Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Accident Could Have Implications for Autonomous Vehicle Testing

[dk001]

My biggest take-away?
Uber's autonomous driving program is apparently not ready for live road testing at this time.
Maybe Cali called it right with Uber ...
Article 01
Article 02
Article 03

 

[SoGood]

Taken as a percentage of human-driven versus computer-driven fatalities, the computer-driven is vastly greater. There are about 250 million cars on the road today. Even assuming only a fifth were actually driving today, 15 fatalities represents 0.00003% of humans killing people with cars. I doubt Uber has even 100 self-driving cars out there. Even assuming there are a hundred times that all told, that one fatality represents 0.01% of computers killing people with cars, 333x greater.

As with everything, gotta be careful with the numbers...

Indeed! But your number is also a fudge as human-drive vehicle has been approximated to kill 15 each day while this Uber has killed 1 over a far longer period of time frame, 333 days or greater? For more number crunching, we can also look into the number of accidents... Although all the autonomous driven vehicle numbers are early technology with a low denominator.

 

[redneckitengineer]

'Jaywalking' was actually invented by the automobile industry in the very early days of cars because the car drivers were getting frustrated with pedestrians getting in the way of their cars.
interesting read fyi:

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/th..._was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

Oh I’ve seen a documentary on the topic. Quite the interesting read, especially after the pulling of mass transit. Something my city of Nashville desperately needs.

I still give partial fault to the individual as under Arizona law, pedestrians are obligated to give vehicles the right of way when crossing outside of a crosswalk.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

I see your point. This pedestrian deserved to die.

Deserved? What does deserved have to do with it? You can figure out there’s a lot more chance it happening while jaywalking, right?

 

[LogicalApex]

Well, the supposed gain is overall fewer lives lost. Would you exchange 15 deaths per year for the 15 deaths per day we currently have, according to other posts on this thread-I have no idea what the real numbers would be for either case. So that is one argument for allowing driverless vehicles.

I would say no to driverless cars even if it was 1 life lost per decade globally if it took us thousands of driverless car deaths to perfect the technology.

I see it similar to what we allow for medicine. It is not OK for us to cure a disease by just experimenting on people who may die or be severely impacted just so we can cure a disease. This ban makes it harder, and sometimes impossible, for us to find certain cures. But since every human life matters we can’t sacrifice someone today to save someone tomorrow.

Driverless cars may reduce road and traffic fatalities, But we have no idea if this will ever be truly realized. Driverless cars will introduce new problems that we will need to introduce new safeguards against.

In theory they should be safer, but in theory we should also be able to build washing machines that lasts more than a few years. Often technology fails to deliver on its theoretical promises.

 

[charlituna]

Maybe she shouldn’t have been crossing outside of a crosswalk area... but also the car and driver should have seen her

Animals jump out in front of cars in many areas so you would think that there would be systems to try to avoid a collision. Apparently there were not in these cars.

They would also be useful for stupid drivers in standard cars doing stupid things

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

My city has no Jaywalk laws. Hitting someone when they cross a 4 lane road halfway between greens is 100% the drivers fault. The pedestrian always has the right of way, even they block traffic.

Is your city in az? Someone posted az law earlier and thats not the case.

 

[Dorje Sylas]

Some updates over at ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-driving-tests-halted-pedestrian-dies-53854123

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-s...-driving-uber-car-involved-in-crash-overnight

This occurred at 10 PM Sunday night at an intersection of multi-lane divided lanes, Mill Avenue and Curry Road.

I know that area as well... for the morbidly curious the Google imagery of the area. Anywhere from there up to the light. I don't know the exact location, or if the Uber was in left or right lane.

Edit.... from the ABC news video, right by the park sign.

 

[Analog Kid]

Well, in terms of death rate, I neither agree nor disagree with you. There is a sum total of one death involving a fully autonomous vehicle (and we don't know the full circumstances of that death). For you to infer a "death rate" is so presumptuous that it can't be taken seriously. There was bound to be a death at some point, but if it had happened after the number of miles driven had been double, would you calculate the rate to be half of what it currently is. You can't do statistics with a sample size of one.

In any event, the death did occur, and we can learn from it ("we" meaning those who have access to the full details), but we won't learn anything from the "death rate".

The point that I was making was that at this point of time, the average pedestrian, or even the average person, has virtually zero exposure to autonomous automobiles. You should of course avoid stepping out into the street into oncoming traffic. But it's not because of autonomous traffic. The real danger to you right now is human drivers. And arguably, by the time the exposure rate to autonomous traffic becomes significant, and the number of incidents like this grow to something that is statistically significant, the autonomous traffic will be far more sophisticated, and safer than it is now. Human-driven traffic may also be safer, thanks to some of the autonomous technology finding its way into human-driven vehicles (human driven, but autonomous braking when needed), but it's highly unlikely that humans themselves will be safer.

