Uber Suspends Driverless Car Program After Pedestrian Is Struck and Killed

[Genx87]

WRONG! In the U.S. pedestrians always have the right of way. It is amazing to me that they are trying to shift the blame of person's death on her. Sure, she was walking her bike across the street outside of the cross walk, but she was still near the intersection, and the operator behind the wheel was not paying attention and failed to stop this fatality from happening.

To be honest, I'm really surprised that this technology has been allowed to be on the street so soon. There should be federal safety regulations like the aircraft industry has in place, and they should be strictly followed before allowing these vehicles on the street. You wouldn't believe the safety of flight certifications we have to go through before a prototype aircraft can begin flight testing. This should be even more stringent for the auto industry because you're more likely to hit something on the ground than in the air.

But I guess a few ambient temperature bodies don't mean much to an industry or country hell bent on having driverless automobiles.

This is not true. Each state has different laws governing pedestrian and motorist interaction. Even the toughest laws on the book in my state of MN says a pedestrian can not suddenly leave the curb into a crosswalk. And pedestrians must yield to cars outside of crosswalks.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx

 

[DietDrThunder]

Yes, I agree, pedestrians can be stupid, but if you are going to have a truly autonomous vehicle, you've got to spend more time developing and testing the corner cases before releasing this on the public. I'll like to read what the NTSB says after they complete their investigation. By the way, I work with pretty well established autonomous tactical aircraft systems, and we work under the premise of not trusting the air vehicle or the pilot. Both are prone to errors in judgement.

 

[dasherHampton]

The should never, ever have happened.

Self driving cars should have NEVER been allowed around people until the chance of this kind of incident was basically 0%.

When a human kills another human driving a car we can accept it. It's part of the human condition, the human experience. The fact that a human pedestrian lost their life during the testing phase of this tech is unacceptable to the extreme.

Just my opinion.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, I agree, pedestrians can be stupid, but if you are going to have a truly autonomous vehicle, you've got to spend more time developing and testing the corner cases before releasing this on the public. I'll like to read what the NTSB says after they complete their investigation. By the way, I work with pretty well established autonomous tactical aircraft systems, and we work under the premise of not trusting the air vehicle or the pilot. Both are prone to errors in judgement.

Well, fortunately, you don't have a very high bar to get over to be safer than the average human driver. The second they passed that threshold I trusted them more than meatbag drivers. I don't care if they run over 1 person less, on average, than human drivers.

 

[Red Storm]

Might explain why the driver didn't have time to react and take over.

Depending on how it happened, even someone who was manually driving may not have been able to avoid it.

The should never, ever have happened.

Self driving cars should have NEVER been allowed around people until the chance of this kind of incident was basically 0%.

When a human kills another human driving a car we can accept it. It's part of the human condition, the human experience. The fact that a human pedestrian lost their life during the testing phase of this tech is unacceptable to the extreme.

Just my opinion.

This kind of incident will never be 0%. Never. There is nothing you can do about people ignoring crosswalks and suddenly moving into a travel lane. The only people that can prevent that are the pedestrians doing it.

 

[dasherHampton]

This kind of incident will never be 0%. Never. There is nothing you can do about people ignoring crosswalks and suddenly moving into a travel lane. The only people that can prevent that are the pedestrians doing it.

Did she jump in front of the car?

 

[Red Storm]

Did she jump in front of the car?

She was in the center median and then suddenly moved into the travel lane. Pretty sure you're not supposed to be walking in the center median, she didn't cross at a crosswalk, and the car was traveling at 38MPH. The car being autonomous really had no difference on the outcome in that scenario. A manually driven car would've more than likely also hit the pedestrian.

It's extremely unfortunate, but it really just highlights how important it is to cross the street at the proper time and place.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Did she jump in front of the car?

http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
It's kinda sounding like she might have.

Chief of Police Sylvia Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday that video footage taken from cameras equipped to the autonomous Volvo SUV potentially shift the blame to the victim herself, 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, rather than the vehicle.

“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,” Moir told the paper, adding that the incident occurred roughly 100 yards from a crosswalk. “It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated managed crosswalks are available,” she said.

 

[zinfamous]

Correct. She walked in front of the car while it was going 45MPH and was not at a crosswalk.

...in the dark, from behind an obstruction on the sidewalk, where no human driver would have seen her.

 

[BudAshes]

She was in the center median and then suddenly moved into the travel lane. Pretty sure you're not supposed to be walking in the center median, she didn't cross at a crosswalk, and the car was traveling at 38MPH. The car being autonomous really had no difference on the outcome in that scenario. A manually driven car would've more than likely also hit the pedestrian.

It's extremely unfortunate, but it really just highlights how important it is to cross the street at the proper time and place.

I think a good driver probably could have seen her coming and avoided it, but 95% of the people on the road are not good drivers. So I'm good with creating autonomous vehicles and pushing forward even if there are some casualties. In the end we are talking about saving thousands of people every year. I'd like to see them then make the manual driving license very difficult to get once we can get autonomous vehicles doing most of the driving.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Pedestrian deaths go up and up and up. Higher vehicle speeds, more distracted drivers, more idiot pedestrians crossing streets with their faces buries in their phones. It was up to close to 6,000 in 2017, highest ever. Not a single person suggested banning human drivers, pedestrians or crossing streets while using a phone (like distracted driving, that last one should actually be illegal even if tough to enforce). But if just one pedestrian walks in front of a driverless car the sky is falling, the tech is unsound and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[DietDrThunder]

I think a good driver probably could have seen her coming and avoided it, but 95% of the people on the road are not good drivers. So I'm good with creating autonomous vehicles and pushing forward even if there are some casualties. In the end we are talking about saving thousands of people every year. I'd like to see them then make the manual driving license very difficult to get once we can get autonomous vehicles doing most of the driving.

