Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Self-driving car kills pedestrian in Arizona

37 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seanjo

A person might have seen the woman and realised she was about to step into the road.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Saw this and thought humans are not ready for this kind of technology. She was pushing her bike along the road...a self drive car could work...but not when humans are still sharing the same road.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keel M.

So she crossed in the middle of the block. Was she wearing reflective clothing? I see people all the time walking at night around here wearing black or other dark colors and they expect to be seen. If the guy in the vehicle didn't see her until it was too late, I'm betting she was wearing all black and couldn't be seen if she was crossing in the middle of the street. Crosswalks are there for a reason.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Self driving cars are a stupid idea IMO. Sometimes there just needs to be a human driver in order to make certain judgement calls. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

I`ve read that one key problem with autonomous driving is the extended reaction time of the driver in case of system failure and/or when action by the driver is required. Drivers who have full trust into the system might not be ready to take over as fast as possible as drivers who dont have a high trust into the system (foot near the break pedal, hands near to/at the steering wheel). Furthermore, autonomous driving over long distances make drivers tired resulting into delayed action time as well.

Quote

At the time of the disengagement of the autonomous system, the driver of the vehicle needs to take control of the vehicle. The reaction time is measured based on the California DMV rule as the “period of time elapsed from when the autonomous vehicle test driver was alerted of the technology failure, and the driver assumed manual control of the vehicle”. Hence, this measurement does not include the perception time. The reaction times provide an understanding of how quickly an individual would react to a risk, and is a critical component of accident avoidance.

link

But the perception time is subject to the level of alertness of the driver:

Quote

Data indicates that the reaction time is the lowest when the driver is engaged in a listening activity, such as listening to a book or music. //

The study found that reaction time is the lowest when the driver is engaged in a listening activity, such as listening to a book or music.This is a concern because a previous study conducted by Nuance in US and the UK among 400 drivers found that the top five activities in the car would be listening to the radio (64%) relaxing (63%), talking on the phone (42%), browsing the Internet (42%) and messaging (36%), which all involve a combination of visual, auditory and haptic tasks.

link

I think that even when the systems are nearly perfect, a drivers "laziness" will cause harm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IBelieveWhatIWant

I don't see how this is the cars fault at all. Driver less or not, the pedestrian was at fault. Autonomous vehicles can't account for stupidity.

Most likely scenario, she was crossing the road suddenly and without looking to see if any cars were coming. To say this is proof that autonomous vehicles aren't "ready yet" is completely moronic, if we used the same standard for human controlled cars, we'd never have cars to begin with, the fact that this is the first pedestrian death in relation to self driving cars just shows how effective it really is.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still Waters
Quote

The self-driving technology is supposed to detect pedestrians, cyclists and others and prevent crashes.

That clearly didn't work in this instance. The poor woman.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426
3 hours ago, seanjo said:

A person might have seen the woman and realised she was about to step into the road.

To be fair, a person could also have been doing any number of dumb things that see pedestrians killed every day.

Only yesterday in my local paper there was a driver convicted after a hit and run, where he was enterering a date's address in a Sat Nav.

To make a reasonable comparision, cases such as the OP need to be compared to all human driving skills, rather than just the best.

Honestly, I don't hold a particular stance on regular driving versus driverless tech, but I do know that it's a pretty moot point, as driverless vehicles are going to become standard in the coming years.

The best we can hope for is continual development and improvement of safety.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Let's see... in less than 100 years, self-driving cars will be somewhat common, I suppose (though certainly NOT exclusive), and this poor woman has tragically gained the distinction of being the first pedestrian accidentally killed by this type vehicle.

Not a distinction for the family to be proud of, for sure.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

I might like the idea on looooooooong drives on interstate highways....with one way traffic ....very few exits...

   Safety features ,such as keeping your vehicle at a safe distance from others, and at a safe, Legal speed.

ok Elizabeth, wake me up when we're 20 mi. from Tumcumcari....we'll get you some gas and me some breakfast.

    Fogetaboudit in a big busy city... Another disadvantage is how can you swear at the driver and maybe flip him off?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426
43 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Let's see... in less than 100 years, self-driving cars will be somewhat common, I suppose (though certainly NOT exclusive), and this poor woman has tragically gained the distinction of being the first pedestrian accidentally killed by this type vehicle.

Not a distinction for the family to be proud of, for sure.

100 years? Think more in the region of 10 to 20 years.

