It's happened. Self-driving Uber kills pedestrian

[Taf the Ghost]

49 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Even if proven a software failure the programmer should not be liable. Its bullshit that a bug might have emerged causing a catastrophe. The only time a programmer should ever be considered is it it was designed to be misused. Reason being bugs are not the easiest thing to find. 

If your software bug kills someone, you're going to need explicit exemption from liability. The rules I proposed are the only logically consistent ones that will allow for semi-autonomous cars while also killing off a lot of the stupid directions they want to go. Plus, the cars are going to need "black boxes" of sufficient durability for monitoring. 

 

 

[grayperview]

1.Serve the public trust

2.Protect the innocent

3.Uphold the law

4.Classified

 

 

[CTR640]

2 hours ago, Legendarypoet said:

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

 

Well, there goes that.

[mynameisjuan]

20 minutes ago, maartendc said:

You'd be surprised if you knew what you were talking about.

The fuck you talking about I dont know what I am talking about. You supported my comment, none of it was an attack against you. 

 

Also dont compare the high density, low area Europe where houses and city were built tightly before cars were even imagined to the US where roads span quite a distance and unless your one of the few major cities. We are not behind, just designed differently. But as an architect and urban planner, id expect you to know that. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Nicnac said:

I think self driving cars are something that's gonna come eventually no matter how much negative publicity it gets. 

We've been saying that about same sex marriage for the last 30 years, problem is people don't want what they fear or can't hold legally liable.

2 hours ago, WMGroomAK said:

At least there should be plenty of digital records to reconstruct the events that happened...  Should make the cops job a lot easier on determining whether the pedestrian (non mounted bicyclist?) made a sudden crossing without checking traffic and how much response time the Uber would have had (and whether any braking was applied).  

I wonder how that would go in countries where passengers are not considered witnesses.  Whether the data from the car is not admissible evidence due the origin of said data.

2 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

> Blames Uber

> Doesn't mention the driver at all

This could of been prevented you know? If the driver actually had his eyes on the road? 

This doesn't exactly make a good argument for autonomous vehicles.  

[CreaseCrusader91]

Context on area where the incident occurred. 

[Deus Voltage]

The road to success is paved with many failures. Sometimes a few dozen corpses. 

[AresKrieger]

34 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Snip

Raods in Arizona were specifically designed for cars hence why everything in places like Tempe and Scottsdale are grid patterned, it would take far too long to walk to most places and in the summer you'd either have to be suicidal or desperate to be going anywhere of note by foot.

 

Also those "real" cities are poorly designed due to their age sure what they have works but jerryrigging a solution to account for outdated setups often yields a suboptimal result,  and that NYT article seems to imply that getting trampled by horses was somehow uncommon

[maartendc]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Raods in Arizona were specifically designed for cars hence why everything in places like Tempe and Scottsdale are grid patterned, it would take far too long to walk to most places and in the summer you'd either have to be suicidal or desperate to be going anywhere of note by foot.

 

Also those "real" cities are poorly designed due to their age sure what they have works but jerryrigging a solution to account for outdated setups often yields a suboptimal result,  and that NYT article seems to imply that getting trampled by horses was somehow uncommon

Yeah, those "cities" designed for cars are terrible places. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. Parking lot and strip malls as far as the eye can see.

 

But then again, Americans love to go to Paris or Rome and lament how much more "beautiful" and "sophisticated" it is. I don't know, those "old poorly designed places" just have a certain "I dont know what" dont they?

 

Places designed for cars eventually just have everyone stuck in traffic. So it doesnt work for cars, and it doesnt work for people.

 

DISCLAIMER: I hate cars, so if you love cars, arguing with me is futile

[Nicnac]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We've been saying that about same sex marriage for the last 30 years, problem is people don't want what they fear or can't hold legally liable.

 

I get the sentiment but it's kind of a stretch comparing those two ^^

I'd say implementation of a new technology (although given that autonomous vehicles are probably one of the more disruptive things) is always going to be easier than any kind of 'social change' so to say.

 

[AresKrieger]

14 minutes ago, maartendc said:

But then again, Americans love to go to Paris or Rome and lament how much more "beautiful" and "sophisticated" it is. I don't know, those "old poorly designed places" just have a certain "I dont know what" dont they?

They go their to see the landmarks (Effiel Tower, Colosseum etc) and for the food no one cares about the roads one has nothing to do with the other.

 

14 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Places designed for cars eventually just have everyone stuck in traffic

Places designed by idiots for cars only result in this, so someone like yourself who was designing said thing was terrible at their job when they were made, LA is a prime example of poorly designed traffic flow. There is a reason you over engineer things meant to last min spec results in things falling apart or not being sufficient for growth.

14 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Yeah, those "cities" designed for cars are terrible places. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. Parking lot and strip malls as far as the eye can see.

And Chicago and NY are better  

Those are two of the worst places I've ever been too, the only places I've disliked more were LA and Detroit. Cities in general have always been hell holes back before cars more people died in cities than were born and they only grew due to influx of rural workers.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Kobathor said:

Good thing those were written by one guy who had no idea anything like real self-driving cars would ever be a thing. Those rules are so outdated, I chuckle whenever I read them.

Also it's... you know... science fiction. They were never particularly good practical rules but they worked incredibly well in Asimov's stories.

