Self driving car kills a pedestrian

[UNCjigga]

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.

Careful there, you might just start the next YouTube viral video craze for those Tide pod eaters.

 

[WHAMPOM]

To go off on a flight of fancy with what we can do with the right technology....

Imagine this scenario where a cyclist cuts across the lane of traffic without warning. Today they die. But tomorrow? Imagine a world where your autonomous vehicle is connected to the internet and receives a collision warning from traffic control. Because the cyclist is wearing a cell phone, and that GPS is moving along a predicted path that crosses your road the same time you'll be there. Your automated vehicle will slow down and/or stop to avoid the collusion. A certain death today becomes avoidable tomorrow.

And the cyclist is tracked down by GPS within twenty minutes, arrested, bike confiscated and sentenced to serve time for unsafe road use. Law breakers don't let BIG Brother track them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Careful there, you might just start the next YouTube viral video craze for those Tide pod eaters.

Oh there is going to be people that troll self-driving cars. It is probably going to be what replaces traffic as the number one annoyance of commuters of the future. Kids intentionally playing in the freeway causing all the self driving cars to hard break and waking up and spilling the coffee of the passengers.

 

[cytg111]

We need mounted guns on those self driving cars. It is the only thing that makes sense.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

We need mounted guns on those self driving cars. It is the only thing that makes sense.

Are they going to be patrolling the border?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Just saw on the news the video from the uber when it hit the woman. She comes right out of the dark and walks in front of the vehicle. The self-driving vehicle is a Volvo XC90 which without even including the Uber automated system has pedestrian and auto collision systems. Even though at much slower speed, I had someone walk right in front of my vehicle and my Volvo with it's City Safety system stopped my vehicle right instead of hitting her. I wonder why the vehicles systems didn't detect the woman earlier.

Found the video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2053116394712483

 

[Sunburn74]

Crap man she came out of nowhere. Went from invisible to right there.


The lighting on that street was piss poor and it seems like she was jaywalking as well.

Also didn't she see the car coming? It's lights were on. How did this happen?

 

[realibrad]

Wow. I'm not sure how others will take this video, but yeah no chance. Dark clothing at night and not under a light.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Crap man she came out of nowhere. Went from invisible to right there.


The lighting on that street was piss poor and it seems like she was jaywalking as well.

Also didn't she see the car coming? It's lights were on. How did this happen?

A machine killed a woman, what did you think? It's her fault for getting in it's way.

 

[rh71]

Assuming this is the actual event, the most obvious question is why didn't it detect the object (her) there and attempt to stop? She was a surprise to us because it was dark, but the system should've detected an object regardless of lighting. It didn't look to me she jumped out as she was simply strolling across at walking speed at the time of impact.

Human driver would've hit her for sure, but a machine with functional sensors should have at least attempted to stop or swerve. The other Google video on TED talk showing what self-driving systems see should predict this kind of behavior by a cyclist/pedestrian and slow at a minimum way beforehand. Not knowing more, I'd say the system failed here. Lighting should not be a factor to autonomous vehicles whatsoever.

 

[UNCjigga]

Why is the "driver" looking down and not at the road?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Assuming this is the actual event, the most obvious question is why didn't it detect the object (her) there and attempt to stop? She was a surprise to us because it was dark, but the system should've detected an object regardless of lighting. It didn't look to me she jumped out as she was simply strolling across at walking speed at the time of impact.

Human driver would've hit her for sure, but a machine with functional sensors should have at least attempted to stop or swerve. The other Google video on TED talk showing what self-driving systems see should predict this kind of behavior by a cyclist/pedestrian and slow at a minimum way beforehand. Not knowing more, I'd say the system failed here. Lighting should not be a factor to autonomous vehicles whatsoever.

Yes,it's equipped with laser and radar sensors.............. which didn't seem to work as advertised, so they blame the victim.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

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).

Damn, if only the car had been equipped with radar or laser sensors to spot problems..............................................Oops.

"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."

Maybe the police chief should learn what she's talking about before she throws the pedestrian under the UBER ......so to speak.
https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbf...self-driving-system-should-have-spotted-woman

 

[Jaskalas]

"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."

So this system is supposed to FAR surpass human capabilities, yet failed to be better than us. Oh, for shame!
Go ahead, tell us you wouldn't have hit a jaywalker that appears point blank in the dark of night.

 

[pmv]

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.

Yeah, but we've been there before. That's like the post-war dreams of city planning, complete with walkways in the sky, everyone living in high-rise buildings surrounded by open space, with cars on elevated highways, etc... It didn't work out.

Urban motorways effectively blight and destroy the areas they cut to pieces. They act like a Berlin wall, dividing everyone from their neighbours. We narrowly avoided the full horror of that with the aborted London ringways project in the 50s-70s (that would have _destroyed_ London). And underpasses are hated by those who are expected to use them - usually badly lit, subject to high-crime-rates, and smelling of pee. I'd rather the cars be pushed underground and humans allowed to stay on the surface. Plus you have forgotten to leave anything for cycling, which is the best way to get around within an urban area.

But the devil is in the details of course. _Some_ throughfares could be made motorised-robo-vehicles only, certainly highways _between_ cities. But within cities, motorised vehicles need to know their place. Letting them dominate will ruin places, and additionally make everyone fatter than ever.

 

[pmv]

First time I've ever upvoted a Taj post. But I can't help but be a little bit suspicious of a case that involves a homeless person vs a powerful corporation. May be as they say, but I hope it gets properly looked at before jumping to conclusions.

