301–310 of 1001 posts
Interesting nobody used the words jail or murder yet. Not even manslaughter. Just because there was no driver does not keep it from being a crime. Do the engineers go to jail or do the managers or the investors?
In this particular case I assume the operator will be thrown under the bus, which is also unfair.
Curious how the numbers work out of number of miles [1] to number of deaths of autonomous vs standard vehicles. I know the scale is different but since this is the first death I’m curious if the percents fall in line. [1] is distance the right metric?
This is an interesting metric. Although self driving test cars are rare, the whole point of their existence is to drive so they probably clock more hours than a normal car. About 5400 pedestrians are killed each year in the US. US drivers go 3.1 trillion miles a year. So they kill a pedestrian about every 5.7 billion miles. Last November, Waymo said they had 4 million self driven miles, so well short of statistically…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Some of these accidents are unpreventable by the (autonomous) driver. If a pedestrian suddenly rushes out into the street or a cyclist swerves into your path, the deciding factor is often simply the coefficient of frict…
I’m kind of in the Elon Musk camp here where you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette? Human-driven cars kill a lot of pedestrians today, but we can actually do something to improve the human-recognition algorithms in a self-driving car. As long as self driving cars represent an improvement over human drivers, I’m ok with them having a non-zero accident date while we work out the kinks.
How do we handle this for autonomous vehicles? Do we just fine/sue the company that made the vehicle/developed the software? Do we send imperfect human developers to jail because they made a mistake, even if in the grand scheme of things they have saved lives compared to humans being behind every action made by a vehicle?
A big part of the public image for autonomous cars is increased safety, any deaths at their hands starts raising where and how to place the blame - a subject I think very few are prepared for right now, which is likely part of why Tesla explicitly states autopilot needs a human driver present right now, and why Google has been extremely cautious with operator-supervised tests up until recently.
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…
Who exactly do you think is granting Google, Uber, etc. approval for trials like this on public roads? It's going to be some bureocrat with zero ability to gauge what sort of safety standard these companies' projects have reached.
There are no standards here... what were you expecting would happen?
It's a sad reality, but regardless of how many times per day a pedestrian is hit by a human-driven car, such incidents involving self-driving cars will be headline news for years to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main problem with self-driving cars is that they can't "read" humans' body language. A human driver can see pedestrians and cyclists (and other cars) and have a rough idea of what they're likely to do in the next few seconds, i.e. the pedestrian leaning out on the crosswalk curb is likely to step into the road soon. Even a reaction time of milliseconds can't make up for the (currently exclusive) human ability to…
With sufficient data, I'd expect self-driving cars to be better at predicting what such leans mean. Moreover, for every one human driver who notices such a lean, there may be another human driver that doesn't even notice a pedestrian who has already started walking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Some of these accidents are unpreventable by the (autonomous) driver. If a pedestrian suddenly rushes out into the street or a cyclist swerves into your path, the deciding factor is often simply the coefficient of frict…
I’m kind of in the Elon Musk camp here where you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette? Human-driven cars kill a lot of pedestrians today, but we can actually do something to improve the human-recognition algorithms in a self-driving car. As long as self driving cars represent an improvement over human drivers, I’m ok with them having a non-zero accident date while we work out the kinks.
But is it any surprise that Uber had the first self driving car to kill a human being? You can cook in an orderly, careful way, or you can turn the kitchen into a disaster zone and expect other people to clean up for you.
I know which I prefer when it comes to human lives.
The video mentions she was on a bike and shows a mangled bicycle. Also the line markings on the street indicate there is a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane. Definitely very bad. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4369934,-111.9429875,3a,75y,...
This design seems pretty common in the US. Some bike lanes on major streets in LA are like this, except there they also have to contend with buses pulling into stops. Biking on those streets would be terrifying, but I saw people doing it.