Posted on 03/20/2018 10:51:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
John covered this story last night, but the death of a pedestrian struck by a self-driving Uber vehicle in Arizona should have ramifications for the entire idea of autonomous vehicles. (Something I’ve been concerned about for a couple of years now.) After covering the initial reports from the accident, John concluded with the following observations and questions.
There will be an investigation of this accident as well, but my first thought is to wonder why the human ‘backup driver’ didn’t stop the car and prevent this. Reliable self-driving cars and trucks may still be a couple years away but it’s worth pointing out that human drivers are responsible for tens of thousands of fatal accidents on the roads every year. In 2016, there were an estimated 40,200 fatal crashes. Ultimately, the question is whether the record of driverless cars turns out to be better or worse than the humans who would otherwise be at the wheel.
Before addressing those points, it’s worth noting that new information has been provided by authorities investigating the accident. While it will take a while to sort this all out, initial findings indicate that the car probably wasn’t at fault in this case and the test monitor probably wouldn’t have been able to prevent the accident even if they’d been in complete control. (Fortune)
“The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.”
According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless.
Since there’s dashcam video of the entire incident, the police should be able to sort this out without too many questions going unanswered. Going by their description, the possibly homeless and confused woman was pushing a bicycle in a median strip when she suddenly veered out into traffic directly in front of the Uber vehicle which was going nearly 40 mph. Assuming the next lane of traffic was blocked by another vehicle, the car would have had no other option than to possibly try to drive up onto the median. (It looks like it would have been physically impossible to stop the vehicle in that short span.) But the car’s programming clearly wasn’t anticipating a person diving out in front of it and a human being likely couldn’t crank the wheel over in a split second to avoid her either.
So Uber is off the hook and testing of autonomous vehicles can resume presently, right? I honestly hope not. The woman’s death is a tragedy, but this accident should also give us pause to ask whether any autonomous system will ever be able to replace a human being for such tasks. The woman appears to have done something completely unexpected which the navigation software had no reason to anticipate, but the fact is that irrational, unexpected things do happen in the real world all the time. And it’s in those razor-thin moments of doubt that a human being will always best a machine.
NASA regularly argues that manned space exploration will always be superior to drones and robots because human beings are more adaptable. We simply see the complexity of the world around us in a way that no set of logical rules coded into the most complex software will ever match. Humans are also able to imagine things in a way that computers can’t, including the most unexpected. Take the idea of color for example. A computer can analyze a video image and assign a value to a given color. But there’s a limit to the number of colors it can recognize and it has to force the object into one of those pigeonholes, even if they number in the thousands. In reality, there are an infinite number of colors, with each subtle shift in light frequency blending from one to the next. A system built on ones and zeros will never grasp that.
Returning to the auto accident scenario, the car was unable to anticipate a possibly homeless and confused woman suddenly lurching out in front of it. The car may have identified her as a pedestrian, but that’s not what pedestrians are “supposed to do.” But a human driver, under other circumstances, may have noticed things about her such as disheveled clothes or an unsteady rhythm to her gait. Seeing that, a human could have slowed down in advance, wondering if she was about to do something crazy. Do you honestly believe that an autonomous car is going to be capable of that sort of thought process? And none of this even begins to address the potential problems with hacking and terrorism.
Cars need drivers for precisely this reason. John was right to point out that we’re far from perfect and humans cause many, many accidents each year. With that in mind, some technology could likely improve our record. Perhaps some of those collision detection systems which are able to slam on the brakes when they locate an object we’re about to strike could be added to most vehicles. Sensors which detect a sleepy driver nodding off and sound an alarm to fully wake them might save many lives. But we should still keep a human being at the wheel as the primary operator. Autonomous driving software isn’t going to match the human mind.
If I can drive myself where and when I want and it isn’t cost prohibitive..then I don’t care.
However,i don’t believe this will be the case.
When has our government EVER made anything more efficient,cost less and less intrusive?
Not to mention the law of unintended consequences.
Sure you can drive your car but gas/oil will be crazy expensive.The same way obozo told us we can keep our coal.
I can foresee a time when car control, like gun control, will become an issue.
Also,I seriously doubt there will NOT be heavy restrictions on manual driven cars.
Look what our concerned government officials did to healthcare. It’s nearly impossible to reverse coarse now.
This same government who doubled our national debt in less than 8 years.
That government isnr going to heavily regulate and control self driving cars?
Hope I am wrong.
Don’t hope.
Be part of the process. This is what I kept saying. This technology will come. Just like every other technology wave that has come.
We need to be in front of it. Embrace it. And ensure that the government does not run amok. We have laid down our responsibilities for far to long in the country to those that “know better.”
Like I posted before, I look forward to the day when I am commuting to work and I am actually working, not spending that hour dodging people who are destructive behind the wheel. And, I am sure, for the vast majority of them, they would rather be texting, etc. during that commute time.
... I actually look forward to the day of transporters!
The reason that self-drive cars will have a demand vs. mass transit is you are still free. Mass transit requires that you follow someone else’s schedule and stop for everyone along the way. In my area, a drive that takes 20 - 30 minutes, depending on time of day, never takes less than an hour on mass transit, and you don’t end up where you need to be anyway.
Self-driving, I am still in my car alone, my own schedule, and “fast”.
Oh my gosh, you made one of the best points ever:
Folks who may be too frail
Every time my son and I are out and about and we see elderly people causing traffic hazards, I tell him: don’t let me do that to other people.
