Uber

Woman killed by self-driving Uber car

uk.businessinsider.com/uber-ariz … &r=US&IR=T

Sent via @updayUK

It was a hard hit as well looking at the front of that Volvo…poor sod, killed by something that wasnt even fit for the road… :frowning:

I bet there’s a queue of lawyers in the U.S hounding the family to take this case on for compensation…will be worth millions of Uber is found at fault.

Autonomous vehicles don’t need to be perfect they just need to be better than the alternative. Statistically, I’d be interested in seeing how they compare to cars driven by humans. And I’d reserve judgment until the full facts are released.

sammym:
Autonomous vehicles don’t need to be perfect .

I doubt the dead womans family would agree with that. They need to be exactly that before theyre let loose on the roads!

sammym:
. And I’d reserve judgment until the full facts are released.

You might be reserving judgment for a while then. It maybe portrayed as fact, but the truth is another matter.

Of course, the media hype is around the fact that it was a “driverless” car, but the BBC reports that there was a “human monitor” inside the car, e.g. a driver.

Still, this whole self-driving thing is, in my opinion, a new kind of evil.

Luckily for Uber a crack deep cover agent from TNUK is as we speak parachuting into an undisclosed location on the other side of the world where he will single handedly turn around this project. I’d say more but loose lips and all that…

Cosmic:
Of course, the media hype is around the fact that it was a “driverless” car, but the BBC reports that there was a “human monitor” inside the car, e.g. a driver.

Still, this whole self-driving thing is, in my opinion, a new kind of evil.

One thing that is apparent and cannot be hidden is the bridging time and ability for the human to take control is failing to mitigate. And that is with a test driver. Never mind Mr average doing his crossword travelling down the M6.

the maoster:
a crack agent from TNUK.

That’ll be where Dipper dave has gone then :laughing:

sammym:
Autonomous vehicles don’t need to be perfect they just need to be better than the alternative.

Not quite correct, the publicity surrounding autonomous vehicle has been about risk free transport, some of the vehicle developers have expressed concerns that the media hype surrounding these vehicles has created an almost impossible task for them and when released the shortcomings will lead to problems with user acceptance, as they haven’t got what the believed they’ve been promised.

muckles:

sammym:
Autonomous vehicles don’t need to be perfect they just need to be better than the alternative.

Not quite correct, the publicity surrounding autonomous vehicle has been about risk free transport, some of the vehicle developers have expressed concerns that the media hype surrounding these vehicles has created an almost impossible task for them and when released the shortcomings will lead to problems with user acceptance, as they haven’t got what the believed they’ve been promised.

“Media hype” yes.
Similarly applicable to medical developments and health issues reporting.
Plus less important things like politics.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

The report below indicates that the vehicle was in autonomous mode but with a driver present. It would appear that the unfortunate victim crossed the road from a central refuge and was hit by the vehicle. It mentions that Police are reviewing whether the driver could have intervened.

One only has to look at the hazard perception videos that form part of a driving test procedure to wonder seriously whether any technology can replicate human intuition regarding the possible intentions of another human. For examples: a car roof only just visible above a hedge approaching a crossroads just a little too fast; a pedestrian walking away from the subject vehicle just yards away from a crossing point; a pork pie hat visible in the rear window; a vehicle waiting at a x roads with the driver looking the other way; or unaccompanied children bouncing a ball on the pavement.

The human can just have a feeling from clues which will not be picked up by radar or video that a particular person/vehicle may do something which one would not normally expect them to do.

All the time there is a human present there is a chance they might intervene, but with nothing to do other than observe while not being in physical contact with the controls those instinctive reactions to stimuli are dulled; much the same as is the drawn back and comfortably resting right foot when a vehicle is in cruise control mode.

engadget.com/2018/03/19/ube … -accident/

Indeed Cav, and the driver in any vehicle with each new wave of technology has less to do with each progression, and therefore becomes less hands on skilled.

Its already happening, drivers with no sense of whats happening at the wheels, throwing vehicles into bends on poor surfaces and no idea, through the seat of their pants feel, what the outcomes of steering or throttle or braking inputs might have, lots of them would end up in crashes if the electronics didn’t bale them out constantly.

Taking this to its full conclusion the driver in attendance is supposed at a moments notice to take over control of the vehicle, be aware of the build up of the situation to the moment the electronics can’t cope beyond, and then to suddenly from nowhere have the skills and vehicle control to save the day :unamused: , well that isn’t going to happen as any fool with half a brain knows, because vehicle control is something we learn and progress by constant practice and upskilling, not by dumbing down as is the present course.

If an attendant is going to have to watch the robot doing its thing this closely, he might as well be driving the bloody thing.

On a slight tangent but no doubt destined for the next generation of lorries, i didn’t know until a couple of days ago via another forum that cars now interfere with the steering when ‘‘lane departure warning’’ fires up.
I can state absolutely for the record, that they can stick this garbage where the sun doesn’t shine, i shall never own a car that is programmed to interfere with the steering, nor one that has any control of the brakes either, i’ll stick with my old trustworthy Japanese stuff so long as i can find them, if necessary i’ll grey import an older Japanese model when the ones here get too rusty and have to be scrapped.

The truth will come out I suppose. I saw this on tv the camera focused on a bicycle that was damaged but they kept talking about a pedestrian. So what gives?

cav551:
On only has to look at the hazard perception videos that form part of a driving test procedure to wonder seriously whether any technology can replicate human intuition regarding the possible intentions of another human.
The human can just have a feeling from clues which will not be picked up by radar or video that a particular person/vehicle may do something which one would not normally expect them to do.

All the time there is a human present there is a chance they might intervene,

While all you say about human intuition and perception is true, sadly many for many people driving is just a means to an end and not something they’re aren’t really engaged in and its not just a modern thing, it has always been so, at least since mass car ownership and commuting arrived.
Also as well as our many qualities as a species, we have failings, we evolved for a very different existance, our brain doesn’t process everything our eyes see, (better than most dogs they’re red/green colour blind which is why you don’t see many with driving licences. :laughing: ) we also have problems concentrating on low stimulus activities, of which driving …

alamcculloch:
The truth will come out I suppose. I saw this on tv the camera focused on a bicycle that was damaged but they kept talking about a pedestrian. So what gives?

I believe the motorcyclist who was involved in a crash with an autonomous car earlier this year, is going to take the company to court, so we’ll get another point of view of the incident, as opposed to the self driving company’s accident report, which is what was widely publicised.

Dr damon gutted :laughing:

alamcculloch:
The truth will come out I suppose. I saw this on tv the camera focused on a bicycle that was damaged but they kept talking about a pedestrian. So what gives?

One report I heard suggested that the lady was crossing the road pushing the bicycle.

Another the guy said that there were about 100 people killed by vehicles with drivers at the controls which I thought was a pretty pointles statistic to offer as he didn’t say if that was State wide or Nationally.

Wiretwister:
Another the guy said that there were about 100 people killed by vehicles with drivers at the controls which I thought was a pretty pointles statistic to offer as he didn’t say if that was State wide or Nationally.

It’s always going to be said that one. To kick that argument back to them.

I read the US 1.16 people are killed for every 100 million miles driven. Driverless cars have been figuratively just driven around the block, and they’ve already totalled 1 person.

Sub human ability to monitor and intervene with sub performance technology.