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

[tooloud10]

Not sure why people are having a go at the person who died for not using the crosswalk, you people should come to the UK where the majority of the time people cross a road where and when they can, that wasn't and certainly shouldn't have been the cause of the accident.

It boggles the mind that people are disassociating the women's choice to step into live traffic with the fact that she was struck by a vehicle and died. Yes, it really does matter that she chose not to cross the street at a controlled intersection.

If these autonomous vehicles can't deal with that properly they will never be allowed.

But that's the thing--we've got millions of miles of data proving that it's trivially easy for autonomous cars to deal with this properly, so it kind of indicates that this was a different kind of situation. Like maybe, she stepped in front of a car that didn't have enough room to stop, regardless of its autonomy hardware.

Like everyone else, I'm guessing here, but I'll bet the facts end up showing that the vehicle being autonomously driven was irrelevant to the circumstances of the accident.

 

[Ursadorable]

Crosswalks were invented for the convenience of car drivers. A person being outside one doesn't make them "fair game" to be killed.

That's why people crossing outside of crosswalks are considered jaywalking, and subject to fines.

 

[johngordon]

Very sad. I have to wonder why the human behind the wheel failed to take over in this situation though. That's the point of testing with a human behind the wheel isn't it?

If someone steps out in the road, in the dark, in front of a car, what would you have the human behind the wheel do?

 

[tooloud10]

I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person posting here who hasn't crossed outside of a crosswalk a few times in their lives.

It isn't about not using the crosswalk so much as it's not using the crosswalk and being careless about checking for traffic. I'm 100% positive that nobody here has so carelessly crossed a street that they got struck by a car and died.

 

[jerryk]

Without judging this accident...

Machine watching human and waiting to step in when human errs -- good idea. (Machines never get bored.)
Human watching machine and waiting to step in when machine errs -- bad idea. (Humans have a poor attention span.)

You point is well made. There was a person at the wheel (and brakes) of this vehicle. They did not stop (we do not know if they actually took command and overrode the automation). But, for these trials of the system. People want a person in charge still.
[doublepost=1521557498][/doublepost]

I believe on Tesla relies completely on optical conditions and cameras while all other autonomous vehicles use LIDAR primarily. But even Tesla's many cameras beat our only 2 eyes in the front of our head.

Tesla has optical systems on all sides and adds radar in front. And maybe behind. There are two major versions of the Tesla sensor array, AP1 and AP2, so it is important to separate them.

 

[tooloud10]

Even simple things like weird construction zone setups... perhaps temporary one-ways where you have to yield the way, or a stalled car that you know isn't about to move, or getting out of the way for some situation.... or recognizing ice on a hill that requires a bit of extra momentum. Or figuring out where to park even in certain places (like a cottage).

I think they're already handling these things better than most people realize. Here's a Model S handling a construction zone on its own, and it's not even an autonomous car.

https://electrek.co/2018/03/19/tesla-autopilot-handle-construction-zone-new-update/
[doublepost=1521558101][/doublepost]

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.

Of course there's a system to avoid collisions on these cars. I don't understand why everyone assumes the vehicle just plowed right through the pedestrian, rather than assuming that the pedestrian appeared in the roadway too suddenly for the vehicle to stop in time.

Collision avoidance is one of the most basic tenets of autonomous driving; were it not present, we'd have heard about hundreds of these accidents by now.
[doublepost=1521558609][/doublepost]

My point is simply that if we have to kill countless people to “train” the computers and these people are innocent members of the public whom in no way opted into this training then that is an unacceptable way to develop this technology.

You're just making up stories now. Nobody has been killed to 'train' a computer. A single instance of a woman stepping directly into the path of an autonomous car isn't an example of killing 'countless people' to make the computers better.

 

[wigby]

Very unfortunate. Self-driving cars have such a huge promise, so hopefully this doesn't cause a huge backlash against them. Unfortunately accidents happen and self-driving is no different than human driven. But someone lost their life, so this incident needs to be taken seriously.

This is one of the best possible scenarios. Autonomous vehicles can only improve and get safer by making mistakes and being trained to avoid them. It could've been much worse than one person moving in front of the car.

You point is well made. There was a person at the wheel (and brakes) of this vehicle. They did not stop (we do not know if they actually took command and overrode the automation). But, for these trials of the system. People want a person in charge still.
[doublepost=1521557498][/doublepost]

Tesla has optical systems on all sides and adds radar in front. And maybe behind. There are two major versions of the Tesla sensor array, AP1 and AP2, so it is important to separate them.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a deposit on a Model 3 so I guess I need to study up ;-)

 

[0947347]

Not appropriate at all. We don’t have enough details to even make any assumption about the accident regardless if the victim was outside the crosswalk and they “Don’t” deserve to die based off your rationale.

