Uber driverless car in fatal accident
Discussion
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.But if I lost a loved one to computer error, that would be completely unacceptable.
If AI cars save lives in comparison to the alternative, that has to be better in my view.
Max_Torque said:
The difference is that objective evidence will be available for this death.
The vast majority of pedestrians killed crossing the road don't get that luxury. The driver just says "sorry i didn't see you" and that's that. This time, there will objective metrics to determine exactly what happened, and how to prevent it happening again.
You are I am guessing younger than myself and therefore have greater confidence in the infallibility of computers. TBF you are probably right to think this way, my view however is that there are only so many scenarios that can be programmed into a computer and that there will always be deaths due to computer error although no doubt at a far lower level than with humans at the wheel. The vast majority of pedestrians killed crossing the road don't get that luxury. The driver just says "sorry i didn't see you" and that's that. This time, there will objective metrics to determine exactly what happened, and how to prevent it happening again.
RobDickinson said:
I'm not young, also a software developer.
Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
With complex software you often find when you fix a problem you introduce a new one.Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
Its far too early for the general public to be treated as guinea pigs with these systems.
My bet is the women on/off the bike just moved out into the road, car didn't see her in time, human operator didn't see her in time, average joke drivers wouldn't have seen her in time. One of those things.
A shame it will set the self driving car scene back a few months/add fuel to the wire against them, but when they do arrive they will be safer - just not entirely fool proof.
A shame it will set the self driving car scene back a few months/add fuel to the wire against them, but when they do arrive they will be safer - just not entirely fool proof.
jsf said:
With complex software you often find when you fix a problem you introduce a new one.
Its far too early for the general public to be treated as guinea pigs with these systems.
Yep complex software is complex. Its far too early for the general public to be treated as guinea pigs with these systems.
I've no real idea what uber has done, or if this is a fault of their systems. Let's wait and see.
Google / waymo have tested so much there really isn't anything left to do apart from start limited real world testing in relatively easy locations and expand from there.
RobDickinson said:
I'm not young, also a software developer.
Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
You seem to be missing the point myself and others have made, that while it is possible to accept that a human mistake caused a death. until we are conditioned to accept that computers are "only human" being killed by a machine will continue to be a problem for many...Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
RobDickinson said:
I'm not young, also a software developer.
Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
We can't speculate about this particular case, but AI is not a set of discrete decisions that can be checked and fixed. It's a world away from normal software development.Software is never perfect. But when you find a problem and fix it it's fixed. One less problem. Hopefully..
Human drivers are not improving at all.
As others have rightly said, even in a perfect world this will not eliminate road deaths. Driver assistance could certainly help reduce them, but we don't need to move to full Autonomous control to get those benefits. The drive for Autonomy is largely financial rather than being for anyone's benefit.
If say Ford sell a car that is driven by the owner, and the owner runs someone over accidentally, Ford are in no way responsible.
If Ford sell a car designed to be driven by a computer, and it runs someone over, Ford will be to blame, not the owner.
How does a manufacturer avoid being ruined by class action law suits brought by the victims of computer driven cars, when a flaw in the design/programming becomes discovered?
The lawyers will be queuing up to bring cases.
If Ford sell a car designed to be driven by a computer, and it runs someone over, Ford will be to blame, not the owner.
How does a manufacturer avoid being ruined by class action law suits brought by the victims of computer driven cars, when a flaw in the design/programming becomes discovered?
The lawyers will be queuing up to bring cases.
Vanden Saab said:
Gosh.... Really?
Yes. Can you think of any new thing that wasn't going to destroy society? That didn't have crowds of idiots protesting against it? People didn't like trains. Cars. Planes. Mobile phones, internet. Etc etc etc.People's lives are utterly infused by technology and science they have absolutely no idea on how it works and there's a huge chunk of people who don't believe in any of it. Whilst using it all...
TTmonkey said:
If say Ford sell a car that is driven by the owner, and the owner runs someone over accidentally, Ford are in no way responsible.
If Ford sell a car designed to be driven by a computer, and it runs someone over, Ford will be to blame, not the owner.
How does a manufacturer avoid being ruined by class action law suits brought by the victims of computer driven cars, when a flaw in the design/programming becomes discovered?
The lawyers will be queuing up to bring cases.
Presumably all cars will be bundled with insurance from the manufacturer.If Ford sell a car designed to be driven by a computer, and it runs someone over, Ford will be to blame, not the owner.
How does a manufacturer avoid being ruined by class action law suits brought by the victims of computer driven cars, when a flaw in the design/programming becomes discovered?
The lawyers will be queuing up to bring cases.
Given the risks will be lower, the cost should be too, at least for higher risk drivers who would otherwise have to pay high rates.
The liability and insurance thing is interesting and probably complicated..
I can't imagine owning a car and not personally insuring it. It'll be worth too much. What if it catches fire, a tree falls on it, etc? I'm assuming insurance overall will fall as self driving cuts accidents. Will self driving cars even be steal able?
Liability of Accidents whilst self driving will probably be with the manufacturer I guess and because of that they should be quite cautious before releasing level 4 and 5
I can't imagine owning a car and not personally insuring it. It'll be worth too much. What if it catches fire, a tree falls on it, etc? I'm assuming insurance overall will fall as self driving cuts accidents. Will self driving cars even be steal able?
Liability of Accidents whilst self driving will probably be with the manufacturer I guess and because of that they should be quite cautious before releasing level 4 and 5
loafer123 said:
Yes, really.
Your argument is that people should be allowed to die because of the illogical views of others.
It’s crap.
It you actually read what I have written that is not what I am arguing at all...... I said Your argument is that people should be allowed to die because of the illogical views of others.
It’s crap.
Vanden Saab said:
until we are conditioned to accept that computers are "only human" being killed by a machine will continue to be a problem for many
This will mean that the people who build these cars will have to admit they are not perfect and will make mistakes, I look forward to it happening much like banks now admit that their computers can make errors and repay customers that are disadvantaged by them. 
Blaster72 said:
Most reports are saying it's a female pedestrian that's the victim with the only person in the car being a female Uber employee behind the wheel.
I wonder how long it'll be before the Uber PR machine rolls into action and tries to character assassinate the victim?
It'll be later than people trying to character assassinate Uber as you've just shown.I wonder how long it'll be before the Uber PR machine rolls into action and tries to character assassinate the victim?
So corporate manslaughter will become an acceptable thing with a price tag in the courts, much as human error is now regarding car accidents. The standard line will be that The company will say they have reprogrammed the computer and it will not make this mistake again...You would be entirely comfortable with this line as while your wife/ daughter or mother died many other people will still be alive...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff