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

[Endus]

You would have to show that one of the parties is considered criminally negligent. Chances are this particular case at best would be about liability, and that would likely be on Uber.

Given that the preliminary invesigation is indicating that the car wasn't at fault and couldn't have avoided her, the liability won't be Uber's at all. It's technically the pedestrian's, though I seriously doubt Uber would try and pursue her family for damages to the vehicle.

We know one person who broke the law in this. That person was the jaywalker who was killed.

[Skalm]

She was probably trying to pull one of those bullshit things to get insurance money. Like the videos you see of people in Asian countries doing, where they walk in front of you, then jump on your hood when you stop. To try and claim you hit them.

[ls-]

I'd prefer. "Idiot walks in front of moving car. Laws of physics prevail again."

We should change or even abolish these barbaric laws, they're outdated and simply no longer work in today's society. It's 2018, goddammit.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Wait. So it's not okay for the police to stop or citation someone for, in your own words, illegally jaywalking, but getting hit is a proper outcome?

OT: People need to consider that science fiction has been a long continuation of "If humans make something that can think, it'll turn on us" and that is a piece of why people are going to be nervous. Personally, I'm worried about the people that will inevitably try to hack them.

They've already hacked them.

What we have here is one woman killing another. But she says it was her cars autonomous mode, and she'll get away with it.

Can't wait to see how many times they'll do that before you guys catch on.

If you don't believe this is true, let's talk about how everyone here has already agreed the vehicle operator won't even face manslaughter or negligence.

She was literally using Cruise Control, which has already existed for decades, but with a small amount of extra software between her fingers and the gas.

If she killed the pedestrian with cruise control, it would be without a doubt manslaugther. Why is this different because of some fucking software between user and vehicle? It shouldn't be different.

[Antiganon]

I have uBlock Origin, didn't seem to be bad for me? It's the video on top, then a fairly standard paragraph block of text.

Maybe a specific adserver I have blocked then?

I saw a flood of full page images of "FORTUNE" on a colorful background, then all the text aligned on the left side of the page, in 12pt Times New Roman, with no formatting applied. No tables were rendered properly, let alone any dynamic elements.

The video did autoplay though.

I was able to get the info from TheVerge without incident.

[Vash The Stampede]

Already looking like the self driving car wasn't at fault.

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/0...in-fatal-crash

" 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." 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.

[Amunrasonther]

Yeah a human would have ran her over too.

[Cruor]

Just watched the video, its 100% the woman's fault and 0% the car or the drivers fault. She walked RIGHT infront of the car from out of the shadows, the literally commited suicide on purpose. What else could be the cause? She couldn't see a car with headlights on going the speed limit coming? Uber should release the following statement:

"Uber will continue testing driverless cars, and we are 100% blameless in this. This woman had a deathwish, and was fully at fault. In addition, Uber will be sueing her estate for the damages to our vehicle. You are taught at 5 to look both ways when you cross the street. Maybe try doing that, thanks."

[endersblade]

1 Human dead, billions to replace her. Who gives a shit.

Autonomous cars are still in their infancy. Deaths are going to happen. I would imagine the people behind this technology was well aware of that when they started. It keeps them on guard, making sure there are no errors or kinks in the final product. If everything went flawless in trials, it could potentially give them the idea that they can cut corners or be lazy with certain things because there have been no repercussions so far.

The largest hurdle to get over in this endeavor is, as this article has pointed out, the human problem. Humans are largely unpredictable, don't like following rules (she was outside of the crosswalk), and act irrationally for no fucking reason. If you can create a computer program capable of handling and predicting all of that, it will be our new overlord in a matter of weeks.

I would love to see how this situation would've panned out had a human been in control of the driving. I place all the fault of this accident on the moron who got in the street, not the car, and certainly not the person behind the wheel of a car they were told could drive itself safely.

- - - Updated - - -

Already looking like the self driving car wasn't at fault.

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/0...in-fatal-crash

So the car was purportedly doing a whole 3 miles of the speed limit. A human would most likely be doing 10 or more.

[Kallisto]

Already looking like the self driving car wasn't at fault.

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/0...in-fatal-crash

Yes but it's Uber. So for many people Uber is to blame for it just existing.

[Sundreamer]

well, there still was a human driver...which means that guy wasn't doing his job by actually paying attention and making sure that wouldn't happen, instead probably playing on his phone or not bothering being on the safe side and manually braking...

https://www.recode.net/2018/3/21/171...-tempe-arizona

look at that. unsurprising, he was too busy looking at his phone to pay attention to the road. but also to be fair she came out of nowhere and even if he was paying attention, he would have not seen her in time

[Deleted]

This is the first fatality after millions of miles driven. And the woman was at fault here. She should've taken the crosswalk.

[Hablelol]

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'm 100% aware and up to date on how AI works, the issue is there's still no common sense, it's something we take for granted but it can't be manifested into a program to simulate how we decide what makes sense and what doesn't. If she was J-walking not many normal people would have hit her, but if the vehicles programming didn't expect a person to be there due to other traffic patterns or front mounted sensors or whatever else because she was just a hair outside of its perimeter I'm willing to be that in this specific case a driver wouldn't have killed her, a driver would have used common sense.

I'm not saying driverless cars are a bad thing, however (I'm aware it was.... I think 7-10 years of planning beforehand?) however when you sit down and ACTUALLY think about it autonomy is not something to be taken lightly in any situation, and autonomous automobiles should have (IMO) been one of the LAST things we worked on, yet they're in the first handful of things that are autonomous that interact with people in a large way.

I agree with you, I think we're doing PRETTY well in time spent/death ratio. However the pace at which it's been allowed, and generally accepted by people! That's what scares me.

[draynay]

I'm 100% aware and up to date on how AI works, the issue is there's still no common sense, it's something we take for granted but it can't be manifested into a program to simulate how we decide what makes sense and what doesn't. If she was J-walking not many normal people would have hit her, but if the vehicles programming didn't expect a person to be there due to other traffic patterns or front mounted sensors or whatever else because she was just a hair outside of its perimeter I'm willing to be that in this specific case a driver wouldn't have killed her, a driver would have used common sense.

If thats a bet, its a bet you'd lose. There's even video of it now, and she isn't visible until the car is right on top of her, unless you're driving around at night wearing nightvision goggles you'd run her down too. You're just making nonsensical arguments unrelated to this incident.

[Garnier Fructis]

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

Applicable here.

[Very Tired]

Not sure why a person was slowly jaywalking on a pitch black street while ignoring all sounds of cars driving at her at high speeds...

[Surfd]

Inb4 Republicans pushing for legislation to prevent more autonomous vehicle deaths!

Just mount a gun on it. Then watch as their heads explode as they attempt to solve the contradiction.

[Seramore]

The video was posted. Shockingly enough, and I'm sure most people didn't see this coming: the technology of a self-driving car was not at fault.

[Chaotic1962]

Is it just me or is it odd that there is not a single piece of reflective material anywhere on the bicycle, or the woman...

[Samuraijake]

we should ban cars right after guns. oh and bombs.. cause that one guy killed ppl with bombs in texas.