Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona • Hacker News Board

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#171

Post by userbinator » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:24 AM UTC

halflings wrote: post #19

blakesterz wrote: post #13

> “The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.” I don't know if that is supposed to make anyone feel better about this, if anything it makes it seem worse. I thought one of the big benefits of these systems was they were supposed to be better at exactly these kinds of situations? More like "autonomous cars a…

If somebody jumped in front of the car at the last second, it would be physically impossible to break in time. I assume what people mean by "stopping in a flash" is closer to taking the right actions faster (e.g 40ms vs 800ms) when there's still a chance of changing the outcome.

If somebody jumped in front of the car at the last second, it would be physically impossible to break in time.

...and if somehow the car was able to stop that quickly, its occupants would likely be the ones fatally injured if they weren't solidly strapped in.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#172

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

benwilber0 wrote: post #157

GhostVII wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, in the US at least, the speed of traffic will be much faster than the speed limit, so driving the limit is unsafe.

Driving the speed limit is never unsafe. And especially not in a residential area 35 MPH zone.

Driving the speed limit is frequently unsafe, e.g. in adverse weather conditions or unusual street conditions (like when passing an adjacent block party with lots of adults and children milling about.

The speed limit is the maximum speed limit in ideal conditions.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#173

Post by noobermin » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #145

maxander wrote: post #85

There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…

More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And befor…

Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#174

Post by ams6110 » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

portofcall wrote: post #108

maxander wrote: post #85

There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…

Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled…

> Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must.

Agree. And I'd like to see an approach similar to an NTSB investigation of an air crash. Not to place blame, but to identify root causes and mitigate the chance that they recur.

Air travel is exceptionally safe. Has been for many decades. Yet we still investigate any air crash because any crash means something went wrong, perhaps something that can be corrected.

Self driving cars need to be treated the same way, at least for now, and until well after they have demonstrated themselves to be safer than human drivers.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#175

Post by danso » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:26 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #110

I've been trying to find video evidence of the crash, and have been unable to do so. The closest I've found is a myriad of news reports showing the stopped car and police scene. On reviewing this evidence however, there is one thing that sticks out: the damage to the car appears to be entirely on the passenger side. If the woman "darted out from the median," then she managed to clear at least half of the traffic lane…

Video evidence hasn't been released. I don't even know if it's been said what lane the Uber vehicle was in. It's possible she walked out from the center median and far enough that the impact would be on the passenger side of the Uber AV. But that would suggest she did so at a distance that the Uber vehicle could at least begin braking, even if it was still too late (in the same way train operators can hit the brakes despite it being way too late when first seeing a car on the tracks).

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#176

Post by corny » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:26 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #94

FWIW, this seems to be where the accident took place, based on news photos: https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,... It's not completely unlighted, though I'm not sure that's supposed to matter given the AV's sensors? Even if Uber nor the human driver is not legally at fault, I'd still be interested in knowing of Uber's LIDAR and other sensors even detected the woman, and whether it's part of t…

There's a paved area in the median that seems pretty useless since there's no sidewalk or crosswalk that connects to the median at that point:

https://goo.gl/maps/9WKX2DYEN862

If the Uber car was about to turn left at the upcoming intersection it might have been getting into the leftmost turning lane at the point of impact. The pedestrian would have been obscured by a slight curve in the road, vegetation, a road sign, and their bicycle.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#177

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:26 AM UTC

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #114

danso wrote: post #52

> According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless. I know this isn't the most pertinent issue here, but I'm surprised the self-driving AI is allowed to speed , though with further research, th…

Of course a self driving car should be able to speed. My understanding is that speed limits are set by measuring the speed people are driving on the road and then determining a speed at which roughly 15% of the drivers are exceeding that limit. There is an expectation that people will speed, but by setting the speed limit a little bit lower almost all traffic will fall under safe bounds. Driving 38 in a 35 zone is co…

>> People will vote me down because the idea of a speeding self driving car sounds scary

Or because they don't think that speed limits are set so that everyone can keep under them- but so that keeping under them means you're driving safely.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#178

Post by protomyth » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:27 AM UTC

bichiliad wrote: post #117

danso wrote: post #52

> According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless. I know this isn't the most pertinent issue here, but I'm surprised the self-driving AI is allowed to speed , though with further research, th…

This is probably less the case with self-driving cars, as I imagine they're using pretty new or well-maintained vehicles, but there's usually a 5mph leeway with speed limits due to slightly mis-calibrated speedometers. I anecdotally remember hearing this being the reason for speed limits that end in "5" rather than being multiples of 10. https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/40113/do-any-stat...

Wouldn’t that be mitigated by the GPS and the map? It would seem that an automated car using maps as an important input would no its exact position and therefore speed.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#179

Post by lkhjyuio » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #155

danso wrote: post #52

> According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless. I know this isn't the most pertinent issue here, but I'm surprised the self-driving AI is allowed to speed , though with further research, th…

It may not be programmed to speed per se, but if you’ve ever had cruise control turned on you’ll know it doesn’t keep you exactly at 55mpg. It might be 54 with the throttle applied to speed up, or it might be 57 which doesn’t trigger the brakes yet but is coasting to a slower speed. Imagine the car in front of you cycling rapidly between the gas and brake pedal to keep the speed exactly at 55mph. One, that’s complete…

  "completely impossible"

You, sir are not an engineer.

  "really illogical"

And you lack vision.

  "laws of physics"

Nice appeal to authority.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#180

Post by portofcall » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #174

portofcall wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Keep in mind that some version of “killled…

> Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must. Agree. And I'd like to see an approach similar to an NTSB investigation of an air crash. Not to place blame, but to identify root causes and mitigate the chance that they recur. Air travel is exceptionally safe. Has been for many decades. Yet we…

This is the way to go, and it would help (I think) to ease the calls I’ve seen around for holding individual devs responsible. The point is not to collect scalps, but prevent tragedy and malfeasance. Holding companies responsible, sure, but some random programmer who missed a bug being the scapegoat seems like a way to ensure companies avoid responsibility by foisting it off on a low totem member; thst can’t be allowed to happen with lives on the line. Like an aircraft, self driving car software is never going to be the work of a single Dev. The NTSB isn’t perfect, but as these things go, very admirable.

IIRC the NTSB is investigating this case too.