Self driving car kills a pedestrian

[Ichinisan]

Well I hope these programmers have deep pockets because if something fails and a loved one of mine injured I will pursue them and their companies as vigorously as a drunk behind the wheel.

Would you pursue more vigorously than if a bus driver had done it? Why?

Things are so much simple when all else is discarded and "well it's going to happen whether you like it or not" becomes replacement for serious concerns.

"Serious concerns" become silly stupid hangups.

Where is my flying car again?

That's another thing: I expect a lot less cross-country air travel when we have a new fully automated mostly-underground high speed transportation system. Long-distance rides will be much more convenient than it currently is, so flying will lose some of its appeal.

 

[Jaskalas]

Soon after the tipping point and the rapid transformation of our transportation infrastructure, there will be virtually no pedestrian / vehicle interaction during a trip. It will be comparable to subway travel in that regard.

How do you think you'll prevent a person from stepping out into a vehicle?

Past experience has shown the wall to be my choice. They don't die well and in retrospect, I am glad I took the risk. I can't make that decision for you. Should your car?

You want a win out of a no win scenario. That's not going to happen. It does not happen today. It will not happen tomorrow. A socially accepted answer will be made on how to best crash the vehicle in a no win scenario. The car does not make decisions, our government does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would you pursue more vigorously than if a bus driver had done it? Why?


"Serious concerns" become silly stupid hangups.


That's another thing: I expect a lot less cross-country air travel when we have a new fully automated mostly-underground high speed transportation system. Long-distance rides will be much more convenient than it currently is, so flying will lose some of its appeal.

If the bus driver acted in a way he knew could cause harm? Sure I'd go after him.

I note that you still haven't addressed anything other than declare a superior position by virtue of your faith.

I ball runs in front of a car and kids follow. Physics prevent stopping, but the car can swerve. Tell me who the car is effectively programmed to kill or does it simply plow through them? Tell me those lives don't matter. No, tell parents and loved ones that they were just collateral damage on the way to utopia.

It's not that automation cannot be beneficial, it's the callous disregard for implementation and consequenses for those harmed which is more troubling. Saying it's all "stupid silly hangups" is about as poor a carefully constructed evaluation as can be imagined. There's some of what Jesus said here "No, I have not seen such great fath, not even in Israel".

Hell let's give everyone guns because after all they can be used to protect people and silly arguments against it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How do you think you'll prevent a person from stepping out into a vehicle?



You want a win out of a no win scenario. That's not going to happen. It does not happen today. It will not happen tomorrow. A socially accepted answer will be made on how to best crash the vehicle in a no win scenario. The car does not make decisions, our government does.

There are no win scenarios but there are values to be weighed. If I die but don't kill a bunch of kids, then MY actions, not that of the government, not that of a corporation are important. My family would morn me and be proud of my actions at the same time and that means something.

If another entity takes that away from me then they had damn well not shrug it off as insignificant concerns of technophobes. Science is shit at times. It does not provide proper answers to all things and how things are arrived at, the human impact, matters.

 

[Ichinisan]

How do you think you'll prevent a person from stepping out into a vehicle?

You won't. Self-driving will save so many resources that a new pedestrian-free transportation infrastructure will come in a short time.

You want a win out of a no win scenario. That's not going to happen. It does not happen today. It will not happen tomorrow. A socially accepted answer will be made on how to best crash the vehicle in a no win scenario. The car does not make decisions, our government does.

That's precisely why the discussion of those scenarios is so tiresome. These no-win scenarios happen now, without self-driving cars. Humans make bad decisions, and they will continue to do so. Self-driving cars will have fewer accidents and fewer bad decisions. The no-win scenarios don't go away until some time after the tipping point and the inevitable construction of a pedestrian-free transportation system. We can discuss no-win scenarios to death and there is no perfect solution that involves pedestrians interacting with vehicles (driverless or not). Engineers will do their best. Let's not stop progress due to ignorance.