Ok, then you're just taking my comment out of context...

In any event, we're pretty much in agreement on the points you're making.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

Grandpa, get off the computer!

I keep forgetting millenials invented smoking weed.

 

[Black Tiger]

Insurance companies will charge premiums for self driving cars the same way they do for regular cars. By analyzing the risk and charging appropriately.

The main difference (for fully autonomous cars) is that you remove the risk of the driver. Meaning a 40 year old with 20:20 vision and a perfect driving record will pay the same as a teenager or senior who wears coke-bottle glasses.

Pure speculation. Name one person who owns a self driving car. You don’t know anymore than anyone else how this is going to play out.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

Some updates over at ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-driving-tests-halted-pedestrian-dies-53854123

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-s...-driving-uber-car-involved-in-crash-overnight



I know that area as well... for the morbidly curious the Google imagery of the area. Anywhere from there up to the light. I don't know the exact location, or if the Uber was in left or right lane.

Edit.... from the ABC news video, right by the park sign.

From the first link. Struck immediately sounds like she stepped out in front of the car.


He says Herzberg was struck immediately as she stepped on to the street outside of a crosswalk while walking a bicycle. He says neither Herzberg nor the man behind the wheel monitoring the vehicle showed signs of impairment.

 

[EdT]

I would say no to driverless cars even if it was 1 life lost per decade globally if it took us thousands of driverless car deaths to perfect the technology.

I see it similar to what we allow for medicine. It is not OK for us to cure a disease by just experimenting on people who may die or be severely impacted just so we can cure a disease. This ban makes it harder, and sometimes impossible, for us to find certain cures. But since every human life matters we can’t sacrifice someone today to save someone tomorrow.

Driverless cars may reduce road and traffic fatalities, But we have no idea if this will ever be truly realized. Driverless cars will introduce new problems that we will need to introduce new safeguards against.

In theory they should be safer, but in theory we should also be able to build washing machines that lasts more than a few years. Often technology fails to deliver on its theoretical promises.

Washing machines, or tv’s or most home appliances, are specifically engineered to only last their warranty period plus a short time. On the other hand, most cars last a lot longer than they used to. In the 1960’s a car with 100,000 miles was worn out. Today, it may not need its first oil change until then.

I doubt that in warm weather Southwestern states that hi way car deaths involving self driving cars will ever approach a fraction of the deaths that human piloted cars currently do. Mostly sunny weather, open spaces and frequently straight roads whose condition is above average and well marked. But wet, snowy and/or mountainous roads are a very different situation.

So I think SoCal and Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico, probably along with West Texas and Oklahoma would see a quick and drastic drop in deaths via car accidents. Not the major cities, but the highways and Interstates. But any mountainous area or places with snow and ice? Those are the areas that will take time and money.And with the current don’t do something that has no immediate payback attitude the US has, I’m not sure when or even IF those areas will see self driving cars. Most of these areas have roads in poor to bad condition, poorly marked, with weather conditions that can blind a cars sensors.

 

[Gameboy70]

Autonomous vehicles need not have a perfect safety record. They need only match the safety record of humans or hopefully improve on it. For medical reasons I choose not to drive, and therefore having an autonomous vehicle would be quite an improvement to my quality of life. I worry that people will throw out the baby with the bath water when considering this kind of technology. Not having autonomous vehicles has an ethical cost.

Each owner-driven vehicle is on the road two or three times on an average day. Autonomous vehicles, if the tech becomes mainstream, would probably do 3-6x the number of daily trips. So merely match human safety performance would be disastrous, given the vastly increased rate of driving.

 

[Black Tiger]

Spoken like some thoughtless teenager that has never had to deal with an aging parent that still desires to be independent, be able to socialize in their community, and not stuck in a home or at home, totally dependent on the schedule others (if they are lucky) for transportation. In the US, if you can't drive a car, you are severely challenged in getting around. Most of the US has horrible mass transport or more often simply no options at all.

Relaxing? go do yoga or take a walk, will do you far more good and you won't as likely be a burden on the medical system when you get older.

Horrible mass transit? Compared to what? I’m not even American but I’ve travelled around the world and The US has pretty good transit.

 

[macsrcool1234]

I would say no to driverless cars even if it was 1 life lost per decade globally if it took us thousands of driverless car deaths to perfect the technology.

I see it similar to what we allow for medicine. It is not OK for us to cure a disease by just experimenting on people who may die or be severely impacted just so we can cure a disease. This ban makes it harder, and sometimes impossible, for us to find certain cures. But since every human life matters we can’t sacrifice someone today to save someone tomorrow.

Driverless cars may reduce road and traffic fatalities, But we have no idea if this will ever be truly realized. Driverless cars will introduce new problems that we will need to introduce new safeguards against.

