[maz]

Time to ban assault cars!

It's almost like no one predicted this would happen. Even though the pedestrian always has the right away, somehow police say that the accident was not the car's (Uber's) fault.

Which is weird because anti-2nd Amendment extremists always blame the gun whenever someone shoots another person.

Uber Victim Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Car

Police say a video from the Uber self-driving car that struck and killed a woman Sunday shows her moving in front of it suddenly, a factor that investigators are likely to focus on as they assess the performance of the technology in the first pedestrian fatality involving an autonomous vehicle.

The Uber had a forward-facing video recorder, which showed the woman was walking a bike at about 10 p.m. and moved into traffic from a dark center median. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode,” Sylvia Moir, police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

"The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," Moir said, referring to the backup driver who was behind the wheel but not operating the vehicle. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."

The chief’s account raises new questions in the investigation that holds importance to the future of the burgeoning autonomous vehicle industry. Uber Technologies Inc. halted autonomous vehicle tests in the wake of the accident.

It’s too soon to draw any conclusions from the preliminary information that has emerged, said Brian Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who has studied autonomous vehicle liability.

[Suntzu]

Pedestrians don't always have the right of way.

[maz]

Well ok they don't always have the right away but you are still not supposed to run them down. Who even wants driverless cars anyways?

[SolarCross]

I can't wait for shooterless guns.

[Godstud]

Well ok they don't always have the right away but you are still not supposed to run them down. Who even wants driverless cars anyways?

Nice emotional arguments you have there. Considering how many accidents are human error, I don't think that this is a bad thing to have automated cars. Many people want driverless cars, because there are times when humans are shit at driving, or shouldn't.

The person who was hit, would have been hit if a human had been driving, as well. I saw the video(can't find it now).

Pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way. That's why there are jaywalking laws, and crosswalks.

[maz]

:roll: Nice emotional arguments you have there.

Considering how many accidents are human error, I don't think that this is a bad thing to have automated cars. Many people want driverless cars, because there are times when humans are shit at driving, or shouldn't.

Based on your comment I will just assume that the people who want driverless cars are maybe some of the same people who believe that the US can become a gun free utopia where no one is allowed to own firearms and criminals just agree no to go around shooting people.

:The person who was hit, would have been hit if a human had been driving, as well. I saw the video(can't find it now)..

Well when you find it post it, but I'm not even sure why matters if the pedestrian was at fault this time. If I ran down someone who jumped out in front of me, I am quite sure I would be held accountable in some way until I could prove my innocence.

We don't even have the laws and policies for accountability when autonomous vehicles and other systems cause damage to humans and private property.

According to polls, they are overwhelmingly unpopular by a large measure. People don't trust them and people believe they can be hacked just like any computer.

People don’t trust driverless cars. Researchers are trying to change that

Are we going too fast on driverless cars?

In a recent survey by AAA, for example, 78% of respondents said they were afraid to ride in an AV. In a poll by insurance giant AIG, 41% didn't want to share the road with driverless cars. And, ironically, even as companies roll out more capable semi-AVs, the public is becoming less—not more—trusting of AVs, according to surveys over the past 2 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge and marketing firm J.D. Power and Associates.

Such numbers are a warning sign to firms hoping to sell millions of AVs, says Jack Weast, the chief systems architect of Intel's autonomous driving group in Phoenix. "We could have the safest car in the world," he says, "but if consumers don't want to put their kids into it, then there's no market."

Billions are being invested in driverless cars that Americans don't want

In the Kelley Blue Book study, 75 percent of the 2,076 people surveyed said they don’t think they’ll ever own a self-driving car. In the EY study, just 40 percent could imagine engaging the autopilot, a feature already available on Tesla’s SUV and sedan and coming soon on models from Audi, Volvo, Mercedes and Cadillac.

Not overwhelming

In a survey released last week, J.D. Power found that just 23 percent of Baby Boomers would trust self-driving technology. Acceptance improves with younger cohorts, but it’s not overwhelming. Less than half of Gen Xers (41 percent) would trust robot cars, while 56 percent of Gen Y and 55 percent of Gen Z are comfortable with the concept.

[SolarCross]

Even if Joe Public shuns this technology there might still be a market for it for goods or other utility vehicles. I suspect driverless lorries could still be a thing.

[Godstud]

Based on your comment I will just assume that the people who want driverless cars are maybe some of the same people who believe that the US can become a gun free utopia where no one is allowed to own firearms and criminals just agree no to go around shooting people.

That would be an idiotic assumption, were you to make it.

If I ran down someone who jumped out in front of me, I am quite sure I would be held accountable in some way until I could prove my innocence.

No, you would be innocent unless it was proven that you did it intentionally. You're making up rubbish arguments. Also, I am sure Uber has all their cars insured for liability.

]We don't even have the laws and policies for accountability when autonomous vehicles and other systems cause damage to humans and private property.

Not as of yet, but they're working on it for cars, but I am sure that incidents will speed this up.