I think he/she was sarcastic
I know, it is not a suitable time to make jokes

 

[wigby]

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 agree with you on principle but you're comparing apples to oranges. Experimenting on humans who we already know will be adversely affected is different than testing autonomous cars on the roads. For all we know, this death could be the last one we ever see involving an autonomous car. Also, autonomous vehicles have already driven millions of miles with no incidents. There are no human drivers in existence that could match that record. I can respect your philosophical argument but that doesn't give you the right to ignore both strong anecdotal and statistical arguments.

 

[jerryk]

This is one of the best possible scenarios. Autonomous vehicles can only improve and get safer by making mistakes and being trained to avoid them. It could've been much worse than one person moving in front of the car.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a deposit on a Model 3 so I guess I need to study up ;-)

I had a deposit for a M3, but got tired of waiting so just ordered a Model X. As a result, I have been paying attention to the Tesla trivia. The best latest news is they replaced the Media Management Unit that drives the screen display, streaming, etc with one based on a 64 bit process used in the Model 3. Previously they had been using a 2013 32 bit processor. The change is supposed to dramatically speed up screen redraw and refresh.

 

[suns93]

I'm familiar with the area. Popular spot for jaywalking given the median literally has two paths on it. I'm in no position to assign blame but perhaps the city of Tempe needs to rethink its road design.

 

[albebaubles]

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.

way off. I know people who have unfortunately killed people --

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.

Respectfully disagree -- this happens ALL the time. A friend's in law recently ran over two seniors in the crosswalk -- wasn't cited at all.

 

[_Refurbished_]

Perhaps these driverless cars should be equipped with "extra cushioned bumpers" all the way around the car, so as to soften an impact against other vehicles or pedestrians if they encounter collisions.

I see plenty of drivers that should be taped with bubble wrap so they can’t drive.

Every. Single. Day.

 

[kdarling]

I'm familiar with the area. Popular spot for jaywalking given the median literally has two paths on it. I'm in no position to assign blame but perhaps the city of Tempe needs to rethink its road design.

Or where the walkways are. Local newspaper says that "It can be a popular area for pedestrians, especially concertgoers, joggers, and lake visitors. Mid-street crossing is common there, and a walkway in the median between the two one-way roads across the two bridges probably encourages the practice."

The paper also notes that the pedestrian was walking her bicycle across the road.

We've seen autonomous accidents before where the car assumed that since it had the right-of-way, the other vehicle would stop. Perhaps this one thought the pedestrian would likewise stop.

Well, all guessing on our part until more info comes out. Apparently there's surveillance video from various angles.

 

[chublet]

That's why people crossing outside of crosswalks are considered jaywalking, and subject to fines.

It may be like that in the US but don't think the whole world is like that, here in the UK it is perfectly acceptable to cross anywhere you wish, however, as a driver of over 30 years and a pedestrian of over 50 life is a lot easier if the pedestrians look for cars before blindly stepping out.

I think of it like this - if you look and see a car is coming then you don't step out, if you don't bother looking you may get away with it a thousand times but eventually your luck will run out, it is one of the few ways natural selection can weed out the stupid in society these days as we seem determined to keep them alive despite themselves.

I think it is fair to assume that despite all the variables that we know nothing about in this case, it is fair to assume that if the person hadn't walked out in front of a moving car then there wouldn't have been a problem. The fact the car or driver were unable to take effective evasive action is one thing, but if the person hadn't been in the road when they shouldn't have been it wouldn't have happened.

 

[_Refurbished_]

If autonomous cars rely on visible light to see obstructions then there are going to be a lot more accidents and deaths going forward. I was t-boned in an intersection in broad daylight due to light blinding the other driver, camera lenses are far easier to blind.

Camera lenses designed for self-driving cars are built into a system that will prevent the type of accident you experienced.

 

[Paul Simon]

I see your point. This pedestrian deserved to die.

I didn't read it that way. I thought he was referring to the crosswalk lines and proximity of people to it, not in it, may have thrown the software off and exposed a critical flaw in its logic.

 

[Altis]

I think they're already handling these things better than most people realize. Here's a Model S handling a construction zone on its own, and it's not even an autonomous car.

https://electrek.co/2018/03/19/tesla-autopilot-handle-construction-zone-new-update/

That's quite possibly the simplest construction zone I've ever seen -- clear road, good weather, no stops, full of guiding pylons.

When the road is torn up, has sections of shared single lane for both directions, cautions for extremely large bumps/keys, temporary stops, having to drive half-way into the ditch, etc etc... They have to be able to "see" it all.

Also snow is a real issue up here. Even now, none of these cars can deal well with a snow storm because they simply can't "see" the world well. Cottage country with tiny dirt lanes splitting out all over would also be difficult to implement... even having it figure out where it's supposed to park.

The collision avoidance tech is great to have on any non-autonomous car, and an element of 'autopilot' (like in Tesla) makes a great deal of sense. But to have 100% fully autonomous means it has to be able to deal with all situations and conditions, which is monumentally more difficult. Better to have a driver take over in those relatively rare cases.

