Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian (gizmodo.com) 953
Joe_Dragon writes: Last night a woman was struck by an autonomous Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. She later died of her injuries in the hospital. The deadly collision -- reported by ABC15 and later confirmed to Gizmodo by Uber and Tempe police -- took place around 10PM at the intersection Mill Avenue and Curry Road. Autonomous vehicle developers often test drive at night, during storms, and other challenging conditions to help their vehicles learn to navigate in a variety of environments.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel. A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman's 'next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.' The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said. Update: Uber says it is suspending self-driving car tests in all North American cities after a fatal accident.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel. A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman's 'next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.' The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said. Update: Uber says it is suspending self-driving car tests in all North American cities after a fatal accident.
More to come (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no data to support your statement. Self driving cars haven't even started driving for real yet and Musk's marketing tweets don't count as a scientific study. Testing is not the same as real driving. At this time WHEN CONDITIONS GET BAD WE DON'T LET THE AI DRIVE. Let that sink in. If AI is so much better it should be able to outperform the worse the conditions get, not the other way around.
Your statement is like saying you are a great basketball player but only during controlled ideal practice and you have never played a real game.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, in most cases now they're orders of magnitude safer than the distracted meatbag texting away on their iPhone. Or the late-night drunk trying to make it home from the bar without getting caught.
I'd love to understand your basis for saying that since they're not in widespread enough use to have generated any sort of meaningful statistics. And to OP's point, this may well have been one of the first situations where someone threw an autonomous vehicle a serious curveball. If so, that's at least an order of magnitude in the wrong direction.
Re:More to come (Score:4, Informative)
It's not clear which part you think was "wrong." Your self-serving article brags of ~2 million real-world miles a year -- that could be done by a fleet of less than 30 cars running 8 hours a day at an average of 25 MPH. To put that in even more perspective, total miles driven in the U.S. is over 3 trillion a year [energy.gov]. And in any event, that says nothing in particular about the distribution of those miles, times of day, environmental conditions, etc., which was OP's point.
Re: More to come (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More to come (Score:5, Informative)
You have a very low opinion of your driving ability.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience, most people overestimate their driving ability by a factor of at least two. Very few humans drive when well rested, well fed and zero distractions and have perfect attention span.
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
> You have a very low opinion of your driving ability.
Nope, but I have a very low opinion of the driving ability of many people I see on the roads every time I drive somewhere. Self driving cars are probably already better than the lower 30% of licensed drivers out there and will only get better whereas that 30% will get worse as they age and let their bad habits get worse.
Re:More to come (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times a year does your computer freeze and need to be power-cycled, versus your brain doing the same. I hope they're using three redundant computers with separately written software, sort of like fly-by-wire aircraft do. The computers "vote" -- if one is out of whack from the other two, it's taken out of the loop.
Even more important in cars since the separation distance between them and immovable objects tends to be measured in feet versus hundreds to thousands of feet.
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I personally power-cycle my brain every day or it starts to malfunction. My computer, not even every month.
Re:More to come (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Come on, who would have no hit her? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're 50 years out from a working self-driving car.
Thank you Mr Luddite. It's a shame that we currently live in a perfectly safe world where no pedestrians ever git hit and these darn self-driving cars come along and...
Wait, what? Drivers hit pedestrians all the time? Especially so when they cross in the middle of the street at night in the rain?
Remember, there WAS a human sitting behind the wheel. The fact that he didn't see here / could not react in time means she was (A) really hard to see, and (b) probably came in front of the car very suddenly.
We are not 50 years from self-driving cars. We are *0* years from self-driving cars. They are being deployed today and the ramp-up will only continue, because even if they make mistakes it's still FEWER mistakes than people will make, on average.
a driver sitting ready to take over is not the sam (Score:4, Insightful)
a driver sitting ready to take over is not the same as one driving in manual mode
Why not? (Score:3)
a driver sitting ready to take over is not the same as one driving in manual mode
There are plenty of times drivers behind the wheel remove hands from controls to reach for something, or simply get sleepy, or are singing along to a song not paying attention... or maybe reactions are slowed because they are tired, or have had a bit to drink.
The truth is a human driver out at 10pm at night in an empty downtown would not expect anyone either, and would almost certainly have hit the same women crossing in front
Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a huge difference between being killed or injured by a human driver and being killed or injured by a self-driving mechanism. In the first case, the human driver is either to be blamed or not. In the second case, you or your next of kin have to deal with a large corporation that is guaranteed to have top lawyers, and they will be constantly shifting the blame.
Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We're 50 years out from a working self-driving car.
