Driverless Uber car kills pedestrian

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:40 pm

Apparently travelling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone.

Will the car's chief software developer be in court for man slaughter?

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:59 pm

Driverless cars is the most stupid idea I’ve ever heard.

Rip

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:02 pm

There seems to be a generation that have 100% trust in computers, they'll tell you some tosh about them being infallible and only let down by imperfect human designers.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:09 pm

Unfortunately was only a matter of time. Human drivers are bad enough but we all knows what happens when computers throw a wobbler. How many on here have nearly launched their laptop out the window.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:10 pm

How many of these cars are there? I think there are about 30-40k deaths annually in the US caused by cars with drivers behind the wheel.

We'll probably need a few more stats before we say driverless cars will definitely make that figure worse.

boiledclaret · Post by **boiledclaret** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:19 pm

Happened in Arizona. Are any of these cars on the streets of London? I'm also curious to know how widespread they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKiKgQIXWAA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:20 pm

Unfortunate that a person has been hit and subsequently died.

There is more to this than anyone's mentioned yet though, as it would appear the pedestrian wasn't crossing the road in a designated cross walk.
One news outlet is saying she was hit the minute she stepped onto the road.

As for the speed of the car, it's been mentioned it was doing 40mph, but no mention of the speed limit in the area.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-autos ... KKBN1GV296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cameras on the vehicle will confirm what's happened but damage to the right hand front corner of the vehicle would confirm that it was on the pavement side of it.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:21 pm

There are upwards of a million road traffic deaths per year which suggests that humans aren't making too good a fist of it. May as well give the robots a try.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:21 pm

boiledclaret wrote:Happened in Arizona. Are any of these cars on the streets of London? I'm also curious to know how widespread they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKiKgQIXWAA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They've tested some in London and around the world.
Some people are quick to blame the autonomous car, but it's quite possibly human error, as in the pedestrian stepped out too close to the vehicle.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:29 pm

This is a terrible tragedy, but there's potentially a big problem here.

I've slammed my breaks on twice recently around Manchester when some idiot has stepped out in front of me, with earphones on and staring downwards at his and her phones.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:29 pm

NottsClaret wrote:How many of these cars are there? I think there are about 30-40k deaths annually in the US caused by cars with drivers behind the wheel.

We'll probably need a few more stats before we say driverless cars will definitely make that figure worse.

When cars were first driven in America back in 1924, there were 24 deaths per 100 million miles.
Automated cars have so far had 1 fatality. They haven't driven 100 million miles, but they've done a lot more than 4 million, so they're safer than when cars first came onto the scene.

It's of course not that straightforward though. But it's happening, whether people like it or not and like anything, these cars will improve and get even smarter. Only a matter of time before they're safer than any human, which will save lives in the longer term.

IAmAClaret · Post by **IAmAClaret** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:30 pm

Driverless cars will never work with the current 'approach' to pedestrians.

Should the car stop each time it 'sees' or 'senses' a human in front? Imagine that. You wouldn't be able to move, people could knowingly simply walk across a road with not a car in the world, traffic would come to a standstill.

Or does the car 'ignore' them and only think about stopping at designated places? So when little Johnny runs into the road after his football, he really is in trouble with cars continuing at 30mph around him?

Driverless cars are the future, but it will rely on changing the whole infrastructure.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:38 pm

FactualFrank wrote:When cars were first driven in America back in 1924, there were 24 deaths per 100 million miles.
Automated cars have so far had 1 fatality. They haven't driven 100 million miles, but they've done a lot more than 4 million, so they're safer than when cars first came onto the scene.

It's of course not that straightforward though. But it's happening, whether people like it or not and like anything, these cars will improve and get even smarter. Only a matter of time before they're safer than any human, which will save lives in the longer term.

There are some diferences that make a side-by-side comparison problematic. For example driverless cars now are near silent whereas cars 94 years ago could be heard from three towns away. Probably. Also back then the top speeds of mass produced cars were not much more than the 40 mph that this Uber was going so when you were hit you were less likely to be hit hard.

ClaretDiver · Post by **ClaretDiver** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:42 pm

What people are failing to mention is this was a test vehicle and there was actually a human driver in the car that could override if needed.

I was listening to an interview on Radio 2 this lunchtime about driver-aided cars that do seem to much safer.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:42 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There are some diferences that make a side-by-side comparison problematic. For example driverless cars now are near silent whereas cars 94 years ago could be heard from three towns away. Probably. Also back then the top speeds of mass produced cars were not much more than the 40 mph that this Uber was going so when you were hit you were less likely to be hit hard.

