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

[angelatc]

Yeah we just need more laws, that will fix everything, they should just make it to where pedestrians aren't allowed in the road and if you need to cross the street you have to call an uber.

I want my jetpack

[wizardwatson]

A good law would hold everyone involved from the programmer and manufacturer to the human at the wheel (if the manual overrides were fully functional and not dispensed with) responsible for any damage caused by these monstrosities, then the market could decide if the risk was worth it.

We can't even get an elected bureaucrat to lose his job over killing civilians in an illegal war. Snowballs chance in hell a robot that needs more testing, or an experimental bridge pancaking 6 people to death is going to enlighten America about stripping corporate personhood across the board.

[brushfire]

I recall, a few years back, a woman in my town striking a motorcyclist while she was applying makeup. The motorcyclist took a few hours to die, while the woman's mascara ran. Man dead, woman never spent a day in prison...

So what difference does it make whether someone is putting on eyeshadow, playing with their phone, changing 1 of 500 stations on satellite radio, adjusting their heated seat, plugging in coordinates into their gps, snap chatting a picture of their snapper, texting their grandma, putting a dvd on for their kids, or rolling with their autopilot? Who the fk has the attention span for driving on these congested government roads?

[nikcers]

We can't even get an elected bureaucrat to lose his job over killing civilians in an illegal war. Snowballs chance in hell a robot that needs more testing, or an experimental bridge pancaking 6 people to death is going to enlighten America about stripping corporate personhood across the board.

Some people just are more equal then others. Alice Walton talked candidly about it when she was drunk in 1998. She can get away with running people over without any rule of law. The golden rule is whoever owns the gold makes the rules right?

Walton, daughter of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder Sam Walton, crashed her car Jan. 27 near her home. She broke her nose when her car hit a gas meter and a telephone box. Walton testified that she had had a few drinks but wasn't drunk.
Her attorneys argued that the crash could have been caused by fatigue after a full day of business meetings.
Police officers testified that Walton repeatedly refused to submit to a blood-alcohol test.

"She turned back to me and said, 'Do you know who I am? Do you know my last name?' " Police Officer Charles Motsinger testified

[acptulsa]

Long before Obama.

Self driving vehicles have been developed since the 70s..

That van ran on a prerecorded trip tape. Cassette Tape.

edit,
even before I knew. I remember a Van featured in Playboy late 60s or early 70s.

https://www.wired.com/2012/02/autono...hicle-history/


so yeah,, before I was born.

Oh, GM didn't have anything of the sort in 1939. I think they had a diorama display set up showing their vision of superhighways, which had some very early slot cars. But the best they could offer for the real world was the first version of the Hydra Matic.

The earliest self-driving vehicles I know of were these monsters, which use locomotive drivelines and haul 100-200 tons of dirt and rock:



They're used in strip mines. In the late seventies and early eighties, they began setting them up to follow buried wires. There was no one around but employees, and they understood they needed to stay the hell out of the way.

A driver was needed to drive them under the shovel, and to dump them. At first, drivers had to climb up the ladder at the end of the wire, and after driving them back to the wire, climb back down. But the manufacturer quickly developed radio control, each truck on its own frequency.

[phill4paul]

[Brian4Liberty]

The car was trying to download a video and also send live audio and video of the interior of the car to the central server at the time of the accident. Distracted driving and lack of bandwidth at fault.

[nikcers]

The car was trying to download a video and also send live audio and video of the interior of the car to the central server at the time of the accident. Distracted driving and lack of bandwidth at fault.

I was watching this left wing news channel and they said Russia hacked the car, and when I changed my channel to the right wing channel they said it was Chinese slave labor that killed the woman.

[Swordsmyth]

The car was trying to download a video and also send live audio and video of the interior of the car to the central server at the time of the accident. Distracted driving and lack of bandwidth at fault.

Because surveillance is more important than human life, what is the matter with your priorities?

[Swordsmyth]

Update 3: Tempe Police confirmed in a press conference that the Uber vehicle was traveling at around 40mph (with no signs yet that it was slowing down) when it struck the pedestrian.
The "driver" of the vehicle was Rafael Vasquez, 44, Tempe PD says he was not impaired.
There were no signs of impairment in the victim, Elaine Herzberg, 49, who Tempe Police says they "believe she may have been" homeless.
The police confirmed they have video of the Uber accident, which will not be released, and the county attorney is deciding whether to file charges.
* * *
Update 2: Peter Kurdock, director of regulatory affairs for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety in Washington, called the Arizona crash tragic.
The group sent a letter Monday to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao saying it is concerned about a lack of action and oversight by the department as autonomous vehicles are developed. That letter was planned before the crash.
Kurdock said the deadly accident should serve as a “startling reminder” to members of Congress that they need to “think through all the issues to put together the best bill they can to hopefully prevent more of these tragedies from occurring.”
* * *

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...rash-overnight

[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-...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/toyot...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-...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 $#@!ing 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-...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 $#@!ing 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.