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

[Nickwell24]

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

You're right, it doesn't make them "fair game", but in many states a pedestrian must be in the crosswalk to be given the right of way.

"Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk."

 

[Pupi]

I mean, no amount of AI will be able to stop people throwing themselves in front of cars. Should be investigated if the car had sufficient space to stop safely and only if it had, they can blame the autonomous driving. Otherwise it's a witch hunt.

 

[Glmnet1]

We'll have to wait for the details but there's only so much an autonomous car can do if someone comes out of nowhere in front of it. The response time might actually be faster than a driver's so it's possible that this situation couldn't have been prevented anyway.

Also why didn't the backup driver have time to react? Either he was distracted or it was impossible to react fast enough.

 

[lazyrighteye]

"Outside the crosswalk"

That tells me a lot right there, will wait for more details.

Wait - what does this tell you?

 

[ignatius345]

I read an article about how pedestrian deaths were on the rise all around the country, possibly because of the increase in wearable devices. Also noted was the factoid that pedestrian deaths were rising fastest in those states who have legalized pot. So I guess if you’re high on weed AND have your nose in your OLED screen while listening to Elton John with noise canceling headphones you maybe shouldn’t walk out into the middle of the street when a self driving car is bearing down on you.

Interesting how you go right to blaming pedestrians for this. How many times have you looked over at another driver and seen them dicking around with their phone? How many drivers do you think might be impaired? Being behind the wheel of several tons of fast-moving metal seems to me like it's putting others in a whole lot of risk, yeah?

 

[munpip214]

I enjoy driving in Europe because these sorts of things happen less and it makes driving more efficient. Vehicles have the right-of-way most of the time and pedestrians know to pay more attention, especially if not using crosswalk.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Why is Uber still allowed to test autonomous cars at all? That company has proven itself time and again to have extraordinarily incompetent self driving software.

Also, I virtually never use crosswalks. Number of times I've been struck by a car? None (outside of a high school parking lot where someone intentionally hit me... but that wasn't on a road.)

Edit: The answer to my question is they aren't allowed to test their autonomous cars in the state of California anymore, after it blatantly ignored a red light and nearly struck a pedestrian. That prompted Uber to shift to testing in Arizona instead.

I expect this is going to lead to most states prohibiting Uber from testing for awhile. They've got very few test miles so far, and they've already managed to kill someone.

 

[mmcneil]

Meanwhile (in the US only) 15 pedestrians will be killed today by negligent human drives. 15 more will die tomorrow, 15 died yesterday and 15 die everyday. Why does no one care about that?

Is that an accurate number? In any case the rate for autonomous vehicles will be much higher because of the small number. From a technical aspect, very disappointing

 

[NT1440]

And here we continue the charade that this technology is to make the world better, when in reality it’s a way to speed up shipping and have more ability to pit the working class against each other as millions across the globe will be unemployed as the technology deploys.

But hey, I’ll be able to get a burger ****-faced at 3am...so I welcome the increased strangle hold the oligarchs have over humanity.

 

[Ingot]

Somebody DIED. Show some respect and take your pithy comments somewhere else.

Someone always dies. I rather enjoyed the comments.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Meanwhile (in the US only) 15 pedestrians will be killed today by negligent human drives. 15 more will die tomorrow, 15 died yesterday and 15 die everyday. Why does no one care about that?

Everyone has long been acclimated to the idea of human drivers causing 50,000 fatalities a year. They will never tolerate even a single automation caused death, however. That's just the way it is, and your argument will never be persuasive no matter how logical it is.

These companies have to treat every incident like an utter catastrophe if they want this technology to find acceptance and adoption.

 

[kerpow69]

The Uber vehicle in question was in an autonomous driving mode with a human safety driver at the wheel

That's how well "human safety" performs.

About as well as autonomous cars it seems.