Some good points.

Also worth noting that cars then weren't so impact friendly so to speak.

Modern cars are much safer to drive and when you're hit by one as a general rule of thumb.

Society needs to start taking some responsibility for how they attempt to cross roads though, because as you've rightly pointed out cars are silent but as they'll be equiped with cameras they'll be able to prove who was at fault.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:43 pm

ClaretDiver wrote:What people are failing to mention is this was a test vehicle and there was actually a human driver in the car that could override if needed.

I was listening to an interview on Radio 2 this lunchtime about driver-aided cars that do seem to much safer.

So it's going to boil down to which human was at fault.
I think I know who I'd put my money on, but I'll wait and see.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:43 pm

Car was doing 40 in a 45 according to police reports who also say footage backs the safety driver's version that the pedestrian did something stupid. This from the Daily Mail, who, I think it's fair to say, would not instinctively be unquestioningly supportive of the safety driver, all things considered.

Driverless cars will very quickly become much better than humans at quickly interpreting the situation around them. We'll be better outsourcing this, however much some people's pride is hurt.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:56 pm

We have one driving around our village as part of the studies into driverless tech at our Uni. It always has a human override present, but the study is generating data for the sensor arrays etc so that the pedestrian issues can be addressed.

You can’t help anything if a human jumps in front of a car though, if that’s what has happened.

Nice blog post here

https://blogs.cranfield.ac.uk/transport ... real-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:58 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:You can’t help anything if a human jumps in front of a car though, if that’s what has happened.

True.

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:11 pm

I think there are some driverless cars in Burnley.

ClaretDiver · Post by **ClaretDiver** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:47 pm

Some details being released about this, car was travelling at 40 in a 45 zone, the test driver was a convicted felon, the deceased allegedly was pushing her bike with multiple carrier bags.... more to come about this I think!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:06 pm

I think the test driver being a convicted felon is the most irrelevant stat so far. Especially because "convicted felon" would include stuff like shoplifting and other offences that don't impact on your driving skills.

The problem these vehicles might have in being accepted, is that they will kill people. Either by going wrong, or because someone else does something unexpected. And it's very difficult nowadays to sell a machine which you can advertise by the line "it will kill, but it won't kill as many as the other machines do".

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:25 pm

The test driver was somebody deemed capable by Uber who are spending billions of dollars to develop autonomous vehicles.

I don't think the cheap headlines should be read into too much.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:26 pm

I never ever expected that to happen.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:00 pm

Wait until they get pilotless aircraft, I’ll never get on one.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:03 pm

The thing is, there are plenty of pilotless people too.

what_no_pies · Post by **what_no_pies** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:16 pm

By 2040 the young uns amongst us will think having humans driving cars was a ridiculous concept. The real dilemma with driverless technology is an ethical one. In the event that an accident was inevitable should the automated pilot sacrifice the passengers to spare a pedestrian? The pedestrian didn't decide to get into the vehicle after all. Then what if it was an 80 year old pedestrian or a parent and 4 children in the car. How many different scenarios and ethical dilemmas does this line of thought raise? Thats gonna be the real issue for the developers of this technology.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:34 pm

BennyD wrote:Wait until they get pilotless aircraft, I’ll never get on one.

Pilots don't do much in the big planes apart from take off and landing do they?

The rest is auto pilot.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:37 pm

what_no_pies wrote:By 2040 the young uns amongst us will think having humans driving cars was a ridiculous concept. The real dilemma with driverless technology is an ethical one. In the event that an accident was inevitable should the automated pilot sacrifice the passengers to spare a pedestrian? The pedestrian didn't decide to get into the vehicle after all. Then what if it was an 80 year old pedestrian or a parent and 4 children in the car. How many different scenarios and ethical dilemmas does this line of thought raise? Thats gonna be the real issue for the developers of this technology.

Accidents are generally caused by human error.
If someone steps out in front of a car, its their fault, not the cars, but thankfully self driving cars will have cameras to prove this.

Also, a computer will stop your car a damn sight quicker then you will.
They'll also be driving the car in a more secure fashion than a human.

One major issue will be the reluctance of people to maintain their cars to a high standard.
I think this will have to change for automated cars, because cheap parts also cause issues.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:22 am

Sidney1st wrote:Accidents are generally caused by human error.
If someone steps out in front of a car, its their fault, not the cars, but thankfully self driving cars will have cameras to prove this.