[corsairian]

3 hours ago, Legendarypoet said:

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

 

Well, there goes that.

Isn't that just from the movie iRobot? Robots first got their taste for blood in 1979 when it killed a man on an assembly line at Ford. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Williams_(robot_fatality)

[Kobathor]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also it's... you know... science fiction. They were never particularly good practical rules but they worked incredibly well in Asimov's stories.

That's why I chuckle, because they were written for fictional tales yet people always quote them whenever a robot hurts somebody.

[maartendc]

10 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Places designed by idiots for cars only result in this, so someone like yourself who was designing said thing was terrible at their job when they were made, LA is a prime example of poorly designed traffic flow. There is a reason you over engineer things meant to last min spec results in things falling apart or not being sufficient for growth.

And Chicago and NY are better

When I designed LA, I did that on purpose to piss drivers off.

[Sauron]

38 minutes ago, CreaseCrusader91 said:

Context on area where the incident occurred. 

Interesting, but it gives in to the idea that the woman (or at best urban design) is at fault as opposed to the robot. Besides, there WAS a human on board, with full access to the brakes and the steering wheel, and that human was completely unable to avoid the crash, so I find it hard to believe that the car just plowed through a pedestrian it could have avoided.

[WkdPaul]

Thread cleaned.

 

Let's try to remain civil and respectful. If someone is trolling, please report their post instead of quoting them.

[Selah]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It seems someone is about to fail his/her driving test or to lose his/her driving license...

I've had a license in the usa since I moved here. Pedestrians have no reason to be in the middle of a highway. A city street perhaps, but not a highway. Anyone acting like roads belong to people and protest in traffic should read up on some of those beautiful new laws about pedestrians and cars.

[Sunako]

4 minutes ago, Selah said:

I've had a license in the usa since I moved here. Pedestrians have no reason to be in the middle of a highway. A city street perhaps, but not a highway. Anyone acting like roads belong to people and protest in traffic should read up on some of those beautiful new laws about pedestrians and cars.

 Majority of states give pedestrians the right of way over cars when crossing a road when leaving from on corner a buss stop or if there is no cross walk within 800 feet but only to cross from one side to the other in a safe fashion even across a highway. You can not stop on the road way unless it is for your own safety. I legally cross a highway several times a month with no cross walk on pacific coast  highway in pagination beach California 

 

 

as for others calling cyclist pedestrians they are motorist in most states and must boat all traffic laws. If using a cross walk for your bike you must walk it instead of ride it.      The only restriction for bikes on most roads is meeting the

minimum speed for the high way. If unless otherwise posted no bike shall travel on a highway unless it is the only route between two places.

[Dash Lambda]

That was a Volvo, I wonder if they stripped out the pedestrian safety features in favor of their self-driving stuff. Of course there's no guarantee that would've stopped this either, but I just wonder how many failsafes there were.

 

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

If your software bug kills someone, you're going to need explicit exemption from liability.

Wait, are you saying the programmer can be considered at fault?

There are so many people and so many steps, that's like blaming 'the' engineer who designed the motor in a table saw when someone cuts their thumb off.

[Ryujin2003]

4 hours ago, Nicnac said:

kinda scary seeing everyone jumping to conclusions.

[chilicheeseburger]

What if the pedestrian/cyclist just stepped right in front of the car? Even if the AI could react much faster than a human, it wouldn't be physically possible to avoid the crash.

There's not enough information to conclude anything yet. Do self-driving ubers have dashcams?

[Ryujin2003]

5 minutes ago, chilicheeseburger said:

What if the pedestrian/cyclist just stepped right in front of the car? Even if the AI could react much faster than a human, it wouldn't be physically possible to avoid the crash.

There's not enough information to conclude anything yet. Do self-driving ubers have dashcams?

They have a bunch of FLIR sensors I think, but not sure about actual standard video imagery. I'm curious if these cars use standard imagery or only advanced sensors. I feel like that could be viewed as "invasion of privacy" or something, so they wouldn't have it by default.

[Selah]

23 minutes ago, Sunako said:

 Majority of states give pedestrians the right of way over cars when crossing a road when leaving from on corner a buss stop or if there is no cross walk within 800 feet but only to cross from one side to the other in a safe fashion even across a highway. You can not stop on the road way unless it is for your own safety. I legally cross a highway several times a month with no cross walk on pacific coast  highway in pagination beach California 

 

 

as for others calling cyclist pedestrians they are motorist in most states and must boat all traffic laws. If using a cross walk for your bike you must walk it instead of ride it.      The only restriction for bikes on most roads is meeting the

minimum speed for the high way. If unless otherwise posted no bike shall travel on a highway unless it is the only route between two places.

Really terrible paraphrase about the clause for "only when safe".

 

I'm pretty sure if a car is coming right at you then you aren't being safe. 

[chilicheeseburger]

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

They have a bunch of FLIR sensors I think, but not sure about actual standard video imagery. I'm curious if these cars use standard imagery or only advanced sensors. I feel like that could be viewed as "invasion of privacy" or something, so they wouldn't have it by default.

I thought those privacy laws were a lot tamer in most of the US, especially if it comes to filming in public. Apart from that, it would only make sense to have a dashcam in there in order to document what the self driving car is doing. For evidence and research purposes.