I'll give you my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Red Storm]

I think a good driver probably could have seen her coming and avoided it, but 95% of the people on the road are not good drivers. So I'm good with creating autonomous vehicles and pushing forward even if there are some casualties. In the end we are talking about saving thousands of people every year. I'd like to see them then make the manual driving license very difficult to get once we can get autonomous vehicles doing most of the driving.

Without seeing the actual video it would be impossible to say, but based on the sheriff's description, no driver be it autonomous or manual would have been able to avoid the person who was hit.

In regards to driver's license, I would like to see more stringent testing for older people. Some of them really should not be behind a wheel anymore.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Until they can apply Isaac Asimov's Three laws of Robotics, I say no.

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   
   
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   
   
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Also, the zeroith law - A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

 

[ElFenix]

Pedestrian deaths go up and up and up. Higher vehicle speeds, more distracted drivers, more idiot pedestrians crossing streets with their faces buries in their phones. It was up to close to 6,000 in 2017, highest ever. Not a single person suggested banning human drivers, pedestrians or crossing streets while using a phone (like distracted driving, that last one should actually be illegal even if tough to enforce). But if just one pedestrian walks in front of a driverless car the sky is falling, the tech is unsound and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

pedestrians get hit by trains

trains! that ginormous thing with a big light on the front making noise and coming from at most 2 very precise directions, with a very well-distinguished right of way. and people still step in front of them.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

the laws of physics trump the laws of robots.

 

[DrunkenSano]

You can't honestly say that. There could have been many factors that could cause a sensor (either LIDAR or Optical) which could malfunction or not register the person as being visible where a person with normal vision would be able to see the pedestrian. I work with RADAR, LIDAR, Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (TFLIR), and Digital Aperture Sensors (DAS) systems on tactical aircraft, and all of them have their weaknesses.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more percentage of drivers out there that text and drive or drink and drive compared to the percentage of failed sensors.

Did she jump in front of the car?

Yes. She was an idiot.

 

[DietDrThunder]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more percentage of drivers out there that text and drive or drink and drive compared to the percentage of failed sensors.

Yes but these people will also pay the price for their mistakes. An AI, no skin off its bumper.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Yes but these people will also pay the price for their mistakes. An AI, no skin off its bumper.

It would be a mechanical failure, just like many other mechanical failures that could happen. Something goes wrong in a helicopter, crashes, and kills people both on the ground and occupants. People still died, the fault wasn't the pilot. It was a tragic and unfortunate mechanical error. Seeing how many distracted, bad, old senile drivers are on the road, I rather see automation replace them.

 

[DietDrThunder]

It would be a mechanical failure, just like many other mechanical failures that could happen. Something goes wrong in a helicopter, crashes, and kills people both on the ground and occupants. People still died, the fault wasn't the pilot. It was a tragic and unfortunate mechanical error. Seeing how many distracted, bad, old senile drivers are on the road, I rather see automation replace them.

Well with this being the case, why don't we just skip the death part and have the AI just drive the old people off a cliff? Save a lot of U.S.tax money not having to pay for medical expenses for old people.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Until they can apply Isaac Asimov's Three laws of Robotics, I say no.

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

I think you're misinterpreting that law. It means intentionally, a robot can't intentionally harm a human or not act when it is supposed to protect them. There's no force in the universe that could prevent a robot from inadvertently or accidentally doing something to injure a human. We're already well past that point, you can trip over a Roomba, fall down a flight of stairs and die. That's not a violation of the first Law of Robotics and neither is a careless pedestrian stepping in front of a car.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

At worse this is nothing more than an industrial accident.

 

[DietDrThunder]

My biggest problem with driver-less vehicles is the testing of such vehicles on our public roadways. I'll give you an example: Phantom AI was experiencing numerous error codes on their auto braking system so they just disabled it, then took the media out for a ride during testing one of their vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGoE6Hco4jE

This type of testing should not be allowed when the general public could be severely injured.

 

[bruceb]

Hopefully they kill off this crap before machines kill us. I would never trust a driverless car. I only trust myself behind the controls. It is like with some of the new airplanes, with all the computers to help with and do a lot of the flying. The computer goes wacky (it does happen on occasion) and the pilots do not know how to cope with it. This is because a lot of airlines give pilots rudimentary flight training, with emphasis on how to work with and use the computer. Pilots need to know how to control and recover the plane while in flight at 30,000 feet or so and not only just how to do the takeoff and landings. Eventually, if they have their way, you will not need a pilot in the cockpit. Thankfully, I will be watching when that happens from way above, looking down on what is left of this planet and civilization. I doubt it will happen in the next 30 years.

 

[KeithP]

It is like with some of the new airplanes, with all the computers to help with and do a lot of the flying. The computer goes wacky (it does happen on occasion) and the pilots do not know how to cope with it. This is because a lot of airlines give pilots rudimentary flight training, with emphasis on how to work with and use the computer. Pilots need to know how to control and recover the plane while in flight at 30,000 feet or so and not only just how to do the takeoff and landings.

You are so misinformed I don't know where to begin.

-KeithP

 

[bruceb]

No misinformed, plenty of incidents where the computer caused a problem and the crew did not know what to do. I will always prefer human , who can adapt on the fly, at the controls of a car or airplane