Thank you Mr Luddite. It's a shame that we currently live in a perfectly safe world where no pedestrians ever git hit and these darn self-driving cars come along and...
Wait, what? Drivers hit pedestrians all the time? Especially so when they cross in the middle of the street at night in the rain?
Remember, there WAS a human sitting behind the wheel. The fact that he didn't see here / could not react in time means she was (A) really hard to see, and (b) probably came in front of the car very suddenly.
Or (c) probably avoided by an average driver, but the driver wasn't paying attention because the AI was in charge.
We are not 50 years from self-driving cars. We are *0* years from self-driving cars. They are being deployed today and the ramp-up will only continue, because even if they make mistakes it's still FEWER mistakes than people will make, on average.
Really? Do you have evidence for this?
Do you have evidence that self-driving cars have lower accident rates when they drive under the same conditions?
Given that human drivers are required in many scenarios, do you have evidence on how this breaks down, or what happens to total accident rates when the AI drives for 90% or the time and the human for 10%?
Do self-driving cars mean people suddenly mu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope hypemaster... If this was not an autonomous vehicle, the driver would be in prison already.. In case you didn't read the details, the Uber Testing program has been halted.
People don't go to prison for accidentally hitting a pedestrian.
The autonomous car might not even be at fault for the incident. Uber obviously suspended their testing program - Just in Case - to mitigate the possibility of further damages being caused while this case is investigated, And they need to understand What happened,
Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes they do, all the time. It's called involuntary manslaughter if the pedestrian dies and it's truly an accident.
No.... Manslaughter requires a criminal act with the accused having a demonstrable criminal intent to prove the guilt -- such as DUI, recklessness, or criminal negligence such as driving distracted or texting instead of being attentive to the road. If a pedestrian dies, and it's truly an accident: in case of no wrongdoing by the driver, then the occurrence is by definition an unfortunate incident, and not a crime.
Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Questionable whether the human was REALLY at the ready. They may have had surveillance fatigue, for example, because the autonomous vehicle is usually safe, and the speed with which a pedestrian made an illegal entry into the roadway did not allow enough reaction time for the human.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Weather was pretty clear in Tempe last night, no wind, dust or rain to speak of.
That particular intersection is poorly lit and has a concert venue on one corner, an office building on another and then a very dark desert park on the other two.
The fact that the human was not able to redirect the car either seems to indicate that they were caught by surprise as well
Re:More to come (Score:5, Informative)
the intersection of Mill ave and curry Rd in Tempe is not known to be commonly obscured by rain, snow, and at 10pm, not sunlight either.
It is, however, a broad intersection, and the speed limit is either 40 or 50 MPH for both roads.
It is also the site of a popular music venue, and a hip hop concert was booked then. Probably good attendance. They do serve alcoholic beverages and simple food.
We don't know much, but I would expect this woman didn't use good judgement crossing this intersection, which requires a pedestrian to cross 6 lanes and bike lanes in every direction. It's not easy in the best of conditions, and if, God forbid, this woman was crossing without a walk sign, she was unwise. Hopefully the black boxes involved will share some info.
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More to come (Score:4, Insightful)
If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.
That would be an irrational "looking" or undertaking on our part, based on an illusion that the driver of the car somehow has control over the laws of physics. If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away...... it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.
Re:More to come (Score:5, Insightful)
If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.
No. If a human was driving the car, it wouldn't have hit the news.
Re:More to come (Score:4, Informative)
One, it's not a lense, it's a lens.
Two, it changes shape to focus.
The first of many incremental tests . . . (Score:4, Informative)
This will not be a legal test (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't the case you're looking for. There was a driver behind the wheel, and he (or she) was responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
I haven't heard of any good cases regarding autonomous mining trucks like CAT 794f, but those might come first.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally chriminal charges are made to the company that installed the machine, the company that made the machine and the building owner.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To totally free yourself from liability you would have to rent the vehicle.
"The accident occurred when you were five miles past the mandatory 2000 mile maintenance that you had scheduled for the next day." Guess who will be liable. Renting won't save you.
Okay Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Let's all jump to conclusions. Don't disappoint me now. We should be at the root cause with all the information within the next 5 minutes.
Re:Okay Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Let's all jump to conclusions.
I think AI is racist. If it was another AI crossing the road, it would have slowed down for it. This wasn't accident but an expression of AI-supremacists views by the driving AI.
Re:Okay Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, I made up my mind before I got to the end of the headline, thankyouverymuch!
More or fewer pedestrian deaths per mile? (Score:5, Insightful)
Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, just better than people.
