Uber driverless car in fatal accident

[budgie smuggler]

Mr2Mike said:

So how do they work? If these cars rely on all road users obeying every single rule, then there will be many more deaths. If they don't depend on this, how did the cyclist get killed?

Do you really think the designers of these cars are so stupid they think people follow the rules of the road to the letter?

There are many videos which explain it on YouTube, but long story short - AI is trained to recognise hazards, it then drives in broadly the same way a human does.

[Eric Mc]

There will be - believe me.

[227bhp]

Eric Mc said:

Lord Marylebone said:

In my opinion:

The driver is the person sat behind the controls.

Being in charge means monitoring the behaviour of the vehicle and prepared to take control if required.

We are a long way off the answers to your last two questions, and indeed private cars or vans driving around on the public road without a human inside are a long way off.

The lawmakers will have to decide on the definitions when these vehicles become available.

Yes - it's the law that will make these things impossible. You cannot have an autonomous vehicle if, at the same time, a human is actually, really, supposed to be in charge.

It's either autonomous or it's not.

We've only just started the transitional period with this and also how cars are powered, so are using hybrids. As time progresses the law will need to be adapted.
We can't argue this particular case as we don't know all the facts, one thing which will need to be increased or mandatory is the use of cameras. If this car had them fitted then it will be a simple case of proving fault.

[paranoid airbag]

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. That’s the point I was making. A robot works by a set of programmed rules. Humans don’t. Humans aren’t black of white, robots are. And that’s the mismatch that will make autonomous cars safer in some regards .

And that's why, if safety was my primary goal, I'd ban human drivers the second it's politically possible. Humans follow rules if they feel like it; if you've had a bad day, fk it, get drunk and drive through London. Watch a school-run mum deliberately drive at someone at 40 mph - I've seen this - and tell me their "judgement" is an asset. Ride past a queue and look at the number of people on their phones, and tell me their judgement is an asset.

Agreed that urban progress is an issue - what they need is a loosening of the rules at lower speeds. In reality, this is how safe urban progress happens for the vast majority of vehicles.

What I'll find interesting is how investigations happen - these are actually the main benefit of driverless. Potentially, every car learns detailed lessons from every accident. And there's no "but wah my lifestyle" factor keeping bad drivers on the road. Incurably faulty? Crushed, at the manufacturer's expense.

What I can see as a problem is copyright. Are we actually going to SEE the algorithm that maybe failed to save someone it could have - or will it be a commercial secret? (and does that actually matter? I used to think it did - now I'm far less sure).

[Eric Mc]

I agree it's a transitional process. The problem is

how long will the transition last?

how do we cope with a half-way state where we aren't really sure what an autonomous vehicle really means IN LAW.

[98elise]

geeks said:

Haven't read the whole thread, however has it been confirmed by the company it was definitely in Autonomous mode? Just wondering if the observer was in control but blaming the car?

The chief of police has seen the in car footage and its not likely to be the cars fault

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-...

[227bhp]

There you go, QED:

"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."

[Eric Mc]

From that article -

"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".

Hmmm - points on the car's licence?

[DonkeyApple]

98elise said:

The chief of police has seen the in car footage and its not likely to be the cars fault

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-...

The problem with that is that the Chief of Police is a purchased position of political authority in the US isn’t it? And the funds for the purchase are almost always corporately sourced. The mayor of that part of Arizona has lobbied hard for the Uber tests and has considerable say over what emanates from the mouth of a chief of police.

I’d be inclined to shelve the initial words of such an individual until there was actual evidence from state employees lower down the political chain to support them.

He may be 100% correct but he certainly cannot be believed without the evidence.

[227bhp]

Eric Mc said:

From that article -

"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".

Hmmm - points on the car's licence?

All that shows is that the reporters don't know what the speed limit is there, that's all.

[captainaverage]

For the autonomous loving tech junkies, what happened to the magic that was autonomous driverless safest cars in the world? The magic didn't work? Amazing computer couldn't predict a random event? Too bad isn't it. oh noes think of the children/pedestrians etc. Project delayed

So sad for the woman.

[Eric Mc]

227bhp said:

Eric Mc said:

From that article -

"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".

Hmmm - points on the car's licence?

All that shows is that the reporters don't know what the speed limit is there, that's all.

They were quoting the police spokesperson. Doesn't do much for his credibility if the speed signs say different.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

loafer123 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't think that's true. I've lost someone close to me in an RTA. It was awful, it was human error, the driver was also someone I know (not that close) and the passenger who was killed was the person I was close too. But it was an accident, it happens, I accepted it and hold no malice towards the driver. She is a nice woman who made a mistake whilst driving.

But if I lost a loved one to computer error, that would be completely unacceptable.

That would be an emotional, but not a logical, response.

