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

[cubby]

Not exactly, you can also use your eyeballs on the road and anticipate your environment.

You can anticipate someone jumping out in front of you that you can't see? What if they do it 10 feet in front of you while you're legally driving the speed limit of 40 mph? Is that the driver's fault? Should it then be the Autonomous Vehicle's fault?

Your position in this matter is logically untenable.

[Shadowferal]

I guess that's why most/all major car manufacturers are developing autonomous vehicles, right? Because no one will be using this shit in the U.S.?

Reality check; who is using this again? Yeah...right...no one is. The US doesn't even have the infrastructure for it. And people sure as hell don't want to pay for that.

Wow, I guess you really don't know the jaywalking law.

Wow...you really don't know much about anything regarding the law in the US. (In the UK, there are no such laws.) Police don't bother anyone crossing the street unless they appear intoxicated or similar.

[PogChamp]

oh my, its almost like trusting machines to account of human random decision making in a life or death situation was a bad idea :O

yea because trusting humans with cars turns out great... i can't tell if your comment was pure sarcasm or if you're just retarded...

this is the price of progress, mistakes happen, but they still happen much less than with human error. get your mind right with that, because automation is coming no matter how much you want to throw a bitch fit over it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And right there, you're admitting that your position on this is indefensible, since nobody's been arguing that the driverless car shouldn't try to stop.

We're just not blaming the automated system if a pedestrian does something that gives it no opportunity to avoid them.

Now you are stating the obvious yes, I am blaming the automation unless new data comes fourth that shows that it wasn't. An automation system touted as being safer or better than a human driver, yeah, it better have a demonstrated ability that makes it superior to a human driver.

[Polarthief]

Only 1 death in all self-driving tests of cars in general? Still less than human drivers and that's the most important part.

Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than the monkeys who currently drive cars.

Now you are stating the obvious yes, I am blaming the automation unless new data comes fourth that shows that it wasn't. An automation system touted as being safer or better than a human driver, yeah, it better have a demonstrated ability that makes it superior to a human driver.

It doesn't get tired/distracted/emotional. That alone is a massive superiority/advantage over human drivers. It can also process a TON of information in the blink of an eye while human reaction times can be iffy at best in comparison.

Computers do not make mistakes like this. If they do, it's due to human error (the root of all mistakes) either in the coding or whatever quirk they accidentally left in. If the camera is faulty, that's on the human who made the camera. If it was a line of robot workers who made the camera, then it's at fault of the human who made the robot workers.

Until we give free will and emotions to computers/robots, they aren't actually capable of making mistakes. It's all 0s and 1s and even a single wrong 0 or 1 will cause problems like this.

[Post]

Well that didn't take long. Man that's gonna be bad for self driving cars going forward.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And if a small kid darts out between 2 parked cars and you couldn't see the kid?

Well I don't what if I hate heat sensor where and infrared technology, or ecco sound technology that allows me to pick up individual sounds and isolate distance speed and trajectory.

Which apparently an a superior A.I would have. But since I don't have any of that shit, YES, I have had a situation or two in my life where a kid darted out between two parked cars and I stopped, because while I didn't see the kid, I could hear his buddy yelling at him and seen the ball he was chasing into the street to go get.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't get tired/distracted/emotional. That alone is a massive superiority/advantage over human drivers. It can also process a TON of information in the blink of an eye while human reaction times can be iffy at best in comparison.

Right so it shouldn't hit anybody or killed them?

[Rotted]

I might be a bit out of the loop here,

but I was under the impression google ( as well as a few big private companies in regards to trucks) have been developing this technology for years, now Ubers on the scne of self driving cars???

Just seems, I dunno rushed?

[Crissi]

Well I don't what if I hate heat sensor where and infrared technology, or ecco sound technology that allows me to pick up individual sounds and isolate distance speed and trajectory.

Which apparently an a superior A.I would have. But since I don't have any of that shit, YES, I have had a situation or two in my life where a kid darted out between two parked cars and I stopped, because while I didn't see the kid, I could hear his buddy yelling at him and seen the ball he was chasing into the street to go get.

And I've darted out between Parker cars and made no sound cause I was trying to get back to piano classes after getting something. So...

Only reason I wasn't hit was because I stopped as I heard the oncoming car, but it was still close. No way he could have stopped in time if I had continued.

[Shadowferal]

Only 1 death in all self-driving tests of cars in general? Still less than human drivers and that's the most important part. Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than the monkeys who currently drive cars.

To repeat; There have been plenty of other accidents. But because money rules and there have been loads invested, any investigation always concludes that it was people that was at fault.
https://www.reuters.com/article/auto...-idUSL2N1MF1RO
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ents/74946614/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/b...ving-cars.html
https://www.dmv.org/articles/gm-sees...icle-accidents
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...nomous-vehicle

---------------------------
Manufactures want to make things sounds like their shit is going just around the corner, timewise. But the reality is all about regulation. And that's years away.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Of course you can't really compensate such a loss but a compensation nonetheless still helps the family with a nice funeral and handling of paperworks.

It's just disturbing the way you worded it, like I don't know anybody who would have said that they would just compensate it, when United Airlines killed some womens pet.