If self-driving cars rack up fewer pedestrian deaths per mile driven than human drivers, that's the critical metric.
--PM
Re: (Score:3)
So what is the process for identifying and fixing the issue that caused this death? and how do you QA test that fix?
In general, human drivers have a "main algorithm" when driving, but can easily switch to a "person in front of my car" subroutine. Arguably, in a high-pedestrian area, a human will load the "person in front of my car" subroutine into memory for quick access, anticipating unexpected humans.
Human beings know that the assumption other humans will follow pedestrian laws is dumb. AI/self-driving ca
Rain can be nuts in Arizona (Score:2)
The woman was outside cross walks, so Uber will probably be in the right. Although IIRC you never have the right of way
Missing Details (Score:3)
The good thing about this being an autonomous vehicle is that there are likely cameras and sensors all around the vehicle that will be able to tell investigators exactly what happened.
And while jaywalking is certainly not a capital offense, it's hard to argue that this would have happened if she'd been in a recognizable crosswalk with as many miles and hours as have been racked up by self-driving vehicles already.
Re: (Score:3)
Did she dart out between two cars right in front of the moving vehicle?
No but close enough:
Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."
After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Best thing about self driving cars is memory (Score:3)
While it's hard to say what happened yet, what I can say with confidence is that we should be able to figure out what happened far more easily than if any non-self driving car had hit her...
Why? Because of the vast amount of sensor data collected by the car every second. We should be able to see exactly when she left the sidewalk, exactly where she went in the road, and exactly what led to the car not "seeing" her.
Otherwise you'd MAYBE have some dash-cam footage and some super poor traffic camera footage.
They've tasted blood! (Score:5, Funny)
*sarcasm* Thanks a LOT Uber (Score:3)
Despite the pedestrian jaywalking, Uber's had a LONG history of problems with their self-driving program. The worst google's self-driving program has gotten itself into is having cars crash into it because of confusion between right of way. Meanwhile Uber's managed to rollover one of their cars in a collision. At this point, I think Uber's rushing to have a successful IPO, Google is taking the time to do it right. So no thanks to Uber for giving self-driving cars a bad name...
Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian (Score:5, Informative)
The original reporting on ABC15 Self-driving Uber car hits, kills pedestrian in Tempe [abc15.com] actually includes a video that has the caption "Self-driving vehicle hits BICYCLIST". The video also shows a crumpled-up bicycle.
Unfortunately, ABC15's text article says "a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck" and that is what the rest of the media is regurgitating as their own reporting.
Re:Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Verge says: "Early reports suggested that she may have been a bicyclist, but that was not the case."
The road has a hard shoulder, and cycle lane at the nearby intersection.
It sounds like the woman was jaywalking at night, pushing a loaded bike across a major road with no lights next to a park, instead of crossing at the nearby traffic light intersection. Does not make much sense. I'd wait for more info before blaming Uber on this one.
Re:Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian (Score:4, Informative)
A cyclist ceases being a cyclist when they are pushing their bike. Which is what was being done according to the police chief:
Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."
After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway."
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]
250 posts, in the total absence of details (Score:3)
So Phoenix, as the Uber test city, has registered its first fatality. With no information made public other than it involved a jaywalking pedestrian, we have 250 posts predicting the entire future of the automated car industry. And illegal aliens, for some reason.
I can't wait to see what the all-wise multitude will say once we actually know what happened.
Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no: facts (Score:5, Informative)
She was hit here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3... [google.com]
I know this because I looked at
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
and I know the location intimately. The speed limit here is 40. The road, Mill Avenue, going northbound is two lanes plus it is adding turn lanes to go west and east. There is a bike lane. The road has just gone over a bridge (man-made lake) and under a freeway bridge (202) -- there are no off- or on-ramps at this location. There is a parking lot under the bridge for the concert venue (SW corner: visible in the Reuter's image) plus there's a public park/beach on the north side of the lake.
As
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
states, there was no rain.
http://alert.fcd.maricopa.gov/... [maricopa.gov]
I haven't seen the crumpled bicycle photo, but we JUST started a bunch of "share bike" schemes in the Phoenix metro area (well, Phoenix proper has had one for while -- Tempe/Scottsdale ones are more recent): Limebike is the main one, I think (we have some that have "Ono" on them, as well). So if the bike is yellow or yellow/green, it was probably one of those. Tempe is hugely bike friendly for a US city because it is both (a) the site of ASU (b) progressive.
The southbound lanes are 2 wide at this point, so this lady was riding a bike across ~5 lanes of traffic plus a BIG (mostly paved) median. There's a shortcut trail just RIGHT there to go east, so maybe she was aiming for that.
