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
Becuase that's someone being an idiot, not a company testing out things with real-world consequences, we hold these autonomous vehicles to a higher standard
I guess i just don't understand why we need this type of thing. I'm all for adding safety features to autos, but this seems unnecessary. We should be more focused on security over autonomous autos. It is far to easy these days to compromise a system. And unless its a whole new type of OS that runs the auto, its just a matter of time before its compromised and this type of thing happens more and more. Its already been proven that you can access a autos computer and take control of it. Come on people, lets focus a little.
He didn't said that.
When you engage to cross a street outsite the crosswalk, you will accept the risks and what might happen.
That is crazy, but for some reason, cities through out the world are anti cars. Many of the politicians are anti cars. Well anti cars for us, they get driven in their chauferur driven cars with police escorts. We are expected to make do with public transport or a road system that is anti driver.
Review the definition of sarcasm, then take a second look at my post
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sarcasm
When I read the headline, I thought to myself that I know exactly where it was before looking it up. I live 1.5 miles from the incident so I know it well. People will run across the street frequently without looking and I've had to stop in the middle of the road for people to cross. I see the Uber SUV's at all hours of the day/night and have never thought they posed any kind of problem. They drive the speed limit when everyone else speeds, use turn signals and are model drivers. I'm not saying they're perfect, but I'm better the woman wasn't looking where she was going.
Excellent point. If you look at the positioning of cross-walks, they are laid out for the benefit of drivers, not pedestrians. It's annoying as h*** - a few yards does not matter if you are in an enclosed, climate controlled box on wheels like a car. It does matter if you're walking in the pouring rain or other forms of inclement weather, trying to keep tabs on kids or pets, or if you are partially disabled. Perhaps someday, when the fuel runs out, the pedestrians will have the last laugh.
The overall traffic fatality rate is 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles driven. I haven't seen an overall estimate of total autonomous vehicle miles driven, but it's well below 100 million (Waymo (Alphabet) has claimed 4 million and Uber 2 million). That said, accidents are inevitable with the introduction of any new driving technology, and one fatal accident wouldn't stop this program. I think that the bigger question here is why the human driver didn't stop the car. He or she should be ready to step in if the car is about to hit someone. It's possible that this pedestrian darted into traffic and no human or self-driving car is going to prevent an accident under those circumstances.
You can't just go wandering in streets, there are things that can kill you...
Edit: also, I never said it was her fault, I said we need to wait until all the info in known.
Again, some lack candor, which you apparently defined the definition of it. In a sense, any Snark, joking or mockery of a situation as this, doesn’t need to exhibit that type of humor when involves someone else’s life over an accident. Since you’re condoning that response is appropriate in response to another members post, your contribution actually adds to the problem, that’s your own prerogative.
Well it could be her fault. We won't know until we get all the details.
Let's say a driver is going at a safe speed and someone suddenly appears in front of the car, not leaving enough time for the driver to react, and is killed. Wouldn't it make sense that laws would protect that driver from any consequences since he did nothing wrong? He already has to live with the trauma of having killed someone.
The same idea applies to autonomous cars. There are situations they will not be able to foresee but I'm sure they'll do a much better job than us.
This worries me. It implies that society will have to participate in some form in reference to the progession of autonomous systems. Meaning, humans may actually have to “stay between the lines” for certain things to work as planned. A person j-walking interrupts a self-driving car.
The technology (braking system/object detection) may not be up to par yet as well. Which gives a little bit of hope. Giving the implication that the technology has to literally be flawless and account for humans doing something unexpected. We are doomed.
The technology (braking system/object detection) may not be up to par yet as well. Which gives a little bit of hope. Giving the implication that the technology has to literally be flawless and account for humans doing something unexpected. We are doomed.
Clearly your interpretation of sarcasm is not shared by others in this thread and not everyone shares the same meaning as you intended it. Nor was your sarcasm appropriate regarding this situation . But I wouldn’t expect you otherwise to understand that given your snide response.
It sucks that this happened. That said I think this could end up being huge. As far as I know, AV's don't rely on GPS to tell them whether or not a crosswalk is/isn't present but instead their on-board sensors should have been alerted that an object was moving into the "line of fire." Did the person dart out and leave no time for the AV and safety rider to respond? Did the AV have time to respond but malfunction in some way? Did the on-board sensors not even "see" the pedestrian? If it is found that the programming was faulty could UBER still be, at least partially, on the hook even though the person was outside the crosswalk? Really interested how this all unfolds since it opens up so many questions regarding liability, negligence, fault, etc...
Meanwhile in the USA, .0001% of the vehicle on the roads are self driving.
See the difference?
Companies like Volvo have come out and said their cars will be on them. Pretty easy problem to solve, as car companies will clearly be held responsible in these types of situations.
These forums were great before the masses got on the Internet. Now I marvel almost daily at the vileness of certain humans.
Those defending the autonomous vehicle's performance by arguing that this woman crossed outside the crosswalk would do well to realize all humans make errors, including errors of judgment. Even if this woman was contributorily negligent, it's very possible the vehicle should have seen her and reacted. It's also possible that the reaction would have been impossible (e.g., if she stepped right in front of it without warning) or that the vehicle reacted properly because an alternative reaction would itself have been dangerous (e.g., the car cannot brake and a swerve would have brought it in contact with another pedestrian or vehicle). In short, there are several possibilities here, but none of them should require perfection on the part of pedestrians.
The issue here is that some companies and some governments will put profits before people.
