DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Woman struck by an autonomous Uber vehicle, died in Tempe, Arizona today.

https://gizmodo.com/uber-self-driving-car-killed-arizona-woman-while-in-au-1823891032

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.

According the the police spokesperson, the woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk.

Your point?

That important details were left out that have a bearing on the incident, particularly wherein determining who was at fault is still in doubt.

You posted almost the entire article, but left that important detail out, for some reason.

This is not at all unusual, and usually is caused by either bias or ignorance, often both.

So you found your spin angle. I posted the link for all to see. I usually only post the lead in paragraph to these links.

But just as as I thought, blaming the victim. Not at all unusual.

I don't think cars like this should be on the road, it's too soon with more testing/regulations/etc needed. There was a Tesla driver killed not that far back. I don't even rely on those little icons in side mirrors that tell you if someone is in your blind spot or not. When I'm on my motorcycle, I don't want YOU to rely on those thigns either when I'm around/in your blind spot. In Cali, I think I read this April they're allowing cars to be without ANYONE behind the wheel. This is already happening in Arizona. There's others.

Plus, if there was a driver behind the wheel, then why didn't they react or take control? I get everything happened in likely a split second, but no excuses.

I'll be following this along. Hopefully new regulations and etc come about. My condolences to the poor girl though.

Fascinating. Perfect Spiral apparently considers posting ALL relevant information, as spin, and victim blaming.

I got lotsa names for that kind of thinking.

I realize many of you do not understand and are not interested in the law, but hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk is a virtually automatic violation, but outside of a crosswalk it is much less certain. It could be the pedestrians fault. It could be the driver's fault. Both could be at fault.

There is also an interesting "pilot in command" question.

Pretty sure if there are autonomous cars that they should have safety features for not hitting pedestrians or other cars, or other objects.

Of any kind period. Who cares if she jaywalked? Is that a reason to get run over? And excuse to kill someone?

Nope.

Make it safe or get out of the pool.

Also, pretty sure that laws have to be followed and if your car can't follow the law then it should not be legally allowed on the road.

If your "autonomous" car has excuses to hit pedestrians, then nope, not allowed on the road.

They should be doing this testing on a closed track and not on the open road.

Sorry, I don't agree with it.

Pretty sure the point was that real human drivers hit pedestrians too... and sometimes the driver is not found to be at fault.. the Browns had a WR charged with just such a thing a number of years back and found not guilty because of how/where the pedestrian was crossing the street.

These autonomous cars aren't going to be perfect... as long as they can be proven to be as good or better than a human driver in detecting and avoiding such incidents, then what's the problem?

But manslaughter is illegal. How are you ever gonna prove that your autonomous car was "In the Right To Run Someone Over" in a court of law?

In the court of public opinion, how are you ever going to convince people that running over pedestrians is acceptable?

Human error can be accepted/condemned. But there is a higher expectation level for machines.

I think the point is, there are cases where human drivers, that were paying attention, still hit people too. We don't know the specifics. Maybe she was running across the street in a 35-40MPH zone and gave the car no time to react. A human driver might have done the same damage.

With that being said, I agree with you that autonomous driven cars need to be held to a higher standard because they should have better ability to see and react better than humans. They aren't on their phones, listening to music or thinking about their work issues. They should be better, but they won't ever be perfect.

Personally, I don't trust them at all in rural areas, maybe on the highway's. Even then, who the hell can't stay awake or keep their arms on the freaking steering wheel for a drive? Who are we creating this technology for? Lazy, sleepy, distracted people? They shouldn't be behind a wheel no matter the situation.

Interesting, but bewildering, thought process.

Cars hit pedestrians all the time. There is no "excuse", but oftentimes the driver is ruled to be NOT AT FAULT due to the pedestrian stepping right in front of a moving vehicle.

These cars are equipped with multiple cameras, evidence will be available.

Computers cannot alter the laws of physics. A moving vehicle requires a certain amount of distance to come to a stop.

Legal proceedings do not happen in a court of public opinion, This is a good thing because the public is stupid, and largely ignorant of the law.

Your expectation level is not relevant. There are certain acceptable standards of reaction time, these vehicles will either meet these standards or they will not be on the road.
If they do, they will, and just like normal vehicles they will be involved in accidents, people will die, and they will be evaluated as to whether or not they are as safe as human-operated vehicles.

The reason they are no longer tested on closed tracks is that they could not find enough stupid pedestrians there. At a certain point, you have to test under real-world conditions. These vehicles have passed that point.

Actually, the court of public opinion holds much sway. Just ask the liberals and their #movements.

You think a car company wants to get bad press because their cars are indiscriminately running people over?

And what kind of comment is the "stupid pedestrian" comment? It's really not acceptable to be test driving blind cars on public roads that can randomly run people over. They will kill people (such as in this case) and get sued, and get a bad rep, and that will be the end of that.

There is no known random, or indiscriminate, action which has happened here.

An unfortunate accident has occurred. There may be one party at fault, or two, or none. A court of law will determine which one that is. This finding will not be dependent on feelings, lack of all the facts, or failure to understand each party's obligations under the law.

Stupid pedestrians are found in the real world, not on the test track. It is not yet known that the woman in question did something stupid, or not. This is something that happens on a regular basis, which can be approximated, but not accurately replicated, on the test track. In the real world, people are drunk, people are stupid, people are crazy, etc. Stuff happens. Simply making assumptions of who is at fault without sufficient information would be another example of what stupid people do.

