's not actually what it says:

The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...

Yes, there were warnings, but they were at an unspecified time (possibly nowhere near the crash), and they were only warnings that the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel at all times, not that there was an impending crash. The requirement to keep constantly alert and ready to take control is a problem with self-driving cars, and one that's been well-studied in the case of aircraft autopilots. It's just not reasonable to expect a person to stare passively at the road for a long time and remain alert.

...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.

Aside from what I said above, note that this only says that the car couldn't detect the drivers hands, and does not prove that his hands were not on the wheel. Even if they weren't on the wheel, letting go for a mere 6 seconds shouldn't cause the car to decide to swerve off the road by itself.

The whole statement has been carefully crafted to deflect blame.

[Bonefishblues]

That isn't a self-driving car.

ETA
"The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," Tesla said.

The statement is carefully crafted indeed, as is your analysis of it.

[Cyril Haearn]

Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.

Can't argue with stupid.

That's what Tesla's statement tried to imply, but if you read it closely that's not actually what it says:

The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...

Yes, there were warnings, but they were at an unspecified time (possibly nowhere near the crash), and they were only warnings that the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel at all times, not that there was an impending crash. The requirement to keep constantly alert and ready to take control is a problem with self-driving cars, and one that's been well-studied in the case of aircraft autopilots. It's just not reasonable to expect a person to stare passively at the road for a long time and remain alert.

...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.

Aside from what I said above, note that this only says that the car couldn't detect the drivers hands, and does not prove that his hands were not on the wheel. Even if they weren't on the wheel, letting go for a mere 6 seconds shouldn't cause the car to decide to swerve off the road by itself.

The whole statement has been carefully crafted to deflect blame.

Needs to have a dead-mans handle like a train
If he takes his hands off the wheel the car should immediately indicate and park at the kerb

[Vorpal]

Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.

Can't argue with stupid.

That's what Tesla's statement tried to imply, but if you read it closely that's not actually what it says:

The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...

Yes, there were warnings, but they were at an unspecified time (possibly nowhere near the crash), and they were only warnings that the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel at all times, not that there was an impending crash. The requirement to keep constantly alert and ready to take control is a problem with self-driving cars, and one that's been well-studied in the case of aircraft autopilots. It's just not reasonable to expect a person to stare passively at the road for a long time and remain alert.

...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.

Aside from what I said above, note that this only says that the car couldn't detect the drivers hands, and does not prove that his hands were not on the wheel. Even if they weren't on the wheel, letting go for a mere 6 seconds shouldn't cause the car to decide to swerve off the road by itself.

The whole statement has been carefully crafted to deflect blame.

Needs to have a dead-mans handle like a train
If he takes his hands off the wheel the car should immediately indicate and park at the kerb

A friend who is familiar with the junction said that there is a long white line splitting a slip road off, and if the Tesla was following the wrong white line, it could easily have driven into the concrete there.

Tesla is not a 'self-driving' car and it isn't meant to be driven without a human fully in control of the vehicle. That would be like putting the car in cruise control to do something other than drive. It simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

edited to add: The statement is almost certainly crafted to avoid accepting blame, but not necessarily to deflect it. If Tesla published a statement that even implied that the car might have contributed to the crash, the US court system would take them to the proverbial cleaners on the basis that it was an admission og guilt. I expect that their lawyers crafted the statement.

[Bonefishblues]

A friend who is familiar with the junction said that there is a long white line splitting a slip road off, and if the Tesla was following the wrong white line, it could easily have driven into the concrete there.

Tesla is not a 'self-driving' car and it isn't meant to be driven without a human fully in control of the vehicle. That would be like putting the car in cruise control to do something other than drive. It simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

edited to add: The statement is almost certainly crafted to avoid accepting blame, but not necessarily to deflect it. If Tesla published a statement that even implied that the car might have contributed to the crash, the US court system would take them to the proverbial cleaners on the basis that it was an admission of guilt. I expect that their lawyers crafted the statement.

Yep, pretty much this.

[robing]

Given the poor standard of driving on our roads, if they can nail this maybe it can be a good thing?
Imagine - no more close passes, no more SMIDSY?

[Wanlock Dod]

Another Tesla crash in which the driver was obviously not paying attention...

I would have expected a car with that kind of level of technology to have some kind of automatic braking system fitted, as I would have expected of the Uber car. That no attempt seems to have been made to slow the vehicle in either case rather concerns me. Information about the Tesla autopilot seems to suggest that their most up to date systems can at least provide some degree of emergency braking in autopilot mode, although that might not apply to this particular vehicle.

[Mr Evil]

That isn't a self-driving car...