In theory they should be safer, but in theory we should also be able to build washing machines that lasts more than a few years. Often technology fails to deliver on its theoretical promises.

I find it terrifying that people think like you. Do you live in the states? If so, I hope you don't live anywhere near me.

 

[oldwatery]

I had to look again. Yes this is MAC rumors. Not Automobile Magazine or Stereophile or Shutterbug. **** guys, how about some MAC news! And I,m also aiming this at the company previously known as Apple Computers

 

[deanthedev]

Pure speculation. Name one person who owns a self driving car. You don’t know anymore than anyone else how this is going to play out.

Hardly speculation. This is exactly how insurance companies operate. They analyze risk and assign a monetary value to it. What we don't know is what those costs will be because there's not enough data yet (and consumers can't currently buy a 100% autonomous vehicle).

However, if the data shows accident rates are lower with autonomous vehicles (which is what the industry is predicting) then insurance premiums will drop accordingly. It doesn't matter if there's the odd headline grabbing story about an autonomous car causing an accident/fatality. All the insurance companies look at are the raw numbers - like how many fatalities per million miles driven.
[doublepost=1521514521][/doublepost]

Each owner-driven vehicle is on the road two or three times on an average day. Autonomous vehicles, if the tech becomes mainstream, would probably do 3-6x the number of daily trips. So merely match human safety performance would be disastrous, given the vastly increased rate of driving.

I doubt @VulchR is talking about the number of accidents in total. The most important number is the rate of accidents or fatalities per miles driven.

 

[fairuz]

'Jaywalking' was actually invented by the automobile industry in the very early days of cars because the car drivers were getting frustrated with pedestrians getting in the way of their cars.
interesting read fyi:

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/th..._was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

Jaywalking when cars are present is unsafe when it's illegal, and making it legal slows everyone down. It's inefficient. There are plenty of crosswalks in areas where cars are frequent, so what's wrong with just using the nearest one? The article doesn't argue much, and the author seems to just have an ulterior motive that's explained in detail, to make driving a hassle.

 

[LogicalApex]

I find it terrifying that people think like you. Do you live in the states? If so, I hope you don't live anywhere near me.

I would say I am terrified to live in a world where we are romantically celebrating technology to a level we no longer care about the dark underbelly.

But I guess technology has desensitized us to humanity so we no longer care if people die? As long as we have new gadgets?

I am not anti driverless cars or technology. I prefer a slower and safer road for developing and testing this stuff...

These cars should be in real world cities when they have undergone serious testing and regulatory frameworks have been established including independent auditing to ensure the car companies aren’t hiding bugs and issues.

 

[predation]

Maybe the car did what it was supposed to do. Kill one person instead of trying to swerve and cause more deaths.
AI and Autonomous driving still has a long way to go.

Too many variable where a car has to try and "decide."

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Millions of drivers and 15 pedestrians run over. How many driverless cars are on the road - a 100? This collision makes driverless cars look like they might not be as safe.

They aren't as safe. Right now. They're brand new. Have a look at fatality rates when cars were new on the roads right on up through the 1960s into the 70s. The rates of death by fire alone are spectacular, much less accident impacts. Accident rates make automobiles look a hell of a lot less safe than horses and bicycles.

And yet, today, we have cars with crude but mature hardware everywhere, we allow numerous offenses of drinking and driving, and the most delicate slap on the wrist for murdering pedestrians and cyclists, and all proceed with certainty that 11,000 dead a year is an acceptible cost others should pay for our convenience. The same long-term prioritization of convenience and speed that made the danger of the first dumb automobiles worth the short-term costs to society, makes the risks of developing self-driving cars worth even more.

 

[KiwiAdventure]

So America bans drivers but keeps guns for school children to be shot. America has some crazy ideas on what is to be banned and what isn't.
I do not want big brother to know my every move.
America is not the land of the free it is the land of going to be controlled. Do you people not see this or are you all deaf and blind.

 

[Frisco]

Clearly the car saw the pedestrian and made the conscious decision to run over the pedestrian anyway. What questions remains are: 1) Did the car choose to run over the pedestrian to save time/fuel perhaps; 2) Was the car just trying for a "One hit wonder" moment; 3) Was the car having a bad Monday?

These questions will take sometime to be answered.

 

[Tech198]

Clearly the car saw the pedestrian and made the conscious decision to run over the pedestrian anyway. What questions remains are: 1) Did the car choose to run over the pedestrian to save time/fuel perhaps; 2) Was the car just trying for a "One hit wonder" moment; 3) Was the car having a bad Monday?

These questions will take sometime to be answered.

lol. the "car made a cautious decision? What about the human who is there to be aware. Don't tell me,he was taking a nap.

Sounds awfully about what detracted drivers think like.

"and it could potentially result in more oversight and regulation."

Yea, and more bugs to work out apparently