Uber self-driving car kills pedestrian in first fatal autonomous crash

[Swordsmyth]

Woman claims self-driving Uber struck her car, left the scene
Pittsburgh, Mar 6, 2018
A woman is questioning whether Uber’s self-driving cars are ready for the road after she says one of them struck her vehicle last month.
Jessica Mclemore said she really didn’t' give the test cars too much thought until the night of Feb, 24 when she said one crashed into her car.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/woman-claims-self-driving-uber-str…

 

[Swordsmyth]

Uber is "likely" not at fault in first-of-its-kind fatal self-driving car crash on Sunday in Tempe, Arizona, the local police chief has said.On Sunday night, one of the transportation company's vehicles operating in autonomous mode hit and killed Elaine Herzberg, 49, in what is believed to be the first time a self-driving vehicle has killed a pedestrian.
Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, Tempe police chief Sylvia Moir said that "I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this incident."
There is video of the crash, which investigators are examining but not been released to the public. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir said. Police have previously said Herzberg was not using a crosswalk.
There was a vehicle operator in the driver's seat at the time of the crash, and "the driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," she said. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."
But, she reportedly added: "I won’t rule out the potential to file charges against the (backup driver) in the Uber vehicle."

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-apos-likely-apos-not-005055331.html

 

[Swordsmyth]

Automaker Toyota has temporarily ceases its public road testing of its fully autonomous 'Chauffeur' system in the U.S. after an accident earlier this week saw an Uber self-driving test vehicle strike a pedestrian, which ultimately resulted in her death.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/toyota-pauses-automated-driving-testing-183243826.html

 

[Swordsmyth]

A self-driving Uber car which killed a female pedestrian in Arizona was speeding when the crash occurred, police investigators revealed.

Tempe Police said the car was travelling at around 40 mph in a 35 mph zone and preliminary investigations suggest the SUV failed to slow down before hitting Ms Herzberg.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-apos-self-driving-car-205337712.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

There is video of the crash, which investigators are examining but not been released to the public. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir said. Police have previously said Herzberg was not using a crosswalk.

Heard a tech guy (pro-autonomous vehicle) on the radio basically saying the same thing.

The interesting part is how much it seems that people want to place blame on a human, but in the case of the machine, it is held blameless. It reveals a lot about human psychology. People want to atttribute a premeditated evil intent to anything done by a human, yet that prejudice does not exist with machines. There is more talk about this being the fault of the "back-up" driver than a potential technical error or short coming of the machine.

For example, a person jumps out in front of a car and gets killed. Objectively speaking, it is a case where it could not be helped, human or machine. Yet if it was a human, any excuse to place blame and inflict punishment is grasped at. Did they have a drink? Were they on the cell phone? Were they looking at the radio? Were they talking to someone in the car? Was there a dog in the car? The objective fact that the accident could not be avoided is ignored. "Someone must pay, and there has to be a new law to prevent this tragedy!"

On the other hand, when there is a machine driver, no reaction. "Gee, probably couldn't be avoided. And if it was a technical problem, they will work out the bugs. What's for lunch?"

The future will be interesting.

 

[specsaregood]

There is video of the crash, which investigators are examining but not been released to the public. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir said. Police have previously said Herzberg was not using a crosswalk.

On the other hand, when there is a machine driver, no reaction. "Gee, probably couldn't be avoided. And if it was a technical problem, they will work out the bugs. What's for lunch?"

The future will be interesting.

When I see a kid or animal on the sidewalk and I'm driving by, I almost always slow down or at least let the foot off the gas. Because I know there is a chance they could dart into the road unexpectedly. It doesn't sound like this auto-driver thought to expect the unexpected; I guess because it can't actually think.

 

[acptulsa]

When I see a kid or animal on the sidewalk and I'm driving by, I almost always slow down or at least let the foot off the gas. Because I know there is a chance they could dart into the road unexpectedly. It doesn't sound like this auto-driver thought to expect the unexpected; I guess because it can't actually think.

Once I looked under an RV and saw moving bicycle wheels. I stopped, and a kid whizzed out from in front of the RV.

Suppose any programmers are writing code that will cause a computer car to do that?

 

[specsaregood]

Once I looked under an RV and saw moving bicycle wheels. I stopped, and a kid whizzed out from in front of the RV.

Suppose any programmers are writing code that will cause a computer car to do that?

exactly, i'd be very surprised if they were.

 

[phill4paul]

Once I looked under an RV and saw moving bicycle wheels. I stopped, and a kid whizzed out from in front of the RV.

Suppose any programmers are writing code that will cause a computer car to do that?

Once there is CCTV on every street, and drones in all the airspace that information will be relayed to autonomous cars. Oh, and GPS chips planted in all the children. Why do you hate children?

 

[phill4paul]

When I see a kid or animal on the sidewalk and I'm driving by, I almost always slow down or at least let the foot off the gas. Because I know there is a chance they could dart into the road unexpectedly. It doesn't sound like this auto-driver thought to expect the unexpected; I guess because it can't actually think.

Yeah, but, if you took 100 drivers today, 99 would be finger fucking their sail-fawns, putting on make-up, or paying more attention to their McStuffin' Muffin. So it's probably a wash.

 

[phill4paul]

Heard a tech guy (pro-autonomous vehicle) on the radio basically saying the same thing.