In this case, the single omitted piece of information is one that points to a possibility that the pedestrian was at fault. Not proof, but one of many possible indicators. Such data is OFTEN and REGULARLY omitted on this board by posters who have an agenda to push, which relies on slanting the story in a particular way. Facts are not slanted. Data has no agenda. MORE facts, MORE data, ALWAYS leads to a more accurate conclusion.

They've test driven the cars off of regular roads. This didn't just pop up one day and they said hey let's just try it.

I'm all for autonomous cars. I don't trust pretty much anyone driving anymore. Too many people on their phones. So far, they've shown to be better at driving than humans, and they should only get better.

These situations will occur. The data will be analyzed and it will potentially help prevent more occurrences.

You can be in denial if you want, that's your prerogative.

It doesn't really change the fact that the expectation level for machines will always be greater than the expectation level for humans.

And there are way too many variables for this to work.

They will kill people. As they have.

And car companies will not be able to deal with the bad press.

You underestimate companies fear of bad press.

Go ask Delta about the NRA if you want proof.

When the heck did jaywalking become a Capital Offense?

Bah!

Machines killing people and people making excuses for machines!

Bah!

Pull the plug, show it who is boss!

This is where you guys lost me. In this case, the standard of safety should be the standard of safety, regardless if a human or machine is driving (in this example it was both, actually). IMO, a machine will probably be better than a human because of the things you mentioned (not doing stupid stuff with phone/food/makeup... doesn't fall asleep or get distracted... can be improved to have better reaction time and not hesitate).

This might be an argument that full autonomous cars aren't ready (hence, the driver that was behind the wheel that also (btw) failed to prevent the car hitting the pedestrian)... but I just have a hard time saying that autonomous cars need to be perfect while we are out there with our terrible driving habits.

And I would imagine in testing that the auto bots have a quicker stopping reaction time than a human, but every vehicle has to have a certain amount of time to stop. If you step off a curb in front of a vehicle there is a good chance you will get hit, whether it is by human or by a Decepticon

Let us get one thing straight....women are not screwing around with their makeup on the freeway.

That is such a stereotype, and a highly inaccurate one at that....

He may have been referring to today's men.

you seem to have a lot of fantasies about men wearing women's clothes and makeup

Not my cup of tea. Yours?

Youre the one always talking about it , not me

And here you are again, talking about it.

I think I have your answer now.

I know you are, but what am I? Jeezus.

Back on topic...

I do think that thinking, reacting machines without human control need to be near perfect and held responsible for their actions as hurting a human is unacceptable.

Machines like a printing press are completely run by humans and therefore the human is responsible for his own safety.

You can undo your "Like", I was referring to both of you.

Depends on how things played out.

1. If the car made no attempt to slow down, that's a problem. Was it not programmed to look for pedestrians outside of a crosswalk?

2. If it attempted to slow down, but the pedestrian was too close, a self driving car can't overcome the laws of physics.

hmmmm computers get screwed up all the time. Laptops, and cell phones as well. Yet folks want to trust a computer to hurl them down the road at 70 MPH while they have zero control. That's what I call batcrap crazy.

Worse yet, watch them get hacked. "Either pay us a ransom, or we crash your vehicle at 100 MPH."

This should put a damper on Uber's venturing into law enforcement tech. They were hoping to help turn Detroit into an urban utopia called Delta City.

I think you and many others are totally missing the point in this case. There was a driver in the car. This test driver that was supposed to be tending the self driven car sitting behind the wheel with his foot on the brake in the ready should be put on trial, not the autonomous automobile. IMO a clear cut case of human error during testing.

It's extremely concerning. Being a computer programmer, I can vouch first hand that even the most crucial of systems can encounter a bug or something that wasn't handled/coded for.

You get into the realm of cars, high speeds, no human eyes and just realize it's 100% reliant on a "computer", it's just concerning and scary. People use those lights in the side mirrors now and don't even check their blind spot. I see this on 480 ALL the time. Human driving is bad enough, we can't make it even more so dangerous.

At the VERY least, they should have generated their own environment and their own conditions for testing. Using the live open road is... yikes.

My guess is that you are going to have data, cameras, etc which will prove highly relevant in determining who was at fault. But in general I agree with you.. as we go down this road of autonomous vehicles, the laws are going to have to catch up.


You will never convince them that it is ok.. but people will learn to accept a reasonable level of fatalities, just like they do with human driving now.


The difference is that machines and systems can continually be improved upon and made better.. human beings, unfortunately, are still the same idiotic bipeds they have been for thousands of years and show no real sign of improvement...

Your opinion is not relevant, and also very frequently, very inaccurate.

I miss very little, my very first post noted a "pilot in command" question, perhaps you do not understand what all the words mean?

One of the problems with so many protected classes, is that far too many people insist that their favorite class can never, under any circumstances, be wrong. You yourself objected to the inclusion of additional relevant information, which you had ignored, as "spin", "blaming", and "shaming". You appear to operate purely on instinct and emotion, like a dumb beast of the field. You then resort to grade-school level bullying because you have been led to believe it actually works. Most of your posts display a divorcement from reality that is truly awesome to contemplate.

The simple fact is, that a determination of fault has not yet been reached. I have REPEATEDLY outlined the possible outcomes, this will be determined by people who actually examine the relevant information available and make a decision based on these facts, and who do not act like dumb beasts of the field.

I think a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology could study DawgTalkers.net to write a legitimate doctoral thesis on the sociological and behavioral impact of a perennial losing professional team on it’s fans in the 21st century.

Let me save you 6 years of college - it sucks.