How many people own a smartphone these days? The first iPhone was introduced by a certain Mr. Jobs in 2007 as a "revolutionary and magical product." :blink:

Yep, you're right though. First thoughts should go to the poor woman who was killed in this accident.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MySummerJob

Nothing is fool proof, but I'm hoping as technology improves so will self-driving cars.

I'm thinking they'll have to be multi-sensor'd to detect things like this in all forms of climate, and lighting.

That being said though, my thoughts are with the victim's family, and friends.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterMan

I'd be curious as to how many miles have been racked up by self driving cars to date.  Then you could compute a deaths per mile stat and compare that to deaths per mile for normal cars.  It sounds macabre, but that's the way to determine what's safe(r).

I only mention this because it seems some folks are ready to declare the technology unsafe based on one (tragic) event.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Ask yourself..."Would I trust my kids' lives to a computer?"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkin

I've operated equipment with sensors on them to detect people or objects in it's path and cause the machine to stop.

But when those sensors got dust on them, it wouldn't function properly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426
4 hours ago, seanjo said:

Ask yourself..."Would I trust my kids' lives to a computer?"

Look at it another way...

Would you trust your kids' lives to, what will eventually be, an exhaustively tested technology that always operates to the same safety parameters?

Or would you trust your kids' lives to a newly licensed boy racer, fiddling with his smartphone while kickin' it to some b****in' tunes... :unsure2:

I get the mistrust of technology, I honestly do, but this is really no different to when the car replaced the horse and cart.

You can't halt progress, or what are we as a species? The human race has been defined by technology, from the invention of the wheel through to spaceflight.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khol
Posted (edited)

On the news this morning they show the uber driver through a dash mount cam constantly looking down at her phone/device just before the impact.

Having said that another cam shows the pedestrian getting hit and unless there was a crosswalk it looks like the pedestrians fault here

 

Edited by khol
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
On 3/21/2018 at 9:58 AM, Lilly said:

Self driving cars are a stupid idea IMO. Sometimes there just needs to be a human driver in order to make certain judgement calls. 

All large John Deere farm machinery is self driving. You just program the GPS for the field size, shape and the distance between the rows. The operator just sits there and watches the system gauges. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe

I watched the video and until just before impact, the pedestrian was not visible.  She was in dark clothes, no reflectors visible and not on a crosswalk.  She took her life in her hands and unfortunately she lost it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nzo

Autonomous vehicles are going to destroy a great many jobs. Taking a good portion of the economy with them. So when I hear news like this I see it as good news. Not good for the lady involved obviously because that is tragic. But on a larger scale it is good news to all the men and woman that drive vehicles daily, from your trucker to the taxi cab person. The more of these incidents the greater the cost of insurance for these vehicles will be and the greater the cost the less likely companies will remove a good paying job and replace it with a poorly engineered robot.

Sad that the insurance industry(most corrupt, disgusting and politically connected) will decide if and when autonomous vehicles come online. I hope that lady's family, the state, the county etc. sue for tens of millions and win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IBelieveWhatIWant
1 hour ago, Nzo said:

Autonomous vehicles are going to destroy a great many jobs. Taking a good portion of the economy with them. So when I hear news like this I see it as good news. Not good for the lady involved obviously because that is tragic. But on a larger scale it is good news to all the men and woman that drive vehicles daily, from your trucker to the taxi cab person. The more of these incidents the greater the cost of insurance for these vehicles will be and the greater the cost the less likely companies will remove a good paying job and replace it with a poorly engineered robot.

Sad that the insurance industry(most corrupt, disgusting and politically connected) will decide if and when autonomous vehicles come online. I hope that lady's family, the state, the county etc. sue for tens of millions and win.

First, no matter what there will be a basic standard income because there won't be enough jobs for people when autonomous machinery becomes a very common thing.

Second, So you think that overreaction to the FIRST pedestrian death involving an autonomous vehicle when the car wasn't at fault at all, is good? Do you wanna be anymore backwards.

Finally, IF the family tries to sue the case will be thrown out because the video CLEARLY shows that the woman, didn't look before crossing, didn't have any reflective clothing on, didn't cross at the crosswalk and didn't have a headlight on her bike (which is a requirement by law in Arizona).

 

Keep that head in the sand and see how far it'll get ya.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Nzo said:

Autonomous vehicles are going to destroy a great many jobs. Taking a good portion of the economy with them. So when I hear news like this I see it as good news. Not good for the lady involved obviously because that is tragic. But on a larger scale it is good news to all the men and woman that drive vehicles daily, from your trucker to the taxi cab person. The more of these incidents the greater the cost of insurance for these vehicles will be and the greater the cost the less likely companies will remove a good paying job and replace it with a poorly engineered robot.

