Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

[Minikin]

Yes and woman is dead unlike this machine, and regardless to how stupid she might have been this would still be the A.Is fault period. And if the machine is as capable as you said that’s even more proof.

The responsibility for safety is on those who have the greatest ability. As for ending any driverless cars I’ll wait until we know more. But if it were up to me Id be suspending any other driverless cars.

mind you, these things have to be tested in real life and real roads to refine their capabilities. and for that to happen involves the risk of incidents like this happening.

honestly as tragic as this is, i am more concerned on what to do they do if they do find a driverless car guilty. how do they go about applying the law in that scenario is key.

[scelero]

if She jaywalked infront of the car I don't think anything could have been done to stop it regardless of who was driving.

pedestrians have the right away.

that said, it was bound to happen. im surprised the safe breaking software programs haven't caused issues either.

[Eurytos]

The problem with this is, that doesn't work. There are other factors that the human driving cars have in that same time period that will undoubtedly skew any data given.

For example, take me and my family, and all of our combined coworkers, and none of them caused any accidents or fatalities within the same time period. You can even look at specific areas and find different results. It will be hard, until there are far more self driving cars in far more areas, to get a real grasp on this.

Do I think they will cause less deaths? Sure. As long as the technology is capable of doing so. However, we have zero ways to compare the two at this moment in time due to the sheer number of people driving going to always give a result that is in favor of the self driving cars.

Thats why we use an average, at first. Clearly there are millions more human driven cars than driverless. The sample size is small. But, an average helps predict. It's the best we have for now. The point being, that these deaths, while tragic, are overblown simply because the tech is new, the company that makes the vehicle and the company that owns the vehicle have loads of cash and people wanna sue.

I'm all for suing. If this was preventable in any reasonable way, this womans family should recover damages. But, what this should not be used for is to say that driverless cars are somehow more dangerous, or we shouldnt continue to invest in the tech. Undoubtedly, thats what many will use this for, and thats wrong. I also think these headlines are meant to make people think that. Because, if you just wrote, Old woman dies in car accident...that doesn't sell.

I think its unethical what these papers do with these headlines. It doesn't mean their reporting is necessarily wrong, or even that they are trying to influence or skew something with their reporting...but the headlines absolutely are trying to do that. And thats not right.

[oplawlz]

You’re right but for all of what you said in your first reply I’m going to assume it’s the machines fault. If humans die it’s the fault of the A.I or maybe you’re right again maybe it was a human era...oh wait.

You contradicted yourself this A.I is or isn’t capable that’s the point and it looks like may have killed someone prove it.

AI can't change the laws of physics. If someone steps in front of a moving vehicle and there is no time or room for the vehicle to evade them, they're going to get hit. Doesn't matter who or what is behind the wheel.

- - - Updated - - -

pedestrians have the right away.

that said, it was bound to happen. im surprised the safe breaking software programs haven't caused issues either.

The phrase is "right of way". To the rest, see my previous response.

[Nnyco]

just one accident over this time span sounds fine, humans cause way more

[Vanyali]

A huge problem with this situation, probably stopping it from ever becoming a reality, is the ethics. In a situation with an autonomous vehicle many people will argue that the vehicle should always look after the owners well-being above all else. Others will argue that the car should always take into account of random acts that you can't control from happening to be willing to risk the owners life in situations that warrant it. Which is right? Therein lies the conundrum, they are both right. However who would want to buy or even ride in as a passenger in a car that would be willing to risk their life if something uncontrollable happens.

This isn't a problem when all cars are autonomous, only when some are human-driven.

And if the argument is "well, what about pedestrians"... if they're in the crosswalk walking where they should be, the car will know and react accordingly. If they're at a distance, but jaywalking the car will know and act accordingly. if they're jaywalking and dart in front of a car, the car will react accordingly... which is to not react, because it CANNOT... just as a human driver cannot.

[Minikin]

Exactly

Even a decent automated system is likely to be better then the vast majority of people in dealing with all those examples. Instead of calling your dad to ask him if that 'noise' is bad while hurtling down the road at 80 mph, it will make far more intelligent, informed decisions about mechanical issues.

Really the one and only reservation I have about automation is how the systems can function in a variety of road conditions. Tesla, for example, has been all about proving you don't need RADAR or LADAR like the other manufacturers are using. They want to get away with all line of sight optical. Which is fine, I don't really care...
but how does that work outside of a nice brightly lit LA street on a clear 70 degree night? What happens when it is -25 out and my car has an inch of snow and ice caked on it and I have to drive down a back road with 0 lighting?

I know that is a highly specific case and somewhat off topic...in general I couldn't be more excited about the coming robot chauffeur.

tesla's use high precision gps and a collective data of other teslas to provide AutoPilot performance. Teslas do also however require you to keep your hands on the steering wheel even during AutoPilot usage (Cadillac is moving away from that as the first handsfree one). In inclement weather that car warns the driver and expects them to take control. I live in Canada, Ontario and using AutoPilot in the snow is not just crazy, it is pretty much impossible. It is not simply about the weather, just too much variance from other drivers, the car can only do so much until it gets overwhelmed and makes you take control.