Self driving car gives them freedom. They can get it in, whenever they want, behind the steering wheel, head off to Denny’s for their breakfast. Great possibilities.
Drunks don’t want to leave their car etc, won’t have to.
Do you mean like electric cars?
Do you realize that electric car ownership went up, in 2011, from .014% to .062%
The reality is vast majority of the population reject self driving cars.
And it has less to do with technology than it has to do with the recent history of our government.
Which is neither effective, efficient and or non-intrusive.
Although, I have yet to use ANY “technological device”, which I use them quite frequently, that does not have gliches.
In fact, if my tablet or phone were a self driving car I would be afraid to driven by it.
Good luck in the future..I HOPE you get ever thing you want.
Just keep it away from me.
You keep projecting your reasons for rejection on the rest of the population. You keep misrepresenting the situation to reinforce your narrow view.
People did not all go out and buy automobiles when they came out. Many reasons.
People did not all go out and buy computers when they came to the home market.
People did not all (and still do not) buy smart phones/tablets.
But, as time passes, those dynamics change. Compare the internet of today to the internet of the mid to late 1990s.
Your point about electric cars is a non sequitur.
Is there anyone here on FR who is an insurance agent?
I have asked repeatedly about HOW an insurance company will cover damages when a driverless car is involved....
How do they determine the premium—which now is based upon your age, experience, and driving records. None of that applies to a vehicle-—only to a driver.
IF I or anyone here on FR gets into a tangle with a driverless car, who do we sue? Who is covered? What determines the liability?
In a court proceeding, the car cannot be questioned.....
IF anyone here knows the answer to my questions, please reply privately. Thanks much.
I am not projecting anything onto anyone.
I have only said what i personally prefer.
Or in this case do not prefer.
I am not interested in self driving cars.
You like them..so, good for you.
See you in the future Buck Rogers.
BTW people who do not want self driving cars are not necessarily backward luddites.
Or, want to go back to horse and buggies.
But if I wanted to go back to horse and buggy...I would HOPE I could.
Over and out.
loss of gps signal,”””
Reminds me of the ad with the penguins....
I already have uninsured motorist insurance, which constitutes over 48% of my premium here in Nevada, where illegals are given driver’s licenses. I have no tickets for over 15 years—and that was for seat belt. Last accident was Oct 1966. But here in Nevada, thanks to illegals driving, it sure doesn’t help my premiums.
What will be the premium for driverless cars???
This is you projecting:
The reality is vast majority of the population reject self driving cars.
And most of the comments you have made against self driving cars are ridiculous nonsense.
Because you are scared, you are wanting to prevent people from having opportunity.
The article has a point. If we see someone walking in the median we know that's unusual. We realize that at some point they're going to leave the median and so we keep an eye on them and slow down especially if they're close to the road. The driverless car didn't even slow down a bit in an unusual circumstance.
You guys just love to use the word hyperbole when you can't accept the truth. Wind farms were subsidized because they weren't economically viable. They aren't economically viable BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND!
The country is littered with decaying hulks of wind turbins that would have never existed if not for the left wing control of taxpayer money. Same with ethenol and most aspects of solar energy.
I seriously can't believe you actually think other countries lead in this technology. It's failing everywhere you idiots.
Now the driverless car technology is a little different because many private companies are sinking money into it. They are doing this mostly because of their left wing ideology and desire to control the masses NOT because the public is asking for them. The public wants NOTHING to do with cars controlled by google and amazon or facebook or the fedgov or any other such kooky ideas. The American public is going to continue to get behind the wheel of their ever increasing horsepower cars and go wherever the hell they want. Oh and don't forget motorcycles. Did you nitwits forget about motorcycles? Do you think any of this is going to work with self driving cars? The self driving car is going to be about as popular as pure electric cars are today. People will not buy them.
I can't believe I'm having this argument on a board that is supposed to be focused on freedom. Those supporting the driverless car propaganda are lost in the weeds. wake up.
.
Putting these bumper cars on our highways will indirectly cost thousands of lives in inclement weather due to removal of “Botts Dots” from highway lane lines.
This needs to be stopped now, not after more lives are lost.
Ban Leftie-Loon ideas!
.
BTW the device you used to type this failed and accidently double posted.
See post 84 and 85.
And since you embrace the latest technology I can assume you are not using Win98?
Hope your self driving car does a better job.
My device did not double post.
Okay, the device did what you commanded it to do...that is reassuring.
Also, search what percent are interested in driving self driving cars.
Hint: it’s not the majority.
Seems like you have your head in the sand and or projecting,fool?
Again, you are misrepresenting data. Actually, you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts and data.
You are projecting that because you would never want one, and the fact that there are not many on the road as evidence “no one wants it.”
Go educate yourself.
Apparently,you can not be educated because you are a know it all.
The reality is a majority of the population is uncomfortable or not interested in self driving cars.
Just because you wish something were a certain way doesn’t make it so.
I am personally uninterested in self driving cars.
Continue to live life with your head in the sand.
Do not allow reality stop you.
A fool says he knows all while a wise man admits he does not know everything.
Again,enjoy your self driving cars
Made up facts are thrown out by the uneducated:
The reality is a majority of the population is uncomfortable or not interested in self driving cars.
I have great idea for a movie, on a Tesla self-driving vehicle and need a screen writer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.