(And surely video doesn't necessarily show the lighting exactly as it would have appeared to a human eye?)

 

[Ichinisan]

Assuming this is the actual event, the most obvious question is why didn't it detect the object (her) there and attempt to stop? She was a surprise to us because it was dark, but the system should've detected an object regardless of lighting. It didn't look to me she jumped out as she was simply strolling across at walking speed at the time of impact.

Human driver would've hit her for sure, but a machine with functional sensors should have at least attempted to stop or swerve. The other Google video on TED talk showing what self-driving systems see should predict this kind of behavior by a cyclist/pedestrian and slow at a minimum way beforehand. Not knowing more, I'd say the system failed here. Lighting should not be a factor to autonomous vehicles whatsoever.

Yeah. There was some kind of sensor or system failure. This should have been an example of the autonomous system saving a life that would have been lost to a human driver.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So this system is supposed to FAR surpass human capabilities, yet failed to be better than us. Oh, for shame!
Go ahead, tell us you wouldn't have hit a jaywalker that appears point blank in the dark of night.

Over 40 years of driving and I haven't hit one yet, but then i'm not a self driving UBER uber robot that everyone should trust the lives of their family with. Maybe she was wearing uber stealth clothing and pushing a stealth bicycle and that's what made it so hard for the sensors to "see" her.......and her bicycle.

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://nyti.ms/2ljG7X9

Meh, where's the outrage peeps. 40k each year...and can bet some of those were people walking into traffic.

Maybe we should just duhvert to smoking.

 

[teejee]

Who exactly is "we" and how do "they" program "their" ethics? What is "right" and what is "wrong" and do we as individuals have any say besides "well just don't drive then"?

Explain how a car will be able to make moral choices in objective reality than you or I? No AI of any magnitude in the real world has become a superior moral being. How does that work in less than vague terms? What effective philosophy will your car have?

These aren't questions I alone am asking, and no not by crockpots. This is one facet of a larger concern in terms of AI's who control us.

Can we make improvements? Sure. Is automated driving "evil"? Of course not, but I see a lack of appreciation for the complexities in more than just faster computational ability terms.

When should your car tell you when to die and why is it morally superior to you to make that decision?

Questions that need to be answered.

This issue is exaggerated. In practice the system will be developed to avoid severe or deadly accidents at all cost. No moral dilemma with that.
When severe accident occur it will be because of either failure of the self-driving system or an unavoidable situation caused by failure of other person/system in the traffic. And in almost all cases of unavoidable situations the system will try its best to avoid accident without having to choose between who will get hurt. In very few scenarios there could be a possibility to choose. But in these cases the system could simply use either a risk based approach (choosing action with lowest risk of severe/deadly accident) or use guidelines from authorities how to prioritize.

 

[Bitek]

The AI has no self awareness, but it must make choices. I don't think I'm unique but I have had the situation arise where I risked my life to avoid killing a pedestrian. Again I didn't ponder the situation, but me, as an entity, did just that. No one else has? I have a hard time believing that.

Nope, and that's why I'm also suspicious of the hype and rosy, one-sided arguments for replacing human drivers and personal cars.

I had an incident where I narrowly missed hitting a child on a bike years ago.

Suburban area with a family on the walking on sidewalk with a young kid on a bike learning to ride.

I was looking ahead, saw the kid was wobbly on the bike, so I slowed way down (under speed limit) and moved towards center of road and watched like a hawk.

Kid served way to the left, over the grass and into the road. Slammed on brakes and served into other lane. It was really close, but I didnt hit him.

Had I been just following the rules of the road (speed limit, center of lane) I would have likely struck and possibly killed the kid.

Will the AI's scanners be able to see this scenario, anticipate, and diverge from the rules?

Will it see the birthday party with kids running around and go into super safe mode?

Will it understand and see all the deer running in the fields? Will it learn their hiding spots in the trees? Will be be especially careful at dusk and rutting season?

While I see a scenario for automated drivers for cargo trucks and others on predictable and controlled highways devoid of pedestrians, achieving full AI everywhere will be far more difficult and fraught with legal peril.

Driver supplimental abilities also seem useful (emergency braking/collision avoidance) but roadways are incredibly dynamic and I have a hard time believing software is close to ready for it.

Does anyone recommend blindly following Google maps all the time? How about software landing your plane? This is easy in comparison.

 

[rh71]

(And surely video doesn't necessarily show the lighting exactly as it would have appeared to a human eye?)

Regardless of being able to stop in time, we could probably even see the bike's reflectors with the human eye too. Not in the video though.

 

[piasabird]

Uber had the right of way. Wonder what that state has to say about driving bicycles or pushing them as a bag lady at night.

That was one dark road.

 

[HomerJS]

My question how does the system decide when to just hit the brakes or swerve? Swerve and you could put the passenger(s) at risk. A human would make the decision based on many factors including what they are about to hit vs passengers in car.

 

[piasabird]

Pheonix has the following laws:

28-817. Bicycle equipment

A. A bicycle that is used at nighttime shall have a lamp on the front that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and a red reflector on the rear of a type that is approved by the department and that is visible from all distances from fifty feet to three hundred feet to the rear when the reflector is directly in front of lawful upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A bicycle may have a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear in addition to the red reflector.

B. A person shall not operate a bicycle that is equipped with a siren or whistle.

C. A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.