They don't label them self-driving cars, but they are designed to operate under certain conditions with no input from a human. They literally drive themselves. Expecting humans to remain permanantly ready to take back control at any moment is just asking for trouble (this isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be the last).

..
ETA
"The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," Tesla said...

Yes, someone driving along the road would be able to see things at the side of the road.

Needs to have a dead-mans handle like a train
If he takes his hands off the wheel the car should immediately indicate and park at the kerb

That would probably help, but train drivers have been known to just put a bag on the switch to keep it pressed. Only once cars are capable of completing entire journeys by themselves will this problem go away.

[The utility cyclist]

I thought that the systems could already 'see' things including living beings at the side of the road and detect if they are moving toward them?

The progtamming by the manufacturers and what governments implement as minimum standards for that for any given scenario is the limiting factor for safety IMHO.
Will AI be able to tell the difference between someone stood near the side of the road facing forward or backward, will vehicles be programmed to recognise the difference between a person that is looking at the road/traffic and one that isn't.
Will it slow when there are lots of parked vehicles were children can run out unseen, will they be programmed to be aware of schooltimes so to be in an even extra cautious mode because of the known variable of young humans to do very random things very suddenly.(though that does apply to adults often too)

Will it recognise a child on a bike on a path and understand that it needs to slow right down because it may swerve through loss of control -not that currently humans do this even when in a 40/50/60mph zone and police accept this even when a child is killed because no caution was taken by the motorist despite seeing the child.

There are so many nuances that a good human driver will pick up on and retard their speed or even stop to wave someone across because not only is it convenient to do so and has no bearing on journey time but it removes you as the hazard to the vulnerable.
We must stop seeing vulnerable road users as the hazard, it's the driver/machinery with the greater potential to harm as the hazard and indeed there are plenty of times when I do this on bike also.

Spot pedestrian/s, shoulder check again if not already fully aware of motors/others close proximity, alter position if need be in case they step out anyway without seeing you, if able to see there's no advantage or little to lose by not slowing then wave/invite across.
Yes not always practical/safe or possible but if it removes you as a hazard to the vulnerable and indeed when on bike an increased hazard to you thenn I'll attempt to do so. Also when a motorist is waiting to pull out or behind you in certain circumstances I'd try to negate the hazard they present to me.
I don't see AI being remotely capable of this ability and decision making, it should, because it's not onlysafer for all concerned but it promotes well being and puts more priority and importantly less responsibility on the vulnerableto be safe, without the motorvehicle there(or uncontrolled horse and carriage before) , there is very little hazard to humans.
We know the level of carnage and atrocity caused by motorists and by definition governments that allow these war weapons and their operator's to kill and maim with virtually no punishment or even apology all too often, more deaths in 40 years motoring than 6 years of global war.

If AI is to succeed then it must not just make it safer for the vulnerable it must be programmed to reprioritise responsibility for safety as a whole.
To not do so is a reflection of society and how it has devolved for the worse.

[[XAP]Bob]

A self driving car doesn’t need to shoulder check - and it doesn’t need to be perfect, just better than the average meatsa I.

Given the current rate of development we will be there fairly soon (not with Uber, but with the actual motor manufacturers, google, Tesla etc.

There are a variety of approaches being taken, and it is possible that by the time my kids need to drive they won’t need to...

[mjr]

Given the poor standard of driving on our roads, if they can nail this maybe it can be a good thing?
Imagine - no more close passes, no more SMIDSY?

Probably only if all cars are programmed by someone who cares enough about cyclists. Given the widespread reprogramming of diesels to prioritise performance over pollution, do you really think that will happen? I suspect there will be some people reprogramming their self-drivers to squeeze through ever smaller gaps and jump out into debatable spaces if it decides that the other road user doesn't have a camera and will probably take avoiding action, in the interests of avoiding the car driving slower than they would themselves (= complying with the driving standards).

[Bonefishblues]

Rather a dystopian view, I thought.

[thirdcrank]

Interview from the head honcho at Jaguar in the Business section of today's Daily Telegraph. (It's behind the paywall.)

Mr Speth said that ... the British company has no plans to completely hand over control to computers.

"It's not something for drivers to worry about for generations to come ... The steering wheel will not disappear."

(He) believes that people will want to - and should have the opportunity to - enjoy taking control of the company's upmarket vehicles.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/

He's probably no better at predicting the future than anyone else but it shows which way the wind is blowing.

[Wanlock Dod]

...Probably only if all cars are programmed by someone who cares enough about cyclists. Given the widespread reprogramming of diesels to prioritise performance over pollution, do you really think that will happen?...

Surely that kind of thing would never be allowed to happen