 

[RyanInBinary]

This brings up a topic that I find really interesting, and it's about how the "AI" for self driving cars works. In a scenario where the car cannot avoid hitting a pedestrian, or crashing into a wall (or maybe even another vehicle), which does the car choose? Does it save the driver? Or does it save the pedestrian? What if the car has multiple passengers and it's a single person on the sidewalk? Or if the sidewalk has quite a few people on it and the car only has the driver? Somewhere, someone has to account for these scenarios.

 

[esk]

I would be so mad if I died because of a self driving car.

 

[ignatius345]

You're right, it doesn't make them "fair game", but in many states a pedestrian must be in the crosswalk to be given the right of way.

"Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk."

Yep. Like I said, it's a system geared toward the convenience of drivers, to the exclusion of all other road users. So yeah, you're right, and I stand corrected! It really is "open season" on pedestrians in Arizona if there doesn't happen to be a crosswalk where they need to go. Sad for anybody too poor or infirm to drive, I guess, but they get what they deserve if they walk outside those lines!

 

[TallManNY]

We'll have to wait for the details but there's only so much an autonomous car can do if someone comes out of nowhere in front of it. The response time might actually be faster than a driver's so it's possible that this situation couldn't have been prevented anyway.

Also why didn't the backup driver have time to react? Either he was distracted or it was impossible to react fast enough.

In theory the backup driver should not be able to react as fast as the car. As discussed above, there should be tons of data, including even camera footage of the final seconds. Though with Uber involved you have to be somewhat concerned about them doctoring the data before releasing it to the cops. Such a terrible company.

 

[mmcneil]

Why is Uber still allowed to test autonomous cars at all? That company has proven itself time and again to have extraordinarily incompetent self driving software.

Uber would not be my first choice for technical innovation of this level of complexity under any circumstances. Haven’t seen much on the level of reliability of any of the efforts except when it is a disaster e.g. Tesla, Uber. Do you have some refs?

 

[VulchR]

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.

 

[magicschoolbus]

No car should be operating on the roadways without a human overseeing it. Period.

 

[TwoBytes]

self-driving cars still have better safety stats than the history of humans.

 

[rictus007]

In my city a driver killed two today .... so I guess that autonomous cars are still safer. But the goal should be 0 deaths... is sad when things like this happen.

 

[RecentlyConverted]

Everyone has long been acclimated to the idea of human drivers causing 50,000 fatalities a year. They will never tolerate even a single automation caused death, however. That's just the way it is, and your argument will never be persuasive no matter how logical it is.

These companies have to treat every incident like an utter catastrophe if they want this technology to find acceptance and adoption.

But the car itself didn´t have an easy introduction - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

I think you are also assuming that automation will lead to safer cars, that has yet to be proved.
[doublepost=1521481474][/doublepost]

self-driving cars still have better safety stats than the history of humans.

Can you prove that? Accidents per journey or accidents per mile?

 

[ignatius345]

I mean, no amount of AI will be able to stop people throwing themselves in front of cars. Should be investigated if the car had sufficient space to stop safely and only if it had, they can blame the autonomous driving. Otherwise it's a witch hunt.

So... you're saying this was suicide? Intersting take!

 

[ericgtr12]

Meanwhile (in the US only) 15 pedestrians will be killed today by negligent human drives. 15 more will die tomorrow, 15 died yesterday and 15 die everyday. Why does no one care about that?

There are roughly 300 million cars registered in the US and maybe 100 of the are driverless vehicles, so your conclusion that the rates of pedestrian deaths are the same for both is illogical and absurd. That’s why no one cares.

Read that first post and thought there was no way I would make it to the end of the thread without this being pointed out. I was right.

 

[fairuz]

Meanwhile (in the US only) 15 pedestrians will be killed today by negligent human drives. 15 more will die tomorrow, 15 died yesterday and 15 die everyday. Why does no one care about that?

Probably not the driver's fault (i.e. not reasonably preventable) most of the time. People need to stop jaywalking.
Also, there are way fewer autonomous vehicles on the road. I don't know the stats, but maybe the kill ratio is higher. But of course they'll be safer in the long run.