 

[jerryk]

I'm familiar with the area. Popular spot for jaywalking given the median literally has two paths on it. I'm in no position to assign blame but perhaps the city of Tempe needs to rethink its road design.

Wow. I agree that that design encourage people to jaywalk. Poor planning not have controlled crosswalks at the ends of the paths.

I was also wondering if there was a homeless population that frequents the area. The lady seem to have had bags of cans and other items attached to her bike.

 

[_Refurbished_]

It boggles the mind that people are disassociating the women's choice to step into live traffic with the fact that she was struck by a vehicle and died. Yes, it really does matter that she chose not to cross the street at a controlled intersection.



But that's the thing--we've got millions of miles of data proving that it's trivially easy for autonomous cars to deal with this properly, so it kind of indicates that this was a different kind of situation. Like maybe, she stepped in front of a car that didn't have enough room to stop, regardless of its autonomy hardware.

Like everyone else, I'm guessing here, but I'll bet the facts end up showing that the vehicle being autonomously driven was irrelevant to the circumstances of the accident.

Logic is not allowed on the internet.
[doublepost=1521564169][/doublepost]

I'm familiar with the area. Popular spot for jaywalking given the median literally has two paths on it. I'm in no position to assign blame but perhaps the city of Tempe needs to rethink its road design.

Last week I was at a stoplight and saw two pedestrians, at night, attempting to cross a two lane 45 mph road. They were in the crosswalk, but crossing when opposing traffic had a green light (the do not cross sign was illuminated). They were leisurely walking to the center median as a pickup truck was heading towards them at about 60 mph. Neither parties recognized the situation. The two pedestrians never knew they were about a foot away from certain death and the pickup driver either didn't see them (unlikely, empty road) or was distracted in his / her vehicle (much more likely).

Nobody in this situation knew that this happened, but my heart jumped out of my body as I watched, powerless, from my vehicle. I'm making an assumption here, but if the pickup truck had been self-driving, I wouldn't be writing this story right now. The self-driving truck would have seen the pedestrians, slowed down, and let them cross the street. Unfortunately, the world we DO live in has crazy / drunk / distracted / poor drivers and pedestrians flooding our roads in every town across the country. We can't prevent all accidents, but we can do our best to eliminate as many of them as we can. Autonomous cars are our future and they will save lives.

 

[VulchR]

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.

But there would be fewer vehicles and probably fewer vehicle-hours in total on the road. Why own a car if you can get one by using an app on your mobile phone?

 

[4jasontv]

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

No. Colorado.

 

[ignatius345]

I am, until flu season. Or the guy with five bags starts changing clothes. Or someone asks me about my relationship with Jesus. Or someone wants to share their passion for their music.

Or the cyclists who want to be seen as cars when it serves them, but pedestrians when that’s better. Or when it is raining and the bike takes up the space of five people and so some people can’t get on because there are so many bikes. Or when it does get crowded and someone gets mad because people touched his bike. Or when they want to get their bike off the bus before everyone else get off.

I can’t change some people, but I can avoid them.

Believe me, I'm well versed in the frustrations of mass transit, and the "bringing a bike on the subway" thing drives me NUTS. Those people can seriously F themselves as far as I'm concerned. Same with people who don't know what earbuds are and want to listen out loud.

But by and large, I find that 99% of people (even here in NYC) are as considerate and curteous as they can be -- even when super super packed into a tiny space. My theory is you kind of have to be polite in these kinds of situations. In fact, I find people in person a whole lot more civil than the way people behave once they get behind the wheel of a vehicle, where everyone gets really aggressive and insane. Something about being kind of faceless behind the wheel lets people kind of unleash their worst instincts.

And regarding flu season, I'm on the subway multiple times a day and honestly I don't think it's as bad as one would think. I think I got sick like once this season? Maybe it's some kind of workout for the immune system, who knows.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

No. Colorado.

Ok, this was arizona. Arizona law is that the pedestrian has to give way to cars outside the crosswalk.

All that aside one of the links stated she was hit immediately and was outside the crosswalk. Sounds like she stepped out in front of a car.

Just for knowledge here in mexico pedestrians beware. If you are hit outside a crosswalk its your fault, hit and run is not illegal so by far most will not stop with any accident.
[doublepost=1521570084][/doublepost]

It may be like that in the US but don't think the whole world is like that,

The accident happened in az.

In mexico its pedestrians beware. Outside a crosswalk its your fault and hit and run is not illegal.

 

[orev]

This is one of the best possible scenarios. Autonomous vehicles can only improve and get safer by making mistakes and being trained to avoid them. It could've been much worse than one person moving in front of the car.

Your comment is ABSURD. A person DYING is not "one of the best possible scenarios". It's a completely ridiculous thing to say. The best scenario would be for the car to stop/avoid the person. Training can be done with mannequins or other things that don't DIE when the test fails.

I really don't know what is wrong with you people.