 

[Jaskalas]

Absolutely not.

Why are you even replying to me on the second portion? I am directly addressing Hayabusa Rider, which is why I quoted him after you. The second portion was not meant for you.

 

[Maxima1]

Self-driving cars only need to be better than humans.

 

[Ichinisan]

I ball runs in front of a car and kids follow. Physics prevent stopping, but the car can swerve. Tell me who the car is effectively programmed to kill or does it simply plow through them? Tell me those lives don't matter. No, tell parents and loved ones that they were just collateral damage on the way to utopia.

So. God. Damn. Tiresome.

As long as pedestrians and vehicles interact, this will not change. It will be a dilemma no matter how much you discuss it. Engineers will discuss it and implement the best logic they can. Human drivers will continue making bad desicions and continue to be physically incapable of reacting as quickly as a machine. What will it accomplish for us to discuss it and resist progress?

What will change is that driverless cars will save lives.

It's not that automation cannot be beneficial, it's the callous disregard for implementation and consequenses for those harmed which is more troubling.

No "disregard." A large portion of the engineering and logical programming is dedicated to these tricky scenarios. Us discussing it and resisting implementation of carefully considered logic algorithms is pointless. You can think about it ad-infinitum. Engineers have thought about it more than you or I have.

Saying it's all "stupid silly hangups" is about as poor a carefully constructed evaluation as can be imagined. There's some of what Jesus said here "No, I have not seen such great fath, not even in Israel".

You and I will not find a solution to a "NO-WIN" scenario. Understand?

No-win scenarios exist. People suck at them. Machines suck at them.

 

[Ichinisan]

Why are you even replying to me on the second portion? I am directly addressing Hayabusa Rider, which is why I quoted him after you. The second portion was not meant for you.

Sorry. I got interrupted here, then got confused since the nested quotes were lost.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So. God. Damn. Tiresome.

As long as pedestrians and vehicles interact, this will not change. It will be a dilemma no matter how much you discuss it. Engineers will discuss it and implement the best logic they can. Human drivers will continue making bad desicions and continue to be physically incapable of reacting as quickly as a machine. What will it accomplish for us to discuss it and resist progress?

What will change is that driverless cars will save lives.


No "disregard." A large portion of the engineering and logical programming is dedicated to these tricky scenarios. Us discussing it and resisting implementation of carefully considered logic algorithms is pointless. You can think about it ad-infinitum. Engineers have thought about it more than you or I have.


You and I will not find a solution to a "NO-WIN" scenario. Understand?

No-win scenarios exist. People suck at them. Machines suck at them.

You aren't equipped for this discussion. We'll let this go.

 

[Ichinisan]

You aren't equipped for this discussion. We'll let this go.

No! Keep discussing!

F-o-r-e-v-e-r-r-r-r-r-r...

 

[Kwatt]

If a person makes a bad decision in an auto that results in a loss of life they can be held criminally libel. (I think negligent homicide maybe?)
Will the programmer? Or will it just be a financial penalty against the company? Will a "mandatory binding arbitration clause" be included in the usage agreement?


.

 

[Sunburn74]

Engadget is reporting that uber is likely to be clear of fault as per Tempe's police chief

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/20/uber-fault-pedestrian-fatality-police-chief/

Seems pedestrian stepped out of the shadows very quickly and the location had some serious safety issues in terms of crossings (implicitly recommending people to cross but formally telling them not to cross).

 

[SMOGZINN]

If a person makes a bad decision in an auto that results in a loss of life they can be held criminally libel. (I think negligent homicide maybe?)

Only if they did something criminally negligent. I don't think you are likely to be able to prove that a programmer or engineer did something criminally negligent in making a autonomous vehicle. To do that they would have to have programmed it, or designed it, in a way that they knew, or should have known, would likely cause loss of life, and to have failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate the risk.