A sad situation for sure. I see the Uber and Waymo vehicles all the time, so there's no lack of miles in and around that area.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
not same as a train; race to market (Score:3, Informative)
It's a new thing. Literally everyone on the planet foresaw the potential for this has very very high. I'd be amazed if the developers themselves found themselves in a quandray that often occurs in machine learning: holy crap these are amazingly good results but we can't tell you when it will fail. After not seeing failures in all the test cases you find yourself letting go of that worry that it will fail catastrophically.
When cars were new themselves there were some remarkably crazy pedestrian protectin
5 million miles (Score:4)
Waymo says they have logged 5 million miles of testing. But what sort of testing it is really? There's these safety arresters for table saws that stop the blade harmlessly if a human finger touches it. While you can run 5 million hotdogs through it, do you really believe it works till some person actually tries it? And who's going to do that? And Is testing under controlled conditions with well maintained saws any test of neglected heavily worn saws in real shops?
Same with car testing. If you aren't having real bicyclists darting in front of these things under bad driving conditions at lethal speeds how are you testing these things for real? Perhaps they should require car company execs to actually perform these acid tests.
Re: (Score:3)
The cars are designed to assume stationary items are small and no problem. That's why the Tesla hit a firetruck with it's lights on.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Jaywalking (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't happen? Zero fucking times. Prove me wrong with a link.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
These vehicles are coming, like it or not. They will be safer. Even if they are not safer now, not by a long shot; technology will do what technology does. It will improve.
Unless you are advocating altering humans to make them better drones to drive, technology is the answer. Any moron can see that. Humans will never be able to compete at driving where technology can make huge strides in so many facets of driving.
Even if we have to sacrifice some level of safety now, the payoff will be massive.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you bubble wrap this red herring for me? I'm afraid he might get hurt by your straw man.
Re: (Score:3)
Not perfectly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.
It's not a "penalty". It is an unavoidable consequence of some kinds of jaywalking --- for example, running off from the side into the street just ahead of a vehicle approaching that point in the road at the speed limit. It is possible there was no "obstacle" for the car to detect Until it was already too late to avoid an incident.
There is a certain minimum sight distance required for an approaching vehicle's driver to recognize that there is a pedestrian in the road, AND react, AND take action, and then even after the breaks are being applied -- there is stopping distance.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly impossible is an understatement. Given the typical coefficient of friction between asphalt and road in *IDEAL* conditions, the absolute minimum stopping distance at 45mph is nearly 100 feet, and that's before you even allow for reaction time.
However, assuming that you could get reaction time down to zero by
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "mistreat" you mean "jail and deport" and by "undocumented worker" you mean "non-us citizen here illegally" then I don't see where your argument is.. It's not right to enforce some laws but not all. Regardless of your feelings, if you want it to work another way lobby to have he law changed.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing in the constitution about MJ dispensaries. There is, however, plenty in the constitution granting control of immigration policy to the federal government.
Yes yes.. only the constitution matters. No other law is viable right? If it's not in the constitution why are we even talking about it. What next? we listen to people who hold "court" in rooms with fringed flags?
Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
...if these cars can't avoid an adult jaywalking, how can they avoid:
Large Animals? Deer, and other wildlife that often end up as hood ornaments.
Children? They are famous for unexpectedly running out into the street.
Other obstacles?
You would have thought that these considerations were first and foremost on the minds of the software folks.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
Did you mean criminals? FTFY
Re:Jaywalking (Score:4, Insightful)
It comes from the millions of people each year who file their taxes and the IRS comes back and asks for W2s from jobs they never knew they had. The criminal is falsifying documents to collect the paycheck, and the tax liability of the person who's social was stolen has to prove it wasn't him. #nowyouknow
Re: Jaywalking (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you have not filled a W4 either.
Of course he hasn't. In Russia, it's a Ve4 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There was an operator behind the controls in the test vehicle. He didn't hit the brakes or steer around the pedestrian.
Re: (Score:3)
perhaps the people who insist that automated cars can see everything everywhere all the time will be quiet now.
You were probably the only one insisting that.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, I live in Las Vegas.. In 2011 or so we had so many idiots J-walking and getting hit by cars(multiple a week) the city made it legal to run over anybody J-walking as long as you were sober and driving legally.. The rate of people getting run over in Vegas has fell through the floor since then.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:4, Informative)
It's never legal to intentionally run someone over and it has always been the pedestrian's fault if they cause an accident jaywalking. You cannot legally run anyone over, regardless of their position, you can however be indemnified for hitting a jaywalker.