As for low lightning conditions, it is actually surprisingly good. Like crazy good. Unlike other systems, such as the LKAS system in accords and other related cars (they use a camera to watch the road lane markers and use them to maintain their direction) that almost completely fail in the dark.

[Doctor Amadeus]

On what grounds?

There's plenty of automated systems that we already use that have serious risk factors and aren't forbidden due to those risks. Hell, cars get into accidents, way more than, say, horses. But we still let people drive cars.

On what grounds, well a woman's life just ended, and it might have been the fault of this A.I. You are right there are plenty of systems that we already use that have a serious risk factor, but again as I said previously, you are hammering this out logically.

That isn't how people work, if you think things like this don't put cars or driverless A.I in Jeopardy, it's like the Nuclear Energy thing, it isn't about what people know it's about what they don't know and the fear and panic that is already high will start become an issue.

You have confidence in reason and logic, but you also know damn well most people don't generally operate that way

If your argument is that stupid people will fearmonger about wrongheaded bullshit and try and ban these, sure. That'll happen.

We don't have to listen to the idiots, any more than we do anti-vaxxers.

Yes, but we are, and we need to take in that reality. I am not saying we have to listen to idiots, but you better damn well know what they think, how they think, and why they think the way they do.

Because they vote, they have influence, and things like this, will sour their opinions. Most people can't afford machines like Tesla or Driverless car YET without a serious investment.

As for my personal view, human life and humanity should always be paramount.

[cubby]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8263921.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-arizona-tempe




Looks like the self driving car fantasy is crashing into reality.

Now there will be more due dates for 'the future' pushed back, and promises downscaled.

The human takeover fudge they have in this case clearly is worse than an actual driver because of they wont have any feeling for the setting which leads to slower reactions in emergency situations. A slower response than a human that is driving the whole time is just a worse outcome.

Hope Uber get sued hard.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that any of this tech and development is going to be "pushed back" - an accident happened because someone didn't follow the rules, the pedestrian. I do love that you skipped the most salient part:

when a female walking outside of the crosswalk crossed the road

Of course Uber pulled the cars - that's just SOP. They will be back on the road asap. Dumb people are killed all the time by cars driven by people - that won't stop with autonomous drivers.

[Doctor Amadeus]

i think it will end more at assisted rather than complete autonomy. for example, entry level cars now a days, come with not just adaptive cruise but also emergency braking and lake keeping. higher level cars, like audi a8, mercedes s class or the new caddilac true cruise go beyond that, for cross traffic alert, and even lane avoidance for a crash.

But i dont think it will ever come to full driverless cars until EVERYONE on the road has a car that can by standard have autonomy or at least work with other cars to achieve autonomy. not everyone can afford a driveless car, or an s class. your car could drive perfectly but it can only avoid and derail physics so much until the stupidity of another driver impacts it. once that variable is taken out then i think theyll get to complete driveless cars. until then it will be an assisted setup.

I agree, A.I can't be completely stopped, but with things like happening, it for sure can be stifled.

[Zyky]

This isn't a problem when all cars are autonomous, only when some are human-driven.

And if the argument is "well, what about pedestrians"... if they're in the crosswalk walking where they should be, the car will know and react accordingly. If they're at a distance, but jaywalking the car will know and act accordingly. if they're jaywalking and dart in front of a car, the car will react accordingly... which is to not react, because it CANNOT... just as a human driver cannot.

And what about random acts that can't be avoided? Being shoved into the road, young supervised children in a neighborhood that don't know better, deer and other animals that like to frequent the roads because of bright lights. Those are all things that can be reacted upon, however saying that if it cannot compute watching its surroundings like a person to properly gauge potential situations, then it's a new chunk of problems. Person sees a deer up ahead, person knows to slow down. What will the programming do? Nothing? Because then you have to fear for your life that the deer isn't going to fuck you up.

[cubby]

That is unfortunate,but it is good that Uber is stopping its testing to try to figure out what went wrong.

Looks like a person was crossing outside the crosswalk. Not sure that's fixable, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

On a side note, I'm curious what's going to happen when autonomous driving cars are legion, and all those bikes are still trying to break the rules. Should be a bloodbath.

[Doctor Amadeus]

mind you, these things have to be tested in real life and real roads to refine their capabilities. and for that to happen involves the risk of incidents like this happening.

honestly as tragic as this is, i am more concerned on what to do they do if they do find a driverless car guilty. how do they go about applying the law in that scenario is key.

I see what you mean and this is for sure new territory, the programmers, and developers? Could they be on the hook for murder or manslaughter? This has implications far deeper than a simple feature in transportation.