Billions are being invested in driverless cars that Americans don't want

You are making an assumption based on little, to no, evidence. From what I've seen, a lot of Americans simply won't use them. That doesn't mean that Americans think they should not be made. The polls are not saying what you think they are saying.

While 27 percent of respondents said they would feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car, poll data indicated that most people were far more trusting of humans than robots and artificial intelligence under a variety of scenarios.

Among men, 38 percent said they would feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car and 55 percent said they would not. Among women, only 16 percent said they would feel comfortable and 77 percent said they would not.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto ... SKBN1FI034

Your argument seems to be that if it makes people uncomfortable(a feeling), that it shouldn't be done. That's a hideously lame argument.

[ThirdTerm]

Toyota has suspended US tests of driverless cars on public roads following a fatal accident in Arizona involving one of Uber Technologies' self-driving vehicles.

Toyota said it was concerned about the "emotional effect" the incident might have on its test drivers.

The carmaker said it did not have a timeline for re-starting the trials.

The Arizona accident has revived debate about whether autonomous vehicles are being put into use prematurely.

I think it was Toyota's fault and the test driver, who was also behind the wheel, should be able to stop the car manually by slamming on the brakes. Either it was badly designed to prevent the human driver from intervening instantly or he was checking his cellphone while driving. You need to expect animals to jump out in front of the car all the time.

[Suntzu]

I think the car was a Volvo.

[Saeko]

Driverless cars are so 2012. Carless drivers are our future.

[Albert]

I can't wait for shooterless guns.

Good idea, don't ban guns but ban ammunition for them. Everyone is satisfied.

[Finfinder]

:roll: Nice emotional arguments you have there. Considering how many accidents are human error, I don't think that this is a bad thing to have automated cars. Many people want driverless cars, because there are times when humans are shit at driving, or shouldn't.

The person who was hit, would have been hit if a human had been driving, as well. I saw the video(can't find it now).

Pedestrians do NOT always have the right of way. That's why there are jaywalking laws, and crosswalks.

You need some glasses, that is not what I saw on the video. The living crash test dummy driver was paying attention to their phone and not the road.

[Suntzu]

Stupidity is sometimes deadly. She looked like a deer in the headlights. She was probably stoned.

[Rugoz]

You need some glasses, that is not what I saw on the video. The living crash test dummy driver was paying attention to their phone and not the road.

Holy shit, a complete failure of the technology. The car clearly doesn't detect her. What do they have LIDAR for?

[JohnRawls]

Holy shit, a complete failure of the technology. The car clearly doesn't detect her. What do they have LIDAR for?

Not all cars use LIDAR technology.
Driverless technology is already A LOT safer than human drivers.

[Godstud]

The person was invisible up until the lights were on her. I doubt a human would have reacted any better.

[Rugoz]

Not all cars use LIDAR technology.

There are other sensors that do not rely on visible light. Every driverless car has them.

Driverless technology is already A LOT safer than human drivers.

Clearly unsubstantiated, at least for Uber cars.

The person was invisible up until the lights were on her. I doubt a human would have reacted any better.

The car didn't react at all. A human driver would have braked or avoided. Maybe enough to save her life.

[maz]

Some media outlets are actually doing a good job for once and hitting this story pretty hard.

Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman

TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Video of a deadly self-driving vehicle crash in suburban Phoenix shows a pedestrian walking from a darkened area onto a street just moments before an Uber SUV strikes her.

The lights on the SUV didn't illuminate 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday night until a second or two before impact, raising questions about whether the vehicle could have stopped in time.

The crash Sunday night in Tempe was the first death involving a full autonomous test vehicle. The Volvo was in self-driving mode with a human backup driver at the wheel when it struck Herzberg, police said.

The video shows the human backup driver in the SUV looking down until seconds before the crash. The driver looks up and appears startled during the last moment of the clip.

Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir has told the San Francisco Chronicle that the SUV likely wouldn't be found at fault. But two experts who viewed the video told The Associated Press that the SUV's laser and radar sensors should have spotted Herzberg and her bicycle in time to brake.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."


"The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."

The experts were unsure if the test vehicle was equipped with a video monitor that the backup driver may have been viewing.

Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. The National Transportation Safety Board, which makes recommendations for preventing crashes, is investigating the crash.

An Uber spokeswoman, reached Wednesday night by email, did not answer specific questions about the video or the expert observations.

"The video is disturbing and heartbreaking to watch, and our thoughts continue to be with Elaine's loved ones. Our cars remain grounded, and we're assisting local, state and federal authorities in any way we can," the company said in a statement.

Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez. Court records show someone with the same name and birthdate as Vasquez spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions — for making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery — before starting work as an Uber driver.

So it's even worse than previously reported.

Uber and the rest of the driverless car industry and it's corporate shills have blood on their hands. Why do we need driverless cars so badly?

[Godstud]

The car didn't react at all. A human driver would have braked or avoided. Maybe enough to save her life.

Perhaps not. It's an opinion. What happens next will depend on facts, not what people "feel".

Why do we need driverless cars so badly?

Because most humans are shit drivers, and there are times when humans should not drive, and yet they do anyways.