Autonomous Vehicle Kills Pedestrian Walking Their Bike

[unterhausen]

in most states it would be a DUI at this time. I think that's one reason why some companies are obsessed about making cars with no user controls

[zmalwo]

So it was an operator error.

[Dead Man]

i mean.. the whole point for me would be DUI risk reduction.. so yea, it'll need to get "there" first

and yea - kinda back on topic - it would seem this was, in fact, pilot error. the system was in test phase only and wasnt supposed to be totally autonomous ... otherwise there'd be no need for the human johnnie cab driver to be there to observe and take control when/if needed. so this aint a mark against the tech.. in fact if you ask me its just more evidence we need to get human drivers all the way out of the equation cuz they still **** the dog even when the sole job they had was just keep watch n couldnt even do that.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

For the full context of this deadly collision watch:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/look-whos-driving/

The vehicle was a test vehicle for uber. There was a test driver in the car and she was not watching the road as she was supposed to in case of something like this happened. She was streaming netflix.

Seems like it might be some version of criminal homicide depending on the particular state’s laws. You could not pay me enough to be a test driver on public roads for one of those things.

[sailorboy]

Isn't the intentional jaywalking threat how tech folks imagine the luddites or other autonomous vehicle resistors will end up sabotaging the transition by causing mass gridlocks?

[Rusty Luggs]

Originally Posted by sailorboy

Isn't the intentional jaywalking threat how tech folks imagine the luddites or other autonomous vehicle resistors will end up sabotaging the transition by causing mass gridlocks?

Anyone who lives in the real world knows that encountering people crossing the street outside of a crosswalk is an everyday common occurrence and it is ridiculous to paint that as some unpredictable or rare scenario or act of civil disobedience to thwart autonomous driving systems. And if the system can’t distinguish between a pedestrian, bicycle or car as the article suggested, will it distinguish between, say, a squirrel scampering across the road and a ball rolling across the road that a child might run out into the street in pursuit of?

As a human driver I encounter countless situations I expect would be extremely challenging for an automated driving system to interpret. Just one obvious example – I encounter dozens and dozens of cases where a person is directing traffic around construction activities, maneuvering vehicles, etc. There is huge variation in how it is done … I can be a police officer or random person, they may position themselves differently, they may use vague and inconsistent hand signals, they may hold a sign, etc. etc.
How well is an automated system going to interpret all these random variations that even a human might have trouble interpreting at times?

Then let’s look at obvious weather situations such as snow obscuring lane marking, large puddles that might cause aquaplaning, damaging pot holes, black ice on highway bridges…… just a tiny handful of common conditions I have to deal with as a driver.

[sailorboy]

Originally Posted by Rusty Luggs

Anyone who lives in the real world knows that encountering people crossing the street outside of a crosswalk is an everyday common occurrence and it is ridiculous to paint that as some unpredictable or rare scenario or act of civil disobedience to thwart autonomous driving systems. And if the system can’t distinguish between a pedestrian, bicycle or car as the article suggested, will it distinguish between, say, a squirrel scampering across the road and a ball rolling across the road that a child might run out into the street in pursuit of?

As a human driver I encounter countless situations I expect would be extremely challenging for an automated driving system to interpret. Just one obvious example – I encounter dozens and dozens of cases where a person is directing traffic around construction activities, maneuvering vehicles, etc. There is huge variation in how it is done … I can be a police officer or random person, they may position themselves differently, they may use vague and inconsistent hand signals, they may hold a sign, etc. etc.
How well is an automated system going to interpret all these random variations that even a human might have trouble interpreting at times?

Then let’s look at obvious weather situations such as snow obscuring lane marking, large puddles that might cause aquaplaning, damaging pot holes, black ice on highway bridges…… just a tiny handful of common conditions I have to deal with as a driver.

What I'm saying is that some people have indicated that there is concern that people will intentionally step in front of these vehicles just to force them to stop and thereby cause gridlock. Who knows. By the time these things are commonplace I'll either be dead and buried, or living far enough off the grid that it won't matter to me.

[Vientomas]

I don't like the idea that as a human being traveling upon roadways, whether it be as a pedestrian or a cyclists, I am essentially a beta testing subject for corporate experiments. Whether you are a fan of "big government" or not, surely additional oversight is warranted. This situation is ridiculous. Further experimentation should be on a closed course until the systems have been proven to be safe. If that day ever comes.

[soulspinner]

Volvo has semi autonomous drive cars. Driver is still 100 percent liable. Otherwise we could all get in the back seat and watch netflicks to our destination.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by sailorboy

What I'm saying is that some people have indicated that there is concern that people will intentionally step in front of these vehicles just to force them to stop and thereby cause gridlock. Who knows. By the time these things are commonplace I'll either be dead and buried, or living far enough off the grid that it won't matter to me.

You mean like how people currently intentionally step in front of human driven vehicles to force them to stop and thereby causing gridlock? That doesn't happen either. This idea sounds like some type of conspiracy theory, not a true concern.

[fiamme red]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/91353...ide-in-arizona

"Had the vehicle operator been attentive, she would likely have had sufficient time to detect and react to the crossing pedestrian to avoid the crash or mitigate the impact," the federal report stated. "The vehicle operator's prolonged visual distraction, a typical effect of automation complacency, led to her failure to detect the pedestrian in time to avoid the collision."

"The Uber Advanced Technologies Group did not adequately recognize the risk of automation complacency and develop effective countermeasures to control the risk of vehicle operator disengagement, which contributed to the crash," it said...

[jet sanchez]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hrKnv0dPQ

[cinema]

What the consumer believes will eventually be an 'autonomous vehicle' is a big fat marketing hoax. always has been. there is no omniscient being able to predict human behavior. On the other hand, it's far easier for humans to take advantage of them. walk outside and hold a stop sign in the middle of the street, the vehicle will stop. there is now a big lawsuit and SEC investigation into tesla for continuing to offer their autonomous technology without actually delivering it over the past decade.

[Vientomas]

The Uber test driver who was responsible for monitoring one of the company's self-driving cars that hit and killed a pedestrian in 2018 was charged with negligent homicide this week.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/cars/...ged/index.html

I suspect a novel defense theory may be floated in this case.