Cyclist Hit & Killed by a Tesla in the UK

[Kontact]

I don't want a machine driving me, but like the overwhelming majority of drivers, I think I'm an above average driver.

I think if today 50% of cars were on autopilot, the accident rate with other cars, bikes and pedestrians would all be largely human error.

Chances are there will be less of most kinds of accidents but slightly more of some, but I don't think cyclists will suffer unduly.


None of us signed on to be participants in a AI training program, but we are already engaged in a massive teenager training program. A dozen AIs are going to cause fewer problems than a few million new teenagers every year.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by azrider

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...r-harry-potter

Oooh, right. Sorry, I misquoted what was in the article. First fatality not in the car. ie. the victim was not a passenger in the autonomous car, but was an outside road user.

[azrider]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Oooh, right. Sorry, I misquoted what was in the article. First fatality not in the car. ie. the victim was not a passenger in the autonomous car, but was an outside road user.

Ahhhhh.....gotcha. Carry on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by pasadena

The trend of the car industry is really disgusting.

The create poorly conceived 'infotainment' to distract driving. The focus is on emulating a phone, not driving. People can barely walk without hitting something nowadays, much less operate infotainment systems.

Instead of making these systems safer, they double down and make them more complex.

Then, add "safety aids" like lane keeping, collision warning/braking
when they should really call it "Driving while texting aids"

Then they double down with autonomous systems.

Drivers no long are responsible for killing people. No responsibility at all. Now it's "the car's fault".

/end rant

This. The one thing that must be preserved at all costs is the complete lack of responsibility and accountability of the driver. Driving is another part of a person's day that is only about them.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

As I've said all along, I will bet that the logic in these systems will prioritize protecting the occupants at all costs. If comes down to Hal .vs. something in the way, a cyclist is no different than a squirrel, turkey, or possum.

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

+1

Until a few highly publicized and expensive civil lawsuit are won, unfortunately.

Not a autonomous driver fanboy here.

My understanding is that Mercedes has already stated that this is their design principle (at least in simple terms, and I am not sure about the "at all costs" part). Still, this does not mean cyclists and possums wont be safer. How many cyclist deaths are caused because the driver chose to protect himself from injury?

As far as the legal ramifications, I am sure that has been thought through; albeit maybe from a cynical cost/benefit perspective. There will be fewer lawsuits. On the other hand, law and ethics are most definitely behind the technology at this point, and not just for autonomous vehicles.

[William]

I wouldn't drive any car that fights me if I try to make corrections. To me the driving experience is fun. I like to feel the road, work the mechanics, and actually drive the car. Taking that experience away and turning me into a couch potato in a car has absolutely zero appeal to me. Nope, nada, zilch.

They can keep their autonomous and assisted driving cars.






William

[AngryScientist]

i havent been paying attention to how this tech is evolving, but i just dont grasp the concept.

people are going to be expected to sit behind the wheel in a drivers seat and "pay attention" as if they were driving the car, but they are really not driving the car?

i think there are only two good options

1) drive the car, full control
2) sit in the back seat and turn your attention fully off

most people, myself included, just dont have the attention span to really pay attention to the road if they are not actually driving the car. i dont see how this "semi autonomous" mode could ever really work well.

side note: i fell asleep on the train this morning. it was a lovely nap. no cyclists were at risk.

[William]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i think there are only two good options

1) drive the car, full control
2) sit in the back seat and turn your attention fully off

Only one option....full control!






William

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by kontact

i don't want a machine driving me, but like the overwhelming majority of drivers, i think i'm an above average driver.

i think if today 50% of cars were on autopilot, the accident collision rate with other cars, bikes and pedestrians would all be largely human error.

Chances are there will be less of most kinds of accidents collisions but slightly more of some, but i don't think cyclists will suffer unduly.


None of us signed on to be participants in a ai training program, but we are already engaged in a massive teenager training program. A dozen ais are going to cause fewer problems than a few million new teenagers every year.

fify

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i havent been paying attention to how this tech is evolving, but i just dont grasp the concept.

people are going to be expected to sit behind the wheel in a drivers seat and "pay attention" as if they were driving the car, but they are really not driving the car?

i think there are only two good options

1) drive the car, full control
2) sit in the back seat and turn your attention fully off

most people, myself included, just dont have the attention span to really pay attention to the road if they are not actually driving the car. i dont see how this "semi autonomous" mode could ever really work well.

side note: i fell asleep on the train this morning. it was a lovely nap. no cyclists were at risk.

Yes, this is a similar conclusion to the one Volvo made. The idea of driving within the lines until something happens and then thrusting control back on the driver is a terrible system, for a number of reasons.

The Volvo design philosophy basically says that the car has to be negotiate the situation at hand to a point where it is safe to hand control over to the driver, which I think means finding a place to pull over and fully stop the car. The idea of semi-autonomous driving is being pushed to sell cars, not because it is a well thought out system.

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i havent been paying attention to how this tech is evolving, but i just dont grasp the concept.

people are going to be expected to sit behind the wheel in a drivers seat and "pay attention" as if they were driving the car, but they are really not driving the car?

i think there are only two good options

1) drive the car, full control
2) sit in the back seat and turn your attention fully off

most people, myself included, just dont have the attention span to really pay attention to the road if they are not actually driving the car. i dont see how this "semi autonomous" mode could ever really work well.

side note: i fell asleep on the train this morning. it was a lovely nap. no cyclists were at risk.

I agree completely and its mind-blowing that this is legally beeing done to so many new cars.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . speficially. It's about autopilot design. Electric propulsion in particular--hopefully with advancing technology for renewables charging--is a developing area that shows great promise. Not sure why you would equate electric cars with robotic drivers? The two are only connected here because it's a Tesla.

Originally Posted by sipmeister

I really don't see the appeal or attraction to electric cars.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Kontact

None of us signed on to be participants in a AI training program, but we are already engaged in a massive teenager training program. A dozen AIs are going to cause fewer problems than a few million new teenagers every year.

Unless autonomous vehicles allow teenagers to use both hands to throw bottles and cans at cyclists

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by marciero

My understanding is that Mercedes has already stated that this is their design principle (at least in simple terms, and I am not sure about the "at all costs" part). Still, this does not mean cyclists and possums wont be safer. How many cyclist deaths are caused because the driver chose to protect himself from injury?

The result to the cyclist might be same. But it might be different when it comes to finding blame (and apportioning punishment). It is very difficult to assess what is in the mind of a driver. But a software algorithm is easily analyzed (and may even have a recorded a log of decision making). That kind of evidence will probably make it far easier to force changes in the algorithm than it is to change the "hearts and minds" of typical drivers.

[William]

What will the computer choose, back of the truck or the cyclist?




William