I believe in my children's lifetime manual driving will be deemed to be too dangerous to be routinely allowed.
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
I believe in my children's lifetime manual driving will be deemed to be too dangerous to be routinely allowed.
I'm sure down the road when the technology is better - things will be the opposite. Those that choose to drive cars that aren't auto-driven will be the ones with a higher premium.
Looking is part of the pedestrian’s safety algorithm. Failing to look is a failure of that algorithm.
Think of all the jobs that will be gone we don't need self driving vehicles. No jobs no money to purchase so more jobs go in other job areas.
It tells me the Uber software failed catastrophically in a common driving scenario.
I guess we will all become you tubers and app developers. On a serious note, universal basic income may be the direction.
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.
Yep. It was (and is) used to shame pedestrians into walking only where it's convenient for drivers to have them walk.
Let's wait to judge until there is more verified information. Given what little we do know, it certainly *seems* as if she appeared in the human and the sensors field of view too late for the car to stop, human driver or not. But the data will tell us more in the coming days / weeks.
It is certainly a tragedy and not to be taken lightly at all. But, accidents do happen. All the time.
It is certainly a tragedy and not to be taken lightly at all. But, accidents do happen. All the time.
The obvious question for investigators to address is: was the human safety driver alert and paying attention, and did he/she have time to override the autonomous control? I'm assuming that overriding is instantaneous (as with cruise control) upon the human touching either the brake or steering wheel. Also, did the pedestrian quickly appear in front of the car? Was she running? Think of the car-deer accidents where the deer almost instantaneously appears in front of the car. I'm guessing that there was likely some kind of dash cam set up in the car, or at least there should have been.
Last edited:
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.
I think we’re at the point where, competition isn’t the safest way forward. There should be some kind of fundamental basics that all adhere to and avoid fatal collisions. Then companies can build on top of that. Or at least requirements for number and type of sensors, reaction and prediction abilities and awareness. Like the requirements a car has already just expanded for autonomous.
Three possible scenarios come to mind for me:
- This was a situation a skilled human driver couldn’t have avoided.
- The extra time necessary to take control of an otherwise autonomous vehicle prevented a skilled human driver from avoiding the accident.
- The human safety driver had become complacent and wasn’t paying careful attention.
It doesn’t help that they work for a company who will happily scape goat them...
Last edited:
You're right, there are things that can kill you... because we've designed and legislated an environment in which, in many places, it is unsafe to be outside of a car -- and where death or serious injury is likely when trying to use a road in a place that was specifically designed for the use of cars, at the near-exclusion of everyone else.
You and I are in agreement on the status quo here. I, and a lot of others, happen to think that road design and laws should do more to accomodate all users (pedestrians, cyclists) instead of just the users of cars.
Your chances of being killed by a human driver are much much higher than by an autonomous vehicle, for the reasons you mentioned.
Kind of a dismal outlook.
[doublepost=1521488817][/doublepost]
Consider as well that autonomous vehicles are only being tested in the most sanitary of conditions.
There's still a very long way to go.
Very sad that someone died.
I have been driving for over 40 years, so the idea of autonomous vehicles seems strange to me. I keep thinking about all of the things that can go wrong. A couple of months ago, I was driving on the freeway and a guy came running into traffic waving his hands trying to stop cars. I had to swerve at freeway speed to miss him, and it took everything I had to not hit this guy and another car. Very scary. I just don’t think an autonomous vehicle would have been able to handle that situation.
However, people do a lot of stupid stuff when driving a car, so if all cars are converted to autonomous driving you might see a net reduction in accidents in fatalities. This won’t happen. There are lots of people that love to drive, and most of them are safe about it. There is no way you will take that privilege away.
A couple of weeks ago, I went on my first car rally with a friend. There were about 80 cars, and almost half drove like complete idiots. Most of the cars in the rally were performance oriented, and people just drove way to fast (some well over 100 mph) on roads not meant for those speeds. I kind of got pissed. I don’t care if a person wants to drive over a cliff in a blaze of glory, but I do care if they hit a family in a mini van going for a country drive and picnic.
My point is human involvement in driving can both reduce the risk of accidents and increase the risk.....depending on the person involved. I think it will take a lot more study to determine if autonomous driving improves safety.....certainly, we can’t mak a determination from a single accident.
I have been driving for over 40 years, so the idea of autonomous vehicles seems strange to me. I keep thinking about all of the things that can go wrong. A couple of months ago, I was driving on the freeway and a guy came running into traffic waving his hands trying to stop cars. I had to swerve at freeway speed to miss him, and it took everything I had to not hit this guy and another car. Very scary. I just don’t think an autonomous vehicle would have been able to handle that situation.
However, people do a lot of stupid stuff when driving a car, so if all cars are converted to autonomous driving you might see a net reduction in accidents in fatalities. This won’t happen. There are lots of people that love to drive, and most of them are safe about it. There is no way you will take that privilege away.
A couple of weeks ago, I went on my first car rally with a friend. There were about 80 cars, and almost half drove like complete idiots. Most of the cars in the rally were performance oriented, and people just drove way to fast (some well over 100 mph) on roads not meant for those speeds. I kind of got pissed. I don’t care if a person wants to drive over a cliff in a blaze of glory, but I do care if they hit a family in a mini van going for a country drive and picnic.
My point is human involvement in driving can both reduce the risk of accidents and increase the risk.....depending on the person involved. I think it will take a lot more study to determine if autonomous driving improves safety.....certainly, we can’t mak a determination from a single accident.
This is the big question. The victims family will have no shortage of good lawyers clamoring to help— not even because of the potential payout, but because of the opportunity to participate in an historic case. There’s probably going to be a move to settle out of court, but that sounds like a bad call— seems these companies would want to know the legal landscape...
This all sounds great to me. Motorists have this idea in their heads that it's their god-given right to have acres of city space devoted to storing their cars, and that every road has to be optimized for as much car traffic as possible to move as quickly as possible -- safety and environment be damned. And more and more cities are realizing it doesn't have to be that way. Not every city has to be a sea of cars with one or two people in each one.
Besides, every one of those buses you're complaining about moves enough people for several blocks' worth of car traffic, so one would think you'd be on board with this idea.
Or just learn to look both ways before crossing (I know we no nothing about this situation, but I would be willing to put down money that says she didn't properly look)
Correlation does not equal causation. States with legal pot are also much more progressive and worried about the environment, so there is more pedestrian traffic in general. Wearable devices are also increasing people's awareness of how little they move, which is getting them out to walk more.
Every single news article and most comments are blaming the car.
At this point, we do not know enough about what happened.
We do know that 40,000 will die this year. And even more will be injured by HUMAN DRIVERS.
At this point, we do not know enough about what happened.
We do know that 40,000 will die this year. And even more will be injured by HUMAN DRIVERS.
Cities throughout the world are "anti cars" because rates of car ownership are plummeting and people are finally realizing that in denser environments, you can move a hell of a lot more people more quickly, more efficiently using transit than you can if everyone is in an individual car. (Now, the suburbs are a whole other matter, but they were built for cars from the get-go, and... well just take a look at urban vs. suburban property values if you want a peek at what people prefer.)