[Micronetic]

People need to get used to this kind of thing. The only way to stress test these vehicles is out in the real world. Accidents will happen, people will die. If we want the technology that's the price we pay.

Problem is, this technology has to learn how stupid some people drive or walk and I don't believe this technology can do or learn something like this since every human reactions are different and spontaneous on the road/traffic.

There should be seperate roads for this kind of driverless vehicles.

[cubby]

And what about random acts that can't be avoided? Being shoved into the road, young supervised children in a neighborhood that don't know better, deer and other animals that like to frequent the roads because of bright lights. Those are all things that can be reacted upon, however saying that if it cannot compute watching its surroundings like a person to properly gauge potential situations, then it's a new chunk of problems. Person sees a deer up ahead, person knows to slow down. What will the programming do? Nothing? Because then you have to fear for your life that the deer isn't going to fuck you up.

Slow down - programming takes that into account. If you don't think that's not being addressed/revised then you haven't been paying attention to autonomous driving tech - which is fine, most people haven't.

[Vanyali]

And what about random acts that can't be avoided? Being shoved into the road, young supervised children in a neighborhood that don't know better, deer and other animals that like to frequent the roads because of bright lights. Those are all things that can be reacted upon, however saying that if it cannot compute watching its surroundings like a person to properly gauge potential situations, then it's a new chunk of problems. Person sees a deer up ahead, person knows to slow down. What will the programming do? Nothing? Because then you have to fear for your life that the deer isn't going to fuck you up.

AI sees a deer ahead, it ALSO slows down.

But, much like the person confronted with "someone pushed maliciously in front of their car last second", the AI can't do anything. But... again, neither can the PERSON. That's an unavoidable collision. What the AI WILL do better, though, is high speeds with all other AI controlled cars following the rules rather than half the people doing the speed limit, a quarter doing 10 over, and a quarter doing 20+ over and the accidents that occur from people zipping from lane to lane without caring enough to check what's already there.

But the things you're complaining about are:

a) something the AI will do better (it won't "suddenly" notice the deer there and slam on the breaks - it will notice it, and the ones at the side waiting to cross, as soon as it's visual rather than the person that misses it because they're talking to a passenger)

b) something that neither can react to, such as a person thrown in front of the car last second.

c) things the AI might be able to react better to, such as seeing a ball thrown into the road and a child to the side and predicting the child will go after the ball rather than the person that assumes they will not / didn't see the child.

[Crissi]

This isn't a problem when all cars are autonomous, only when some are human-driven.

And if the argument is "well, what about pedestrians"... if they're in the crosswalk walking where they should be, the car will know and react accordingly. If they're at a distance, but jaywalking the car will know and act accordingly. if they're jaywalking and dart in front of a car, the car will react accordingly... which is to not react, because it CANNOT... just as a human driver cannot.

Man, this will make small towns interesting. Where the only option is to jaywalk because there are no labeled crossing sections.

I'm looking at you, Granbury Square...

which to that end, I think a human should always have the option of overriding.

[Dispraise]

How long has this been running, with how many vehicles, and there's only one death? Jeepers, it's almost like it's still hundreds of times better than human drivers! Nah, better panic and freak out and shut it down ASAP. /s

I hear what you're saying, but someone died. Can we not just immediately launch into sardonicism and 'acceptable losses'?

[Doctor Amadeus]

AI can't change the laws of physics. If someone steps in front of a moving vehicle and there is no time or room for the vehicle to evade them, they're going to get hit. Doesn't matter who or what is behind the wheel.

It better learn to change the laws of physics, HAHAHA you act like human beings are FAIR!

I can assure you we aren't, there is nothing we test or ever put any benchmark especially when it comes to human beings has ever been put to being anything but next to a miracle for people to accept.

As I said human beings are stupid, I think we can ALL agree, no matter how intelligent we have our blind spots. If A.I's were self aware and alive would pity them. So let me make this clear.


Driverless cars:

Can never make a mistake that end in the fatality of a human life.

Can never make a mistake that ends in another human beings property or life being damaged.

Can never appear at any point to be unable to be shut off by a human being.

Can never make a mistake.

[Minikin]

I see what you mean and this is for sure new territory, the programmers, and developers? Could they be on the hook for murder or manslaughter? This has implications far deeper than a simple feature in transportation.

id guess they would look into that. for example an engineer is responsible for a construction his stamps upon. a supervisor is responsible for his crews safety in industrial plants. in my old working place a union worker got injured on the job. his supervisor was on vacation so he hadnt even set him on the task he got injured on. however when he came back from vacation he was investigated and found guilty of negligence because it was found that he had not trained the worker properly for said task (arguable personally but just an example here).

based on that i think they could look into putting responsibility on the coder or engineer. However it wont be easy given how many people, the variance and incident would be part of this.