If AI cars save lives in comparison to the alternative, that has to be better in my view.

You may be right, but fatal RTAs are emotional. 1750 people a year die on UK roads. We don't like it but we accept it. If you could cut that by 75%, I don't believe the British public would accept 440 people being killed a year by computer error. They just won't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.

[otolith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You may be right, but fatal RTAs are emotional. 1750 people a year die on UK roads. We don't like it but we accept it. If you could cut that by 75%, I don't believe the British public would accept 440 people being killed a year by computer error. They just won't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.

I think that in that scenario it wouldn't take long before the fact that we used to tolerate an avoidable 1310 deaths a year by letting humans drive would be seen as akin to sending small children crawling round running cotton looms.

[Eric Mc]

In 1966 over 6,000 died on UK roads. We've come a long way.

[captainaverage]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You may be right, but fatal RTAs are emotional. 1750 people a year die on UK roads. We don't like it but we accept it. If you could cut that by 75%, I don't believe the British public would accept 440 people being killed a year by computer error. They just won't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.

We are more accepting of a human mistake if it's an honest mistake. Computers are expected to be perfect and quite rightly so they should be. No room for a computer mistake regardless of honest or not. Very very restrictive and tightly controlled legislation should and will be needed.

[J4CKO]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

loafer123 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't think that's true. I've lost someone close to me in an RTA. It was awful, it was human error, the driver was also someone I know (not that close) and the passenger who was killed was the person I was close too. But it was an accident, it happens, I accepted it and hold no malice towards the driver. She is a nice woman who made a mistake whilst driving.

But if I lost a loved one to computer error, that would be completely unacceptable.

That would be an emotional, but not a logical, response.

If AI cars save lives in comparison to the alternative, that has to be better in my view.

You may be right, but fatal RTAs are emotional. 1750 people a year die on UK roads. We don't like it but we accept it. If you could cut that by 75%, I don't believe the British public would accept 440 people being killed a year by computer error. They just won't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.

I think if I were dealing with the death of a family member I would really be a lot happier if it were a drunken bloke in a 5 series rather than an autonomous car, or even some knob jockey in a sketchy RS3 racing through a city centre at 90 in a 30....

Point being, if it cuts deaths, injuries and the knock on financial impact, it is a good thing, but whilst we insist on moving at speed in heavy boxes that will decimate a human body, whatever is controlling it is never going to get it 100 percent right and neither are those around them.

Do people really think that we should say "There has been a death, we better stop this now" ?

[akirk]

98elise said:

The local Police chief has said he's viewed the in car footage and it looks like the driver/car was not at fault. He said the victim abruptly stepped into traffic and it would be hard for anyone to stop whoever was driving.

Better put those pitchforks away

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-...

So, it would be hard to stop - therefore the autonomous car is not at fault - really?!
Whatever happened to the publicised perfection of autonomous cars - that they would be better than humans - able to read every move of anyone close by and stop faster than any human - if you are going to sell the dream on superman powers, then you need to deliver those same powers...

The reality is of course that good driving would mean that if you are near pedestrians / visibility is poor / there is someone on the pavement / you are uncertain what might happen - you slow down, so that you can then react if necessary - i.e. good driving builds in contingency

Autonomous motors are apparently meant to be better than good drivers - it is accepted that they won't hit perfection, but it is implied / claimed that they will approach that level - i.e. way beyond what should be expected from a good driver... so there is no valid excuse that the situation was hard / that a bad driver might have done the same - they may be true statements, but they are irrelevant - if the claim for autonomous cars is a standard well above a good driver, then they need to deliver, and this demonstrates that they are not there yet...

If an autonomous car cannot stop when a pedestrian steps out in front of it then:
- it is going too fast
- or its detection systems do not work sufficiently well
- or its algorithms are wrong
- or it doesn't build enough contingency into the situation
there can be no other reason...

and all / any of those are an issue with the car - not the pedestrian...

[98elise]

captainaverage said:

For the autonomous loving tech junkies, what happened to the magic that was autonomous driverless safest cars in the world? The magic didn't work? Amazing computer couldn't predict a random event? Too bad isn't it. oh noes think of the children/pedestrians etc. Project delayed

So sad for the woman.

Have you read the article? At the moment it looks like it was the woman's fault.

Autonomous cars will not guarantee no accidents or fatalities though. They just need to be better than humans. A fatality that is attributed to an autonomous car is highly likely at some time.

[anonymous-user]

captainaverage said:

For the autonomous loving tech junkies, what happened to the magic that was autonomous driverless safest cars in the world? The magic didn't work? Amazing computer couldn't predict a random event? Too bad isn't it. oh noes think of the children/pedestrians etc. Project delayed

So sad for the woman.

I believe this to be sarcasm and/or a joke.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.