Self driving car kills pedestrian.

[Cyril Haearn]

On the subject of not trusting Uber, who on Earth devised the name?

Complete the following well-known phrase or saying

Deutschland **** alles

I do know what it's supposed to mean, but that's not how it's interpreted.

There are well paid experts who dream up new names and check copyright &c
Read an article about drug names, everyday drugs have simple names (e.g. aspirin), serious or strong drugs have difficult names like zzzyyyxacka (made that up)

If I had shares in u + farcebook I would sell them now €€

[Cyril Haearn]

Didn't think that was a particular secret? Not is it that AI is coming for jobs generally.

Though I thought hgv drivers were more like 300-350k and initially driverless tech will take the motorway part of it out, you'll still need regular humans to get it the rest of the way.

Given that most hgv drivers aren't exactly young and that there's been concerns about a shortage occasionally in recent times, angry redundant drivers roaming the country might be a little ott.

"you'll still need regular humans to get it the rest of the way." Why ....?

"Given that most hgv drivers aren't exactly young", .. Discuss .... The young lady that drives her HGV into our business every day to pick up is in her mid to late 20's.

"I thought HGV drivers were more like 300-350k" ... 300,000 or 500,000 ..... Still 3 or 5 times the Armed Forces and Police Forces combined (Sorry Police Services ) .. ???

The time for the Scandinavian "Universal Benefits" model is getting closer ... thank God ... bring it on ....

The universal benefit idea started on the left I think but it is popular with business now instead , the idea is to pay a few hundred € a month, not enough to live on so people would still have to work

Goetz Werner, a very rich German retailer, has been advocating u.b. for years

Thousands of DHSS people would lose their jobs, I mean millions would be saved in administration costs

[fastpedaller]

The Head of Police (whatever he's called - the main man anyway) in Arizona has stated that the car isn't at fault! 'Driver' would certainly appear to not be paying attention (my thought). But what of the tech? The Police spokesman has said that it's dark, with difficult conditions, and even a driver couldn't be expected to notice the ped in these circumstances! What? Surely that's the purpose of this sort of technology? It has sensors which probably don't need daylight - It didn't even apply the brakes, yet the Police say no blame attaches to it. makes me wonder who is receiving cash off Volvo. How can these technologies be selective? Someone was stating on another forum that he had a very scary moment in his Mercedes (which has 'active braking' or whatever it's called- an auto system of some sort) - He was driving on the motorway when a car came from second lane across the front of his car, he had a large truck close behind and his car slammed the brakes on because the car in front was too close. He nearly had a large truck in the back of his car, and no control over what was happening! He said he would have assessed the situation and maybe braked gently, or of course the other car(having switched lanes too close to him) may have accelerated away, but as it was he had no control over the outcome. Worrying technology 'improvements'

[gaz]

[youtube]YRUUT3AKK50[/youtube]
I can't speak for the robot but it looks very much like a case of distracted driving from the human.

The human eye sees much better in poor light/darkness than a camera, nevertheless I expect the usual victim blaming calls for hi-vis and reflectives.

[reohn2]

Texting?

[661-Pete]

That looks like a manslaughter charge to me. Whether the woman in the car was culpable, or whether the blame should be shared between herself, Uber, and the car makers, is a matter for the courts. No competent human motorist, unless totally asleep, would have made that error.

[Barks]

No competent human motorist, unless totally asleep, would have made that error.

I doubt that very much - in such a dark spot I suspect that the outcome would be very similar however attentive the driver might be. The more likely scenario with a human driver would be that the speed would be at least a few miles over speed limit, probably more, and the poor girl would have stood even less chance. The problem is that all the self driving car naysayers will try to use this as a reason to put the development on hold whereas the truth is that if a pedestrian runs out in front of a moving car, irrespective of who/what is in control then they are likely to be putting themselves in danger.
While I accept that there are likely to be many challenges along the way to developing effective self driving cars, my expectation is that the roads will be far safer overall with more of them - a very good programmed way of introducing them would be to direct that option to any driver over 12 points and anyone coming to the end of a driving ban.

[Bonefishblues]

Re the pedestrian stepping out, I would suggest that they might actually be better off doing it in front of a self-driving vehicle.

[Vorpal]

No competent human motorist, unless totally asleep, would have made that error.

I doubt that very much - in such a dark spot I suspect that the outcome would be very similar however attentive the driver might be. The more likely scenario with a human driver would be that the speed would be at least a few miles over speed limit, probably more, and the poor girl would have stood even less chance. The problem is that all the self driving car naysayers will try to use this as a reason to put the development on hold whereas the truth is that if a pedestrian runs out in front of a moving car, irrespective of who/what is in control then they are likely to be putting themselves in danger.
While I accept that there are likely to be many challenges along the way to developing effective self driving cars, my expectation is that the roads will be far safer overall with more of them - a very good programmed way of introducing them would be to direct that option to any driver over 12 points and anyone coming to the end of a driving ban.

