Live data from Hacker News

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

fortune.com

231–240 of 459 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are the most dangeorus thing that most people encounter on a daily basis. It's actually yourself, and it's worse when you're at work. Deaths due to vehicles: 36k per year. Deaths due to suicides: 44k per year. Deaths due to accidents: 190k per year. > There are many age and other cohorts of the population for which the leading cause of death is vehicles. This is not true for any cohort. [1] And yes, I'm aware…

If we are considering deaths-per-journey, then cars look even worse when compared to planes: most people take many more journeys by car in comparison to planes. Let's say we take 500 journeys by car for every one journey we take by plane (not that outlandish), then cars are 1500 times worse than planes. Edit: it seems like it is the other way around. Planes are 3 times as worse than cars per journey, so flip that num…

> but 500 more trips, so cars are only 166 times more dangerous than planes

In terms of fatalities, yes. My data completely discounts non-fatal car accidents; however, there are far fewer "non fatal aircraft accidents" for obvious reasons. So, there's not a lot to glean from this, particularly given the highly regulated nature of aircraft operations in the USA and most of the world.

You could reduce vehicle fatalities by a huge amount just taking motorcycles off the road. They afford no protection to their passengers and increase fatalities just by existing.

You could reduce vehicle fatalities a huge amount by not allowing young men under the age of 24 to have a vehicle with more than 90 horsepower. They have a tendency to lose control of their vehicles and drive them off the road and into trees or other solid objects. Many also die because they weren't wearing a seatbelt and got ejected from the vehicle. Some survive all of that and die because while laying in the road injured, they got hit by a vehicle completely unrelated to their crash.

You could also get some reduction by creating safety systems that do less damage to elderly bodies in an accident. Protection of the heads and necks of adult passengers in the rear of the vehicle needs a lot of work currently. Way more elderly passengers die in the back of the car than in the front, even in low velocity (You could eliminate 1/6 of all vehicle fatalities, 6000 per year, by removing pedestrians from the road. The fatalities are pretty well split across setting (rural/urban), sex, age and time of day. Sidewalks and traffic > 20mph is pure insanity.

You could also definitively figure out _why_ Texas has not only higher fatalities _by number_ but a much greater fatality _rate_ over California. A statistic I opened with because this is a _huge_ point. Seriously, look up the numbers per state; because, when I do, I _cannot_ come to a blanket conclusion like "cars are dangerous."

When really: Cars present _multiple_ and often _unrelated_ risk factors and we still have room for all kinds of incremental improvements in their overall safety.

Unrelated to my argument, but still a worthwhile thought: How much room is left for improvements in Aircraft safety? The most highly regulated and automated vehicle and transport system in service today?

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

#232
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message…

Did you reply to the correct post? This seems unconnected to the topic at hand in the extreme, but maybe I’m missing something.

I was specifically responding to your comment "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" and not responding to the topic of Uber or specifically self-driving cars.

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

#233
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians have a higher personal responsibility since they have a higher risk. Common sense dictates this. When you cross the road you know there is a risk. Driving down the road you dont typically have a huge risk. Especially when its legal to drive down the road and illegal to cross the road outside the crosswalks.

I think you should take a step back and think about what you're saying. A car can kill people. A car can create a large amount of property damage if it is driven carelessly. Cars can even, in extreme circumstances, be fire and chemical hazards. Are you really sure driving doesn't include a massive amount of risk to yourself and others compared to walking period?

Walking in front of a moving car has a high probability of death. You are responsible for your own life.

Do you stand on train tracks and blame the train ?

How is this difficult to understand ?

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

#234

My takeaway from the comments in this thread: self-driving Ubers don't drive defensively, almost surely can't "read" pedestrian behavior, and even with lidar may never have seen Elaine Herzberg. Oh, and they speed. This sounds like straight out of the "hell" scenario for driverless cars: "we cannot accept responsibility for what happens to pedestrians and cyclists foolish enough to stray out of their designated safe…

I think you might be confusing "defensively" with perfectly. There are situations even defensive driving cannot prevent. For example, any car going 35 mph will need a few feet to brake if something jumps directly in front of it. Defensive driving just accounts for one's surroundings and likely outcomes. Seeing as the cars have been on the road in Arizona for a while, and this is the first we are hearing about a pedestrian collision, it seems the algorithm is pretty safe.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GPS can be remarkably bad in urban environments. You can't really trust it for second-to-second speed or positioning. It's only really good for long term/high level planning. For speed, the wheel sensors are going to be way more reliable and consistent.

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

#236
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…

https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/85ozqr/exc...

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

#237
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be several ways to explain this but generally speaking you are right. It shouldn’t go over the speed limit, and under no circumstances should it take the liberty drivers usually take of being within 10% above the limit. I hope no one wrote it that way.

I don't think that's true at all. There was an article posted about the subject a while ago, but the thrust of it was that researchers think they need to do more to make cars behave like (fully attentive) human drivers rather than being weird anomalies that behave in surprising/irritating (to humans) ways if they're going to actually go on the road, and I think that's completely right.

"(fully attentive) human drivers" probably cause deadly accidents every day, and they certainly behave in surprising/irritating ways. Anyways, a human driver going the speed limit is no hazard, so I fail to see how having self-driving cars follow the limits could be a problem.

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

#238
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…

As another driver on the road, I'd far rather that autonomous vehicles maintain speed with the flow of traffic around them, in lieu of strictly sticking to the posted limit.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the driver supposed to say in this scenario? "Actually officer, I saw her coming from miles away, but I thought to myself: let's just see what happens..." Of course a "driver" in such a vehicle is going to report the victim came out of nowhere, otherwise they're basically committing homicide or implicating themselves in not paying attention and the car in not sensing them...it literally adds nothing to the ev…

Since it was dark out, the story seems pretty plausible. It's really difficult to see pedestrians at night, even when they use a crosswalk much less if they are crossing in the middle of the road.

You would think LIDAR might help in such a situation...

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

#240
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I am constantly scanning for people near the edge of the road and anticipating their movements. I bet most of us have had the experience where someone stepped out unexpectedly but you already took action because you could tell they were not paying attention. Good luck programming that.

Yeah there are a lot of subtleties that are hard to program; that's why it must be extremely effective on things that _can_ be programmed such as quick breaking, quick steering; prefer lanes that are farther away from pedestrians near-by, beep when entering a non-illuminated zone and hundreds of other details.

Beeps are annoying. Better to artificially increase the engine sound.
Post reply on HN