[Polarthief]

Right so it shouldn't hit anybody or killed them?

In the same way guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people either. It's the idiots driving the cars or the people who designed the self-driving mechanism that's faulty. The root of all mistakes lies with human error in one form or another.

To repeat; There have been plenty of other accidents. But because money rules and there have been loads invested, any investigation always concludes that it was people that was at fault.
https://www.reuters.com/article/auto...-idUSL2N1MF1RO
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ents/74946614/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/b...ving-cars.html
https://www.dmv.org/articles/gm-sees...icle-accidents
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...nomous-vehicle

---------------------------
Manufactures want to make things sounds like their shit is going just around the corner, timewise. But the reality is all about regulation. And that's years away.

Even if there has been a handful of deaths, it's still going to be way safer than human drivers ever have been/will be because computers don't get tired/distracted/emotional. That alone is a huge advantage and that's not taking into account that computer reaction times, ability to process tons of information (even out of its own "brain") in the blink of an eye, extra sensors all over, etc.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is where you are departing from reality, and unless you are kidding, your normally practical posts should just be ignored in this case. You are still not understanding that some obstacles can't be stopped for in time - NO MATTER WHAT. Because physics won't allow for it.

No you are just hammering down really hard on this Dream of Demolition man, and not understanding that isn't the reality we live in, at least right now.

[Easo]

Everything I could have expected from these news I received.
Doomsayers and "its taking fun out of driving" are here in full force.
Whatever, it was bound to happen, as long as it happens less often than with humans in control this technology will march on.

Ah, right... we do not even have full details yet... Remove your pitchforks, please.

[Doctor Amadeus]

In the same way guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people either. It's the idiots driving the cars or the people who designed the self-driving mechanism that's faulty. The root of all mistakes lies with human error in one form or another.

Except my guns aren't controlled by an A.I so they aren't going to magically load, set, aim and shoot somebody all by themselves going to check out a strange noise downstairs.

The only human error here were the engineers that designed this uber, and the developers that programmed the software, UNLESS I am wrong, but it's good they are investigating

[Polarthief]

Except my guns aren't controlled by an A.I so they aren't going to magically load, set, aim and shoot somebody all by themselves going to check out a strange noise downstairs.

Any AI that isn't programmed or hacked to do this won't do this either.

The only human error here were the engineers that designed this uber, and the developers that programmed the software, UNLESS I am wrong, but it's good they are investigating

So you agree with me. Thank you for proving my point.

Whether the fault was on the AI engineers, the pedestrian, or both, it all goes back to human error. The car isn't at fault.

[Lochton]

It's just disturbing the way you worded it, like I don't know anybody who would have said that they would just compensate it, when United Airlines killed some womens pet.

Unsure how, it is the only rational option upon the loss of a family member, to grant them compensation for loss, and for taking care what the burdens a family is left with. It is the same with a pet, it is as well a great loss to an owner and should be compensated as such. Of course, the amount wouldn't nor shouldn't be the same when human being vs. companion is to be put into calculation.

So, I am unsure what section was disturbing of my message. It is sad to hear that someone fell in the name of development, and it is just their given right to get compensated - unless as someone stated - it was self inflicted.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And I've darted out between Parker cars and made no sound cause I was trying to get back to piano classes after getting something. So...

Only reason I wasn't hit was because I stopped as I heard the oncoming car, but it was still close. No way he could have stopped in time if I had continued.

Well accidents do happen, I was actually trying to imagine a visual of what you said, but anyways. You were there I wasn't I don't know if he could or couldn't have stopped.

The point being if you did get hit, and he was speeding or witnesses described events that the officer that arrived believe they could have stopped they would have been arrested and the judge would have sorted it.

[Shadowferal]

Even if there has been a handful of deaths, it's still going to be way safer than human drivers ever have been/will be because computers don't get tired/distracted/emotional.

Safer...until it isn't. When there are so many on the road and they have accidents (and they likely will) then it'll be turnabout. Because that's what you see now when it's people doing the driving and since they're the only ones, you see how unsafe it is.

Quite frankly I despise being tracked. And that's why our little government really wants this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Unsure how, it is the only rational option upon the loss of a family member, to grant them compensation for loss, and for taking care what the burdens a family is left with. It is the same with a pet, it is as well a great loss to an owner and should be compensated as such. Of course, the amount wouldn't nor shouldn't be the same when human being vs. companion is to be put into calculation.

So, I am unsure what section was disturbing of my message. It is sad to hear that someone fell in the name of development, and it is just their given right to get compensated - unless as someone stated - it was self inflicted.

Because compensation, probably not nearly as important as compassion, or an apology, and a pledge to find out what happened, and to make sure it didn't happen again. Something along those lined

So now you are saying she should be compensated if she what, didn't commit suicide by driverless Uber?

- - - Updated - - -

Any AI that isn't programmed or hacked to do this won't do this either.

So you agree with me. Thank you for proving my point.

Whether the fault was on the AI engineers, the pedestrian, or both, it all goes back to human error. The car isn't at fault.

I don't agree with you, I am not sure if it was hacked either.