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

#391

Post by lagadu » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:16 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #364

wazoox wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France, the car is always at blame whatever the cyclist or pedestrian did. This the jurisprudence as set by a case where a drunk cyclist, driving at night without any light in the wrong lane and against traffic was hit by a car coming by. Though the driver obviously wasn't at fault, the decision was to always protect the vulnerable and feeble, i.e. the cyclist.

I came here to say the same, if a car ever hits a pedestrian the car is always at fault. Pedestrians follow the laws of physics, they don't just "come out of the shadows". It amazes me that Police could even think about issuing this statement, and also that people take it at face value. Guys, if you ever see a pedestrian in your path and you are not able to avoid them, you were driving too fast, simple as that. And I…

> if you ever see a pedestrian in your path and you are not able to avoid them, you were driving too fast, simple as that.

That flies in the face of biology and physics.

In the scenario where someone rapidly moves into the traffic from behind a parked car or some other visual obstruction: It takes up to 500ms for a human to take note (not react, just take note) of an obstacle, add reaction time to that and you'll arrive at a mean of over 1 second[0], usually more[1], before a driver can react to a new obstacle and this is for attentive drivers under good visibility.

Your argument relies on the fact that slower speeds result in shorter braking distances but braking distances are always non-zero, therefore it stands that there is a distance at which someone could move in front of the car and get hit even if the reaction time was 0ms, instead of ~1300.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274973324_Braking_R...

[1]http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html

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

#392

Post by IncRnd » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:20 PM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #386

IncRnd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car didn't have a driver's license. The driver did, regardless of the amount of assistance provided by the car. What is troubling is that the breaks were never applied.

It's not that simple, I believe. Many governments have issues special registrations to self-driving cars, which waive off the requirement of an active driver to some extent. In that sense, the car actually has a "license" while the person sitting in the "driver's" seat is more of an attendant.

That's a very good point. Thank you for pointing that out. AZ does allow self-driving cars without drivers, as long as they follow the traditional laws and rules of the road.

I would argue that in this particular case, from the information that has been released, the car may have followed the laws of the road but it didn't appear to follow the traditional defensive driving rules of the road that parents teach their children, such as, "see that person with the bike standing on the median? Be careful. Don't hit them."

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

#393

Post by URSpider94 » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:42 PM UTC

chopin wrote: post #381

URSpider94 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, sorry for the downvotes. This link -> http://www.lsp.org/pdf/troopc85thSpeed.pdf doesn't include any references, unfortunately, but the statements are that: -- 55% of drivers regularly exceed the speed limit, meaning that the speed limit represents the 45th percentile speed -- driving between the 50th and 90th percentile speeds is the safest Taken together, driving at the speed limit is significantly unsafe.

As far as I understand your comment, driving at the speed limit is unsafe because everybody is speeding. Sounds like a self-fulfilling thing. Maybe it would be even safer if the majority would obey the speed limit?

Did you read the link I posted? Theres lots of empirical data out there that says that drivers drive the same speed on a road, regardless of the posted limit. That speed is based on their judgment of the road - sight lines, shoulder width, sharpness of curves, etc.

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

#394

Post by goshx » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:42 PM UTC

megy wrote: post #185

goshx wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the police determine that a vehicle "made no attempt to stop" today, without video and sensor data?

The same way they do it now??

That’s what I am asking. How do they do it now?

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

#395

Post by zeven7 » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #377

cthalupa wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very surprised if your cruise control kept within 3mph of the set speed at all times in all conditions. My car certainly doesn't, and it's a 2017 model with a sophisticated adaptive cruise control. I'll ignore ACC for a moment and talk about the modern implementation of regular cruise control, however. You'll have your target speed stored in a control unit, which cares about 3 to 4 things: your set speed,…

That's a lot of text for explaining why a car might go to 3mph too fast. There is a big difference between a cruise control and an autonomous car. In Germany you can get a ticket for going more than 3km/h (1.875 mph) too fast. It's not acceptable for a self driving car to go so fast that you can get a ticket. If that means going up to 6mph too slow, I guess that's the way it is. Also, going 5km/h means you will need…

Sounds like maybe the culture is different in Germany for this. In the states 5 mph over the speed limit is normal. While you could get a ticket for it, you won't unless you're in a small town that's just trying to pad its budget. In some parts of the states even 10 mph over is regularly tolerated on highways.

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

#396

Post by DataWorker » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #387

Tepix wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of text for explaining why a car might go to 3mph too fast. There is a big difference between a cruise control and an autonomous car. In Germany you can get a ticket for going more than 3km/h (1.875 mph) too fast. It's not acceptable for a self driving car to go so fast that you can get a ticket. If that means going up to 6mph too slow, I guess that's the way it is. Also, going 5km/h means you will need…

It's an explanation of how cruise control works. It sounds like cruise control is dangerous to use in Germany, based on your description. My 2012 VW GLI certainly did not stay within 3km/h of the set speed when utilizing cruise control. >If that means going up to 6mph too slow, I guess that's the way it is. If you want to be in a situation that is more dangerous than going 3mph over the limit, sure. If everyone was g…

This would seem like a major problem then. In Silicon Valley it’s very common for freeway traffic to move at speeds that are 10 or 20 mph above posted limits. You either stay under the limit creating a dangerous situation as the result of differential speed or violate the limit and match the speed of surrounding traffic. How does the engineer not become liable in this context, like the VW engineers in the emissions scandle.

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

#397

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:00 PM UTC

firelemissiles wrote: post #332

CydeWeys wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't kidding about it being standard operating procedure. Almost every time a pedestrian or cyclist is killed in New York City, the police come out and blame anyone but the driver. And then video will turn up afterwards showing that the driver was driving unsafely, and that the fatal accident could have been avoided. Still, no charges are filed. It's like they have an allergy to paperwork. I want to see video o…

This is really scary I think! In Denmark it is standard procedure to immediately arrest the other party and charge with manslaughter if there has been a fatality in an accident, no matter who might have been at fault. This way the police can gather information quickly from the driver and release him shortly after. An in depth investigation is always carried out to precisely map out what happened (this can take weeks)…

The difference is probably because US culture is very automobile focused and in some places downright hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, whereas in Denmark cycling is very popular.

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

#398

Post by ankjl » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

megy wrote: post #170

dexterdog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop calling 38 in a 35 speeding? In many places that speed would be inpeding traffic.

So? That is because the traffic is speeding. What sort of twisted logic do you have that someone has just been killed, and the point you want to make is that 3miles over is not really speeding?

This really isn't an argument. It's just saying that because someone has been killed we shouldn't be able to have rational discussion because our logic is "twisted".

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

#399

Post by ShorsHammer » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #342

nikanj wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason non-autonomous ones are so big. It's a status symbol, plus there's the arms race of "bigger truck wins in an accident"

> bigger truck wins in an accident And that's why I go by tram. :)

Jokes aside, it seems foolish to create an entirely new class of vehicle that drives itself while completely ignoring the physics of big bits of metal.

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

#400

Post by kwhitefoot » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #181

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They should not be able to speed arbitrarily, but it seems sensible that they would match the prevailing traffic speed. One car carefully observing a 30mph limit creates a hazard when everyone else is going 35-40.

Or everyone else creates a hazard when exceeding the speed limit.