Also, a computer will stop your car a damn sight quicker then you will.
They'll also be driving the car in a more secure fashion than a human.

One major issue will be the reluctance of people to maintain their cars to a high standard.
I think this will have to change for automated cars, because cheap parts also cause issues.

Good point. What happens if the cameras become misaligned, for example?

The one about the car stopping faster than if the human was driving could be interesting. Lots of potential for whiplash claims there, if you're sitting around minding your own business when the car without prior warning slams its brakes on.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:24 am

what_no_pies wrote:By 2040 the young uns amongst us will think having humans driving cars was a ridiculous concept. The real dilemma with driverless technology is an ethical one. In the event that an accident was inevitable should the automated pilot sacrifice the passengers to spare a pedestrian? The pedestrian didn't decide to get into the vehicle after all. Then what if it was an 80 year old pedestrian or a parent and 4 children in the car. How many different scenarios and ethical dilemmas does this line of thought raise? Thats gonna be the real issue for the developers of this technology.

You don't think that quite a lot of young people positively enjoy driving? (And old ones, too?) Technology makes things possible, but doesn't necessarily make them desirable.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:37 am

dsr wrote:You don't think that quite a lot of young people positively enjoy driving? (And old ones, too?) Technology makes things possible, but doesn't necessarily make them desirable.

If people enjoy driving they'll have virtual reality games where they can.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:15 am

dsr wrote:Good point. What happens if the cameras become misaligned, for example?

The one about the car stopping faster than if the human was driving could be interesting. Lots of potential for whiplash claims there, if you're sitting around minding your own business when the car without prior warning slams its brakes on.

New cars have lane assist cameras.
Whenever you change a suspension component, windscreen, wingmirror or bumper you're meant to get them realigned or the insurance could be invalid.
Same will apply to the automated cars, they'll need regular checks to make sure they're lined up.
If they aren't checked then at a guess your insurance would be invalid.
They'd possibly become part of the MOT check, that's the best way to do it.
I'd also computerise services records so it can be monitored properly.

Whiplash - hopefully they stop paying out for this, it can't be proven or disproven so why insurance companies pay out for it I'll never know.
Big issue that needs dealing with, and yes I have had it from one of my accidents.
Car insurance premiums would in theory fall if they stopped paying out for it.

The mindset of people will need to change, whiplash being an example.
Poor vehicle maintenance being another.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:22 am

dsr wrote:You don't think that quite a lot of young people positively enjoy driving? (And old ones, too?) Technology makes things possible, but doesn't necessarily make them desirable.

I enjoy driving, it's quite possibly my favourite past time which is handy for the football journeys.
I'd also miss it when I could no longer do it.

That said, there are far to many people driving who absolutely struggle to do the basics.
Also the amount who stick their sat nav virtually in their direct line of sight is ridiculous.

From the looks of it many people I've seen view driving as a chore and don't appear to enjoy it, so their basic standard of driving never improves.
They're usually the sort of people you see on a motorway who're clearly nervous about overtaking a lorry and take 5-10 mins to do it...
Others are people who use a sat nav for any journey outside of their comfort zone.
Or they just can't park their car....

The other side is people driving well beyond their abilities and having accidents.
Yes I've been one of those people on occasion, so voice of experience.

Autonomous driving would be good for these people and for everyone else because the number of accidents would fall over night pretty much.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:18 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:There are some diferences that make a side-by-side comparison problematic. For example driverless cars now are near silent whereas cars 94 years ago could be heard from three towns away. Probably. Also back then the top speeds of mass produced cars were not much more than the 40 mph that this Uber was going so when you were hit you were less likely to be hit hard.

Both of these reasons should mean that the death rate was less previously because you could hear it coming and it came at you slowly.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:20 am

Sidney1st wrote:Pilots don't do much in the big planes apart from take off and landing do they?

The rest is auto pilot.

Pilots only carry out landings manually for the practice. Most commercial airliners can land themselves at most major airports.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:37 am

An electric computerised car will make a logical decision. Sometimes an illogical decision is needed which requires human intervention. I do not fancy getting in a self driving car one bit.

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:00 am

deanothedino wrote:Pilots only carry out landings manually for the practice. Most commercial airliners can land themselves at most major airports.

Benny, you wanna weigh in here?

