Self driving car kills its first pedestrian!

[ern-diz]

Originally Posted by Runethecursed

I think in bigger nations ( US specifically) we cannot in any shape or form get rid of roads and personal operated vehicles as a whole, that said If you live in urban America, i think it is completely reasonable to have sort of a two vehicle garage, one with a gas.hybrid for long road trips (cause face it, that wont go away) and the other being a self driving all electric gizmo

Like I mentioned I think the infrastructure of cities need to be changed so they are more "autonomous" but more nimble than say a train (be it subway, el or metra) course I also want a cyber punk future with people living in buildings and elevated glass walk ways and jet packs...

Ha! Skyways for the win

[NYC-SE]

Interesting (and scary) article about Uber's driverless cars:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...program/?amp=1

From the article:

"Conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States."

[bronsin]

Yikes!

I’m wondering what is the mechanism used to prevent accidents on the self driving car S? Is something connected to the brakes and the steering mechanism? Or is it just the brakes? I’m thinking A connection to the steering mechanism would be a lot more complicated than just the brakes. It makes a difference because using just the brakes would not prevent a lot of accidents the car would have to be steered also. And using breaks while steering is problematic . This whole thing is getting complicated!

[CrankyOldMan]

Having been trained as a traffic accident investigator, there is a very simple way to determine if the vehicle was at fault. You have to figure out the coefficient of friction on the roadway (with a drag sled) and the estimated distance the danger was first noticed (based on skid marks). You then calculate the distance to stop at the speed limit from that point. If the collision would have happened before the vehicle would have stopped, the driver is not at fault because it's not physically possible to have stopped in time. I'm quite certain that Uber has already hired private investigators to reconstruct the scene and are working overtime with their systems engineers to understand why the autopilot didn't detect the hazard. I'm guessing that the smaller radar print and being in the oncoming lane had a lot to do with it.

As for the "rate per million miles" working out to "25 times" the human rate, there's exactly ONE data point for this situation. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[bronsin]

There is no excuse for the vehicle not to have avoided killing the pedestrian. That is what the builders of these vehicles have promised the public. This should’ve been a slamdunk for self driving vehicles. There was no other traffic there were no other pedestrians there was nothing to interfere with the detection system. It’s also damning that there have been no videos released by these people showing their car preventing accidents. In fact it’s logical to suppose if they had such videos they would’ve been made public long ago. If they have them now’s the time to release them !

Frankly the evidence suggests these vehicles will not prevent accidents at all. The legal implications interests me greatly. Who will be found at fault for An accident? The driver who wasn’t driving the vehicle at the time? Hard to understand that one. It’s more likely the people who made the car will be found liable.

Even more likely the manufactures will snow everybody into believing they are not responsible when they have made the claim all along that there will be less or no accidents involving their product.

[ern-diz]

Originally Posted by bronsin

...they have made the claim all along that there will be less or no accidents involving their product.

Like with all emerging technology, it's going to take time to get to that point.

[tmontague]

Originally Posted by NYC-SE

Interesting (and scary) article about Uber's driverless cars:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...program/?amp=1

From the article:

"Conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven. Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States."

The joys of reading the media butcher statistics, typically it's when reporting on medicine that grinds my gears. Publishing relative figures is hyperbole, absolute numbers is what is more appropriate to publish

[bronsin]

Kind of like global warming it will be interesting to see what happens. I doubt I’ll be around when global warning Gets proved right or wrong, but it’s possible I’ll live to see self driving cars succeed or fail.

[bronsin]

Originally Posted by ern-diz

Like with all emerging technology, it's going to take time to get to that point.

I agree but it’s time for these people to put their cards on the table. Exactly what are these cars capable of at this point? If we were to take all of their cars and simulate this tragedy with the woman was pushing her bicycle across the street Would they avoid the accident? Have they themselves before they asked for permission to drive on the street simulated this accident? And what were the results?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[bronsin]

Something just occurred to me. Computers can compute at the speed of light but cars have mechanical limitations. Perhaps a computer can solve a problem like someone walking in front of a car, But no matter how fast It can do that mechanically the car cannot obey it’s commands. The accident is going to happen anyway.

In the case of the woman walking in from the car with her bicycle I don’t think it even got to the point where the car solve the problem in the computer.

It would appear self Driving cars that avoid accidents humans can avoid is at least in part an illusion. Or 90% an illusion.

It appears we’ve Ben had folks!

[NYC-SE]

I just don't see the need for a self driving car. It does interest me from a technical standpoint. I think it would be a great adventure trying to get it to work properly. And I am sure that eventually they will get there.

But what is driving this progress? Not the adventure of discovery. It is greed and not need in my opinion. Why do we as consumers need a driverless car? If you don't want to drive take a bus! Or an Uber...ahh there it is. If Uber finally gets this right then they can eliminate the drivers from the equation. No more having to split fares with them. It's greed motivating this thing, not need.

[ern-diz]

Originally Posted by NYC-SE

I just don't see the need for a self driving car. It does interest me from a technical standpoint. I think it would be a great adventure trying to get it to work properly. And I am sure that eventually they will get there.

But what is driving this progress? Not the adventure of discovery. It is greed and not need in my opinion. Why do we as consumers need a driverless car? If you don't want to drive take a bus! Or an Uber...ahh there it is. If Uber finally gets this right then they can eliminate the drivers from the equation. No more having to split fares with them. It's greed motivating this thing, not need.

Following the money is always a safe bet but I think the genesis of this from the good intention folks out there is the hope that through technology, we'll get to a place where less road deaths happen from self-driving cars than human drivers. Nowhere near that yet but that's the idea.

Self-driving cars will also allow passengers to use the commute time on other things. For example, I have a friend that rides the train to work specifically so he can use the time to study for the LSAT.

[Captain Yaris]

Originally Posted by ern-diz

Following the money is always a safe bet but I think the genesis of this from the good intention folks out there is the hope that through technology, we'll get to a place where less road deaths happen from self-driving cars than human drivers. Nowhere near that yet but that's the idea.

Self-driving cars will also allow passengers to use the commute time on other things. For example, I have a friend that rides the train to work specifically so he can use the time to study for the LSAT.

So then your friend becomes a lawyer, makes a ton of cash, and tries to buy an exotic expensive car, oh wait... “For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.”

[ern-diz]

Originally Posted by Captain Yaris

So then your friend becomes a lawyer, makes a ton of cash, and tries to buy an exotic expensive car, oh wait... “For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.”

Ha!