Re: (Score:3)
Ugh... people...
right of way, not right-a-way
jaywalking, not J-walking.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g... [justia.com]
And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't legal if you do it on purpose (that is called murder) but if you accidentally hit someone who is jaywalking, the jaywalker is responsible for the accident and may be prosecuted both criminally and civilly.
Obviously if you are DUI or driving dangerously yourself and that caused the jaywalker's demise, then it could be considered manslaughter or you may also be prosecuted criminally and civilly, the onus could also revert back onto the driver to prove the person was not jaywalking, you can 'legally' walk across the street if it was safe to do so and you would not have to expect a car coming at 90mph around a corner.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Outside a crosswalk does not always mean jaywalking. In many jurisdictions if you are a certain distance from the next corner it is legal to cross. So she may or may not have been legally crossing.
Re:Jaywalking (Score:4, Insightful)
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way -- cars are expected to exercise due care not to hit someone, and "jaywalking" as a legal concept does not exist.
But yeah, Tempe (and Phoenix sprawlopolis) in general are terribly designed for pedestrians -- you often have to walk a long distance to even get to a crosswalk, and traffic light timing can be too short to allow pedestrians to cross without running.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way
They don't have right-of-way. Cars are not under any obligation to stop to let you cross a road, except at a zebra crossing.
Just because there's no offence of jaywalking, that doesn't mean pedestrians have priority over cars on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Where's your source that the woman was jaywalking?
Re:Jaywalking (Score:4)
I feel bad for the lady As well as the first responders who couldn't save her.
Uber and the team -- working for a company that wants to eventually replace private and public transport with their "rented" autonomous vehicles, nope. Uber's long-term model doesn't allow for privacy, since each rental is tied to a profile, reputation, and bank account or credit card. The data will be there, to be sold to marketeers and governments.
The "team" and "Uber" itself can go eat a week-old spoiled sausage.
Flatly disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a reason why we have lighted intersections, and crosswalks with bright signs calling them out to cars.
Jaywalking is intrinsically dangerous. Physics can't be escaped. Reaction time and stopping distance mean that even under perfect circumstances a jaywalker could wind up dead (depending on the road).
It is ridiculous to say that a jaywalker is 100% not responsible. Jaywalker is knowingly putting themselves in the path of fast-moving vehicles in a place designated for the vehicles to have the rig
Re: (Score:3)
Would a human driver been able to react differently? It is a difficult question. This woman was crossing a multi-lane divided highway at 10PM not at a crosswalk. The highway has plenty of landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc) and if It was dark, there may have been obstructions and she may not have been wearing colors or bright clothing that would have stood out. I don't want to victim blame, but I'm not going to AI blame for something that may have turned out the same for even the most highly trained human dri
Re:I'm torn (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I know that intersection. If she tried to cross against a light and burst out from behind a car waiting for a left turn, which is pretty common there, no driver operating legally and prudently could avoid her, neither a human nor automated driver. It happens.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe any autonomous car would be designed to assume peds can only be encountered in crosswalks. That's just too obviously wrong of an assumption for me to believe it survived to an actual product. There are all kinds of water bags (kids, animals) that randomly shoot out into the road. They'd have to have some detection of unexpected obstacles active at all times.
I think there's two most likely causes of the accident. If it was machine error, then whatever process filters the fire hose of data
Re: (Score:3)
" autonomous cars need to drive more like humans"
You mean poorly and distractedly? ;)
Re: (Score:3)
As I suspected, a bunch of people blaming the pedestrian for crossing the street wrong. Cars still have to stop for them legally, and autonomous cars are no less liable. Once again, autonomous cars need to drive more like humans, not the other way around.
I suggest you test this theory by jumping right in front of a speeding car with a driver, and see how it goes.
Both you and the people you are arguing against don't have all the facts. Anyone who hasn't seen the evidence is just talking out of their asses if they're trying to assign blame already.
It's a pretty good bet that the car has a video record of what happened, so it should be possible to determine what really happened here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what the law says, the truth is that some idiot trusted the software for do that they should have been doing, which is paying attention and giving a crap.
It's too early to say where the "fault" in the collision lies; details are just not available, and it'll probably be a few days until the Police report is issued.
I caution about this, because when I was a kid, there was a neighbor boy who was seriously injured across the street from me. He rode his "big wheel" tricycle out into the street. The driver had no warning (even at 25 MPH) because there were shrubs lining the side of the road, blocking the driver's ability to see the kid. Were the child walking, he