Also, regarding driverless cars - the laws of physics still apply to the vehicle. If anyone steps out in front of anything at the right distance, it's gonna be curtains.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:01 am

Blackrod wrote:An electric computerised car will make a logical decision. Sometimes an illogical decision is needed which requires human intervention. I do not fancy getting in a self driving car one bit.

So you'll never be purchasing a car with lane assist cameras, electric braking & steering?

Garnerssoap · Post by **Garnerssoap** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:07 am

Where can Whalley clarets get one

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:38 am

what_no_pies wrote:By 2040 the young uns amongst us will think having humans driving cars was a ridiculous concept. The real dilemma with driverless technology is an ethical one. In the event that an accident was inevitable should the automated pilot sacrifice the passengers to spare a pedestrian? The pedestrian didn't decide to get into the vehicle after all. Then what if it was an 80 year old pedestrian or a parent and 4 children in the car. How many different scenarios and ethical dilemmas does this line of thought raise? Thats gonna be the real issue for the developers of this technology.

I read an interview with one of the software developers, his view was that in 99%+ of these instances the correct response is to slam on the brakes and not try to evade as that just means you take longer to stop and increases the likelihood of accident. There's no programming for the trolley dilemma, just the quickest and safest way to stop.

In terms of the programming, a lot of isn't a simple set of rules in the form of "if x then do y". It's mainly through machine learning where, by driving more miles, the cars are learning what the correct response to scenarios is so they know what to do in the future. As well as the actual test miles on the road the cars also do millions of miles on simulators which they learn from for the future.

Re: the issues of sensors being misaligned, the theory is that there will be multiple sensors (LIDAR, RADAR, cameras, etc) so if one is misaligned you should be able to tell. The other side of that is that it will probably kill off the home or small workshop mechanic. It will be like Apple who crippled their phones where the home button had been replaced by a non-Apple technician, use an authorised dealer or the car won't go.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:13 pm

deanothedino wrote:Both of these reasons should mean that the death rate was less previously because you could hear it coming and it came at you slowly.

Which is my point.

ClaretDiver · Post by **ClaretDiver** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:12 pm

So it turns out that, if reports are to be true, that the driver that was in the car had a string of traffic offences including running a red light and speeding citations.

Ubers response....everyone deserves a second chance. Now I am all for that but if you have a test driver behind the wheel of an autonomous car who has multiple traffic violations then, IMHO, you are asking for trouble!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:29 pm

FactualFrank wrote:If people enjoy driving they'll have virtual reality games where they can.

I doubt that. They have virtual reality games where you can watch football - is that hitting sales of real football tickets?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:30 pm

Cameras and data from the car will confirm who was at error.

Whilst giving someone with multiple traffic offences a job of being in an autonomous car is a bit of a stupid move, I'm still waiting to see what the official outcome is.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:27 pm

I think even if the normal streets are made driverless cars only there'll likely be plenty of places you can go and drive a car for fun. It'll likely be an absolute boom time for owners of race tracks etc.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:01 pm

Interestingly they can't spot traffic lights so won't stop on red. That's real progress I'm sure.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:21 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:There seems to be a generation that have 100% trust in computers, they'll tell you some tosh about them being infallible and only let down by imperfect human designers.

Computers may not be 100% perfect. But they are far more reliable than a human being.

A driverless car is designed to carry out a set of instructions whilst on the road. A human won't know how they will react until faced with the same scenarios. And the human will make far more mistakes as a result.

For those who question whether computers are better.

Ask yourself why we are living longer.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:43 pm

Spijed wrote:Computers may not be 100% perfect. But they are far more reliable than a human being.

A driverless car is designed to carry out a set of instructions whilst on the road. A human won't know how they will react until faced with the same scenarios. And the human will make far more mistakes as a result.

For those who question whether computers are better.

Ask yourself why we are living longer.

I am no Luddite.

It's the 100% trust I find misplaced.

That in my mind is overconfidence, you need a failsafe.

I find most human drivers lack the major quality I feel important. - Patience.

I'm sure computers are more reliable than computers but they're not infallible.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:46 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:I am no Luddite.

It's the 100% trust I find misplaced.

That in my mind is overconfidence, you need a failsafe.

I find most human drivers lack the major quality I feel important. - Patience.

I'm sure computers are more reliable than computers but they're not infallible.

It's impossible to have a 100% perfect system. But computers in driverless cars would bring us far nearer to that than human drivers ever would.