She didn't run out. She was pushing a bike with shopping on it. And she was most of the way across, as well. We cannot know at all what would have happened with a human fully in control of the car, but I expect in this particular circumstance, a human would have had an easier time recognising the pedestrian for what she was. Yes, it was dark, but that's what headlights are for. I would like to think that if a human did not recognise something in the road, they would slow down and be prepared to stop. That's what competent drivers should do. Even in the dark.

I don't think that this is a reason to halt the development. I suspect that the safety record of automated cars is better than human controlled ones, and will continue to improve. I do think that this incident deserves full investigation, in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.

[gaz]

I don't think that this is a reason to halt the development. I suspect that the safety record of automated cars is better than human controlled ones, and will continue to improve. I do think that this incident deserves full investigation, in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.

+1

[thirdcrank]

It's in this morning's Daily Telegraph business section that Toyota is taking what's spun as "time out" from the testing, largely to reduce the current stress on the test drivers.

Reading between the lines, marketing bods getting cold feet till they know which way public opinion goes.

(Sorry I can't link to the original.)

[Stevek76]

I doubt that very much - in such a dark spot I suspect that the outcome would be very similar however attentive the driver might be. The more likely scenario with a human driver would be that the speed would be at least a few miles over speed limit, probably more, and the poor girl would have stood even less chance.

The car was over the speed limit (38 in a 35) and the camera is washing out the dark area because cameras have rubbish dynamic range compared to human eyes. Someone at that distance on an open road would have been quite visible under the headlights of the Volvo in question. I'd have to agree with Pete, a competent (and careful if we're going for the full legal term) driver would not have hit her.

Even on the hypothetical basis that the camera view is a fair reflection of human eyesight then in that case a careful and competent driver, as per the highway code, should be driving at a speed where the car can be stopped within the distance that can be seen to be clear.

It's obvious from the camera on the safety driver that she's paying zilch attention so wouldn't have intervened even in broad daylight.

Also I note my earlier speculation that the pedestrian had managed to cross most of the lane by the impact was correct, it is particularly surprising therefore that the car made no attempt at all to stop for the 'suddenly appearing' object right in front of it.

I'm generally in favour of automated vehicles but companies like uber are going to be a PR nightmare for them.

Whether the woman in the car was culpable, or whether the blame should be shared between herself, Uber, and the car makers, is a matter for the courts.

Well if this was the UK potentially both, the individual is at fault but also the company might have insufficient hse practices. No idea how US law works here.

[AMMoffat]

I don't think that this is a reason to halt the development. I suspect that the safety record of automated cars is better than human controlled ones, and will continue to improve. I do think that this incident deserves full investigation, in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.

+1

I agree with the sentiment, however the whole point of having a human operator is to prevent accidents of this sort as the technology is known to be imperfect at the current time. The human operator wasn't paying attention so we'll never know if they could have prevented this death if they had been more aware and able to take preventative action in time. Given that it is undoubtedly very hard for a human to maintain attention all the time when not actually engaged in driving, having the human operator there appears to have been, in this case and no doubt on many other occasions when disaster did not ensue, completely pointless.

So, whilst driverless technology may once perfected save lives, at the current point you, I and other vulnerable road users would appear to be sacrificial guinea pigs. So, yes, we'll learn from it but the victim is still dead. I, for one, am not happy to sign up for that.

[661-Pete]

Look carefully at the video. The footage of the road ahead, with streetlights lit (note!), is in colour. But the footage of the woman inside the car, taken (obviously) by a different camera, is in black and white - and clearly shows far more detail than the road footage. It may be in infrared - otherwise, sitting in a darkened car at night, little detail of the woman's face would have been visible.

However, returning to the road footage, I suspect that the camera's view is considerably 'darker' than what a normal human eye would perceive. That is certainly true of my (cheapo) camera, which is practically useless at night - even when my front lamp is on 'dazzle-a-motorist' mode. But if I was driving - or cycling - along such a road, and that was all I could make out with my own eyes, I would quickly conclude that the streetlights aren't doing much of a job! Nor are my headlights...

So that might explain why the video footage doesn't pick out the cyclist until the last moment. If the robotic car was dependent on the same imagery without enhancement.... But a human driver would have been able to see the cyclist a lot sooner. Or so I hope (seeing as most drivers are still humans)!

[fastpedaller]

the truth is that if a pedestrian runs out in front of a moving car, irrespective of who/what is in control then they are likely to be putting themselves in danger.
.

When I drive past an area where pedestrians are present I'm ready for them to potentially cross, likewise near a school I'll slow down (irrespective of whether it is 20 or not), and be alert to children maybe crossing the road. If the tech isn't capable is needs developing to be so - we can't sacrifice lives because we "have to go driverless". How can these technologies differentiate between (for example) a bird in the road, or a small football, likely to be swiftly followed by a small child? Until that's sorted, it's dangerous!