Will the programmer? Or will it just be a financial penalty against the company? Will a "mandatory binding arbitration clause" be included in the usage agreement?

If they can prove that a programmer or engineer did something that rises to the level of criminal negligence then yes, I would expect that the company would throw the employee to the legal system, as long as they were not executive management that is.
Otherwise I doubt the law would do anything more than fine the company, the same thing that would happen to an individual.

 

[Chaotic42]

What do they do now when software failures lead to injuries in other industries?

 

[pmv]

How do you think you'll prevent a person from stepping out into a vehicle?



You want a win out of a no win scenario. That's not going to happen. It does not happen today. It will not happen tomorrow. A socially accepted answer will be made on how to best crash the vehicle in a no win scenario. The car does not make decisions, our government does.

And the government is entirely uninfluenced by those who make the cars, right?

 

[pmv]

You won't. Self-driving will save so many resources that a new pedestrian-free transportation infrastructure will come in a short time.

Which is exactly the outcome I wish to avoid. You've summed up the huge danger here perfectly. I think that's something I might even be prepared to support 'direct action' to oppose.

Streets are for people, not robots and gellatenous blobs whose legs have withered away being ferried about by them.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Which is exactly the outcome I wish to avoid. You've summed up the huge danger here perfectly. I think that's something I might even be prepared to support 'direct action' to oppose.

Streets are for people, not robots and gellatenous blobs whose legs have withered away being ferried about by them.

Streets were actually made for vehicles. Paths are made for pedestrians.

 

[pmv]

Streets were actually made for vehicles. Paths are made for pedestrians.

Not really, no.

 

[Ichinisan]

Which is exactly the outcome I wish to avoid. You've summed up the huge danger here perfectly. I think that's something I might even be prepared to support 'direct action' to oppose.

Streets are for people, not robots and gellatenous blobs whose legs have withered away being ferried about by them.

There you go...

A new transportation infrastructure that doesn't interact with pedestrians does not mean there are no pedestrians. You can literally build walkways that allow them to go over or under intersections to avoid interaction with vehicles.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There you go...

A new transportation infrastructure that doesn't interact with pedestrians does not mean there are no pedestrians. You can literally build walkways that allow them to go over or under intersections to avoid interaction with vehicles.

Just don't make them out of concrete and span 6 lanes of traffic....

 

[WHAMPOM]

Suicide by self driving car sounds more likely. While a computer can detect and deploy the brakes faster then a human reflex, it is still limited by the physics involved in braking a vehicle. Though why many of you expect a computer or human to read the mind of an idiot intent to step out on to the street and avoid them is beyond me.
I predict a new sport as self driving cars become common. Timing a step out in front of a self driving car to produce a squeal of brakes and maybe a small "bump" counting on the computer's reaction time and not a dangerous inattentive human driver and reflexes.

 

[Fern]

If a person makes a bad decision in an auto that results in a loss of life they can be held criminally libel. (I think negligent homicide maybe?)
Will the programmer? Or will it just be a financial penalty against the company? Will a "mandatory binding arbitration clause" be included in the usage agreement?

Re: Bold - IIRC I recently saw an article where there is bill (somewhere) in the works to force binding arbitration for selfing driving cars. I.e., we wouldn't be able to sue them.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Suicide by self driving car sounds more likely. While a computer can detect and deploy the brakes faster then a human reflex, it is still limited by the physics involved in braking a vehicle. Though why many of you expect a computer or human to read the mind of an idiot intent to step out on to the street and avoid them is beyond me.
I predict a new sport as self driving cars become common. Timing a step out in front of a self driving car to produce a squeal of brakes and maybe a small "bump" counting on the computer's reaction time and not a dangerous inattentive human driver and reflexes.

There's a jail for that person, particularly anyone who makes it obvious and/or repeat offenders.

 

[Jaskalas]

And the government is entirely uninfluenced by those who make the cars, right?

For all our sakes, we all better work to change that. And for so many more reasons than automated cars.