Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Accident Could Have Implications for Autonomous Vehicle Testing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Plenty of sober humans get into crashes. And, plenty of humans choose to drive while not sober.
Autonomous cars don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans. I don’t know enough about the tech to know if we’re there now, but even if not, we could be in the foreseeable future.
Hell, here in NYC drivers have hit people IN crosswalks and the DA has declined to prosecute if they stay on the scene and don't have any other contributing factors like being intoxicated. If you want to commit a murder and get away with it here, your absolute bet is to just hit someone with a car. You might get points off your license, but most of the time drivers just walk away scot-free.
Bzzzt, wrong. Legally speaking drivers are not free of blame when someone else broke a rule. They are responsible for watching the road in front of them. Lots of factors go into this, including the amount of time they have to react, whether they were speeding, visibility etc.
Edited to add: in most cases, if the driver could/should have had time to see an obstacle in front of them and react, they will be at least partially liable. If a pedestrian rapidly darts out into the street and there’s no time to react, they’re not likely to be held accountable unless they were shown to have been speeding, inebriated, or distracted.
There are crosswalks for a reason. If you dont care that the reason is "this is the safest place to cross" then by choosing to NOT walk in them you accept that the chances are higher that you will get hit. Its not complex.
Where was the nearest cross walk? could have been 500 / 1km meters away. Factors YOU don't take in to consideration.
Anyway, we don't know all the facts.
AI is much more efficient at recognizing immediate safety situations than humans. Why people believe that humans are better than AI in reaction time and dealing with instantaneous decisions is beyond my comprehension.
I live in Phoenix and see these Uber Volvos driving around Tempe and South Scottsdale all the time. In fact, if you have lunch on South Scottsdale Road, in about an hour's time you will see 2-3 of these vehicles driving the same loop over and over, day after day for the past couple of years it seems. It was inevitable that one day they would be in an accident but didn't see a pedestrian death coming.
So this brings up an interesting question, when the family files a lawsuit, is it against Uber, Volvo, the guy sitting in the drivers seat, city of Tempe for allowing these vehicles on the road and/or the autonomous software? As more and more of these cars hit the road, this question will be played out in the courtrooms over and over it seems.
So this brings up an interesting question, when the family files a lawsuit, is it against Uber, Volvo, the guy sitting in the drivers seat, city of Tempe for allowing these vehicles on the road and/or the autonomous software? As more and more of these cars hit the road, this question will be played out in the courtrooms over and over it seems.
You can program all the AI you want, but it turns out "look both ways before crossing" is still the best.
Look up and observe your surroundings before stepping in front of a 4000 lb metal object.
It's not that difficult. I learned it in 1st Grade.
Look up and observe your surroundings before stepping in front of a 4000 lb metal object.
It's not that difficult. I learned it in 1st Grade.
Funny... I got knocked down by a guy who was exactly like that too. And if you ever want to hear more stories of people driving sensibly, safely, obeying all laws and being hit by cars, try talking to riders of motorcycles - and count how many times the excuse for hitting a biker was "sorry mate, I didn't see you". The most dangerous part of a car is the nut that holds the steering wheel.
You are able to speak to his doctor if you are concerned, obligated really.
It will be illegal to drive by the time you’re 75. Remember this when you march with a protest sign outside of your local City Hall.
Humans driving cars are dangerous and are a public safety issue. Unlike gun control, there's no mega-organization lobbying to keep people driving their own cars. Money controls everything and there's too much money invested into autonomous vehicles for them not to steamroll our current vehicle culture.
Last edited:
The complete obliteration of any further development in self-driving cars would be a big achievement for Humankind, but it won’t happen because the number of people whose life is now owned by social networks and mobile devices is so overwhelming as the hunger for money at tech companies, which would do anything you could imagine for milking a dollar, including ruining lives or killing people if they manage to lobby well.
That it didn't happen in a civilised country where you can cross wherever you like.
The entire concept of Jay-walking doesn't exist in civilised countries.
Crosswalks are not some kind of magical barrier that stops people from hitting you, you know. And they're often pretty dangerous places to cross, particularly when they're in intersections where there are cars making all kinds of maneuvers.
Get out of your car sometime and try walking one of those long crosswalks through a super busy suburban intersection with cars turning and maneuvering around you (sometimes yielding, sometimes just bullying right past you). Try that and report back on how safe you feel.
Or how about this: try one of those looong suburban blocks where the nearest crosswalk is a good 1/4 mile away. You want to get to a store that's right across the street. You're gonna walk half a mile out of your way? No, you're probably going to take the more dangerous shortcut.
My point? Most roads are designed for the convenience of drivers and drivers only. Instead of only blaming the victim, blame the road design that put them in that situation in the first place.
As a daily motorcycle rider who has had enough close calls, I’m convinced some of them even see us but don’t care. Or they’re not even paying attention to driving( phone, laptop, I’ve even seen people reading while driving).
Would like all Auto driven vehicles to be required to follow the speed limits. No one will want them. Only way to speed should be to engage the hazard lights as to draw attention in an emergency situation.
No, it isn’t. What you mean is that AI doesn’t get drunk or distracted. AI can always have its eyes on the road, and won’t let its decisions be affected by various irrelevant factors. However, AI is not even close (like not even remotely in the ballpark) of human intelligence, which means at the end of the day, its capacity is limited. Until we figure out how to replicate the intricacies of the biological brain and its neurons, AI will never be able to match the decision-making flexibiltiy and creativity of the human brain, which means it will be less able to deal with unexpected (e.g. rule-breaking, chaotic) situations.
It should be set back for as long as necessary until people's lives are safe from cars not programmed for real life scenarios.
The fact she crossed outside of the crosswalk should tell very Little. This is real life, people don't always follow rules; people cross on non-designated areas, cars don't stop on red lights, other objects may appear on the road, perhaps all of this could happen at the same time and these cars must be programmed to react to such scenarios, not only to what's written on the rules book, and poeple's lives shouldn't be used for testing, what is this the Hunger games?
Let's take the worst scenario, she jumped to the road out of nowhere. The car should already be prepared to act accordingly. Perhaps the car didn't have enough space to stop but maybe it would've been better to turn to the sides, perhaps crashing another car sending both to the hospital but none to the cementery. The car has the power to process all likely scenarios in miliseconds (if not microseconds).
AI is only as efficient as its programmed and trained to be. While a computer can solve problems significantly faster then a human can, they are still only as good as their programming. This is a clear distinction that I see people often misunderstand or simply ignore because it doesn't fit their argument.
If the car is driving down the street and there are children playing in a yard, will the AI consider that at any moment one of them may run into or across the street and slow down in preparation for such an event? If a ball goes flying across the street, will the car slow down to avoid hitting the ball, or will it also consider any number of children running after the ball? I do hesitate to ask that because after seeing some of the sad responses on this thread, I'd assume many will blame the child for running in the street just to avoid hinting that maybe the technology isn't ready yet.
I think the real question is, can AI be programmed with a good-enough model to let it use its strengths (sheer reaction time and speed of processing; inability to be "distracted") to overcome its limitations? And, can AI cars leverage each others' training to become more effective drivers? The promise is great: cars that obey traffic laws, don't get drunk, and can see and react faster than any human.