Autonomous vehicles will create other jobs as well.  It takes programmers and repair technicians and service personnel.  The big investors are in it for the long run, not a short time.  It is not likely that the "robot" was poorly engineered to start with, but systems will get better. Compared to human drivers, they will become more safe.

You are right that some will lose their jobs. But of course Uber and Lift have already replaced full time drivers that depended on driving to make a living  with gig-economy underpaid part timers. 

 It is likely that all drivers can't be programmers and service technicians. Some will adapt, some will not.  Automation has replaced a number of factory jobs too.  So has more mundane technology.  Toilets and municipal sewers replaced night soil collectors, outhouses and numerous typhoid, cholera, and dysentery epidemics in  cities.  All in all that was a big positive outcome for society 

The person whose loved one is killed by a drunk, inattentive, or careless driver might well think their loved one would be alive if it were not for human drivers.

It is very likely to change the way we think about transportation.  Why own a car when you could call one up to take you where you need to go?  Change models to suit your moods and needs.  It may be cheaper than car ownership, repair, and insurance for a vehicle you only use a few hours a day. You might still need a pickup and some off road capability to get some places you want to go, but for city driving, it might be great.

53 minutes ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

Sad that the insurance industry(most corrupt, disgusting and politically connected) will decide if and when autonomous vehicles come online.

  It will not be the insurance companies but the Ubers, Lifts, and trucking companies that will push it.  They will pay higher insurance costs if they need to as long as the bottom line increases. It is all a matter of money.  If it is not economical, they won't do it.   Corporations are into bottom lines, not jobs and employees, or even casualities to be brutally  frank.  As an aside, that is why I think it is foolish to trust mega corporations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nzo
45 minutes ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

First, no matter what there will be a basic standard income because there won't be enough jobs for people when autonomous machinery becomes a very common thing.

Second, So you think that overreaction to the FIRST pedestrian death involving an autonomous vehicle when the car wasn't at fault at all, is good? Do you wanna be anymore backwards.

Finally, IF the family tries to sue the case will be thrown out because the video CLEARLY shows that the woman, didn't look before crossing, didn't have any reflective clothing on, didn't cross at the crosswalk and didn't have a headlight on her bike (which is a requirement by law in Arizona).

 

Keep that head in the sand and see how far it'll get ya.

Lets take your first point because well you and it seems a whole bunch of Obamabots are so misguided and absolutely ignorant of basic economics that it would be a crime to let you go on spewing your absolute nonsense anywhere on the planet.

330,000,000.00(Est. population of the U.S.) x 1200.00(basic income) x 12(months of the year) = almost 5 trillion dollars a year that you and the other incredibly ignorant are asking the government to go into debt every year. That's just to pay for basic income that's not including things like infrastructure, military, healthcare etc. So in a matter of 5 years you would eclipse the national debt that is currently 21 trillion dollars which took a very long time to get to, well except for the last administration.  And if you understand the bond market you would have to have someone that wants to buy that debt. Now who could possibly afford to buy so much debt and who quite frankly would want to given it would never ever be paid back? Those were rhetorical questions, you don't answer those. Not to mention adding that much liquidity to the economy would basically destroy the value of the U.S. dollar, so you would literally have to carry suit cases of cash to buy a loaf of bread There is only one way basic income works and you and the lot of you who believe in this false mantra have no idea how that would work because it is advanced theoretical economics... which could still be proven wrong in the real world because the liquidity issue is still binding.

 

On your second point, I was not overreacting I was stating that this autonomous driving tech is NOT NEEDED nor is it wanted by anyone that knows the mass casualties it will have on the economy. I was stating that the disgusting insurance industry will unfortunately decide whether it is adopted and that cases such as this are going to raise the cost of adopting this unwanted and unneeded technology. If enough cases are brought and the costs go through the roof than this technology will hopefully not be adopted. I was stating what at least in my circles is fact, there was or is any overreaction.

 

And Finally, that law does not apply when the vehicle does not have a driver... to be litigated and won in court by a decent lawyer. They were researching on the public, person killed was used as a Guinea pig as are we all. And that is just one of many arguments to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IBelieveWhatIWant

Tatetopa, you might wanna edit that second quote. That wasn't said by me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.