Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#491

Post by jerbs » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:07 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #461

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

Reminds me about this comment a few weeks ago (which made an impression on me) : > 'How low has the SW development bar gone, if "it's okay" now means "at least it's not directly killing people"?' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16541235 We now see the standard has slipped to: "Is the death of one person relatively so bad? People die every day." Next a large crowd of people will be killed and the standard will be…

I don't think the people arguing for a different standard are saying that it is ok for one person to die because people die every day. They're asking for observers to look at self-driving cars in comparison to human-driven cars. Because people dying is such a bad thing that we want to prevent, the relevant question should always be, "will this change make it more or less likely that somebody will die." And that is why it is relevant to compare pedestrian deaths from self-driving cars to pedestrian deaths from human-driven cars, but not relevant to compare it to skynet or thermonuclear war.

I don't know, however, how that comparison turns out. From the other comments, it looks like Uber's self-driving cars might be less safe than human-driven cars--in which case you and I would end up on the same side of the argument.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#492

Post by lucb1e » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #436

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #70

The reason self-driving car companies have flocked to Arizona is that Arizona chose to pretty much completely deregulate them: They don't even have to report statistics to the state like they do in California. It's unfortunate, but unsurprising, the first pedestrian killed by an experimental self-driving car allowed on public roads was in Arizona.

The realistic alternative isn't California-esque regulations, it's a country with poorer (more disposable) people. Arizona is a nice compromise, at least we can see what's happening.

You've got to be kidding or sarcastic about the poorer=disposable part, right?

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#493

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #247

pishpash wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not testing it on the unpaid public in incremental patches like this age of software "engineering" has decided it was a good idea to do?

You ultimately have to at some stage, since any test track is a biased test by its nature. It is more an issue of how sophisticated these vehicles should be before they're let loose on public roads. At some stage they have to be allowed onto public roads or they'd literally never make it into production.

Then make the officers of the company stake their lives on this, not the lives of innocent pedestrians.

If they're not willing to dogfood their own potential murder machines then why should the public trust them on the public roads?

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#494

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

alyx wrote: post #393

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

I find what might help those that quote statistics is to self-reflect and ask the question, how would you react if your father/mother/sister/son/daughter/etc was the victim? Would you care that statistically self-driving cars have killed less people than human drivers?

[deleted]

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#495

Post by abalone » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #394

The Washington Post has an updated story with the victim's name: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/1... > Police said the vehicle was northbound on Curry Road when a woman, identified as 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, crossing from the west side of street, was struck. She died at a hospital, the department said. No mention of her being a bicyclist. My gut instinct is to accept that the victim w…

I'd think so too, but there is literally a crumpled bicycle in the photo of the scene. Also the Uber has a dent on the right side, which faces east.

It's possible she was walking her bicycle across the street, but that still looks pretty bad for Uber. That street is a straight shot with clear visibility.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#496

Post by mrtksn » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

Lately, I'm quite disappointed with the tech community's approach to the society.

Lot's of people are talking as if human beings are a resource which exploitation should be secured for the businesses and technical curiosities.

No, people, humans are what matters and it just happens that there are business opportunities and scientific curiosities. No, it not O.K. to kill few people to speed up the development of self-driving vehicles. No, it is not O.K. to have total surveillance so that we improve AI.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#497

Post by J_Sherz » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #409

Johnny555 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars are still subject to the laws of physics... unless you're going to dictate that self-driving cars never go above 15mph, I wouldn't advocate jumping in front of even a "perfect" self-driving car. Braking distance (without including any decision time) for a 15mph car is 11 ft, for a 30mph is 45 ft. Self driving cars won't change these limits. (well, they may be a little better than humans at maximizin…

Once upon a time when I was learning to drive, one of the exercises my instructor used was to put me in the passenger seat while he drove, and have me try to point out every person or vehicle capable of entering the lane he was driving in, as soon as I became aware of them. Every parked vehicle along the side of a road. Every vehicle approaching or waiting to enter an intersection. Every pedestrian standing by a cros…

Sounds like you had a great driving instructor. Although I never had an experience like that when learning to drive, we did have to complete something in the UK called a "hazard perception test"[1] in order to get a drivers license. Basically a video version of what your instructor did for you. Until reading your comment today, I'd never really put much thought into how useful this is and how ingrained in my everyday driving it is.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdQRkmdhwJs

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#498

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #9

FTA: "The Uber vehicle was reportedly driving early Monday when a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck. ... Tempe Police says the vehicle was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash and a vehicle operator was also behind the wheel." That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when some…

> That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when someone walks out into the road.

No, the whole point of self-driving vehicles is that firms operating them can pay the cheaper capital and maintenance costs of the self-driving system rather than the labor cost of a driver.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#499

Post by scoggs » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

TillE wrote: post #469

danso wrote: post #394

The Washington Post has an updated story with the victim's name: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/1... > Police said the vehicle was northbound on Curry Road when a woman, identified as 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, crossing from the west side of street, was struck. She died at a hospital, the department said. No mention of her being a bicyclist. My gut instinct is to accept that the victim w…

> the vehicle was northbound...crossing from the west side of street So, she approached from the left. That would make it significantly less likely that she just suddenly appeared in front of the car, right? It's not a narrow street.

What I'm saying is unlikely as I'd most likely assume she was traveling along the sidewalk for some distance before being hit but there is always the chance she was walking the bike across the grass and came out from that direction (where those bushes are, they seem tall enough from what I can see)? This is all assuming when you say 'left' you meant on the left side of the Google Street View posted above, though.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#500

Post by drcode » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

nopriorarrests wrote: post #455

I wonder how this will be treated legally. Police can't just write "killed by python script" as a cause of death, that would be crazy, and there is no legal framework for cases like that. My guess is that A.I. could be equated to cruise-control, meaning person behind the wheel is responsible. Maybe someone knows better?

People are injured by malfeasance of a corporation involving many employees all the time, such as when a bridge collapses- There is nothing that says a police person needs to immediately find a single guilty person 10 minutes after an accident like this.