The interesting part is how much it seems that people want to place blame on a human, but in the case of the machine, it is held blameless. It reveals a lot about human psychology. People want to atttribute a premeditated evil intent to anything done by a human, yet that prejudice does not exist with machines. There is more talk about this being the fault of the "back-up" driver than a potential technical error or short coming of the machine.

For example, a person jumps out in front of a car and gets killed. Objectively speaking, it is a case where it could not be helped, human or machine. Yet if it was a human, any excuse to place blame and inflict punishment is grasped at. Did they have a drink? Were they on the cell phone? Were they looking at the radio? Were they talking to someone in the car? Was there a dog in the car? The objective fact that the accident could not be avoided is ignored. "Someone must pay, and there has to be a new law to prevent this tragedy!"

On the other hand, when there is a machine driver, no reaction. "Gee, probably couldn't be avoided. And if it was a technical problem, they will work out the bugs. What's for lunch?"

The future will be interesting.

Absolutely. God forbid a human blows a .08! Death penalty!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[phill4paul]

A self-driving Uber car which killed a female pedestrian in Arizona was speeding when the crash occurred, police investigators revealed.

Tempe Police said the car was travelling at around 40 mph in a 35 mph zone and preliminary investigations suggest the SUV failed to slow down before hitting Ms Herzberg.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-apos-self-driving-car-205337712.html

I hope they issue the car a ticket for speeding and manslaughter. Perhaps the car could talk with the D.A. and plead to a misdemeanor tail light out offense?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Video is out, and it's not good. It was a double failure on the part of the machine and the human. She did not dart out in front of the car. She was slowly walking out in the street in the dark, as the "homeless" tend to do. There was potentially enough time and room for an attentive driver to avoid. An accident would be understandable due to the dark though.

The driver was looking down at the control panel or his cell phone*. The computer did not see something that was right there. Don't these things have some kind of night vision that would make them superior to human eyes?

*Obviously, if the driver can not look away, there is no need or use for an autonomous driving machine, but this is supposedly testing.

 

[dannno]

The driver was looking down at the control panel or his cell phone*

Did you ask for their personal pronoun before throwing that out there?

 

[Anti Federalist]

When I see a kid or animal on the sidewalk and I'm driving by, I almost always slow down or at least let the foot off the gas. Because I know there is a chance they could dart into the road unexpectedly. It doesn't sound like this auto-driver thought to expect the unexpected; I guess because it can't actually think.

This is precisely what I was coming in here to say.

The ever fucking computers cannot intuit that there is a potential obstacle/incident about to happen.

They can only react to outside stimulus or pre-programming.

Motorcycle riding requires this sort of foresight, or you will end up dead.

 

[Madison320]

Video is out, and it's not good. It was a double failure on the part of the machine and the human. She did not dart out in front of the car. She was slowly walking out in the street in the dark, as the "homeless" tend to do. There was potentially enough time and room for an attentive driver to avoid. An accident would be understandable due to the dark though.

The driver was looking down at the control panel or his cell phone*. The computer did not see something that was right there. Don't these things have some kind of night vision that would make them superior to human eyes?

*Obviously, if the driver can not look away, there is no need or use for an autonomous driving machine, but this is supposedly testing.

I just watched that video and I thought the same thing. She didn't "dart out" like all the reports indicated. I was expecting her to leap out from behind a parked car on the right side of the road. She was crossing left to right, slowly, she was right there in the middle of the road for the driver to see for a long time. On the other hand you're not supposed to walk in front of a moving car in the middle of the road.

 

[angelatc]

I watched it about 10 times. I can't see her until she's in the headlights. The car should have probably been able to detect her because it has better sensory inputs. But I'm not sure this is a reason to scrap the technology.

 

[Matt Collins]

Video is out, and it's not good. It was a double failure on the part of the machine and the human. She did not dart out in front of the car. She was slowly walking out in the street in the dark, as the "homeless" tend to do. There was potentially enough time and room for an attentive driver to avoid. An accident would be understandable due to the dark though.

Are you out of your mind?

A human would not have been able to stop in time even if they were looking. Swerve and avoid? maybe but unlikely.

This is clearly the fault of the idiot pedestrian who was:


walking a bike.
At night.
No streetlights.
No backlighting at all.
Wearing black top and dark pants.
With no lights at all on the bike.
No lights on the person.
Not in a crosswalk.
Apparently not looking.

 

[agitator]

Suicide by Uber.

 

[acptulsa]

I watched it about 10 times. I can't see her until she's in the headlights. The car should have probably been able to detect her because it has better sensory inputs.

Doubtful. The car could have been relying on that very camera. The car's low beams were certainly aimed too low--polite to oncoming drivers, but not too useful. Most human eyes would have detected her in spite of that. Cameras adjust their aperture so they get the right amount of light in the largest part of their field if view. Human eyes do, too--but human eyes and brains have a much greater ability to see what is in the rest of the field of view--even if it's too bright or too dark--than any camera.

Regardless of what you see in the video, the "attendant" would have seen the victim in time to do something, had she been looking.

Are you out of your mind?

A human would not have been able to stop in time even if they were looking. Swerve and avoid? maybe but unlikely.

I'd have been able to change lanes safely and in time driving anything smaller than a tractor-trailer. And even in a semi I might have been able to spare her life, though probably not without damage to the vehicle.

And the lane was clear, too. That senseless death would have easily been avoided, had any human that didn't have night blindness been in that car behaving responsibly.

And no, Matt, I did not say the pedestrian demonstrated a lick of sense. I'm just saying that whether there was time to stop or not, there was all the time in the world to change to the left lane.