Posted on 03/22/2018 9:31:12 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian
No exerpt.
Video of accident at link.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Question: Do these vehicles have the ability to swerve or only brake
They’ll get better over time. Airliners are practically self-flying these days. All the pilot really does is start the engines and taxi them to the runway. They take off, fly to their destination and land all by computer. The pilot just monitors the gauges.
...
I watched a short 20 minute Airbus flight on Youtube. The pilots spent most of their time pulling out their laptops and doing paperwork. There were drawers that pulled out just like on a computer desk.
Well, perhaps, that’s why I said “maybe”. And yes, due to bad publicity, self-driving cars are in for a serious setback. It will return eventually I think.
Not too many ladies pushing their bicycles in the path of a plane at 30,000 feet.
(ducking for cover)
They’ll get better over time. Airliners are practically self-flying these days.
...
Yes they will. It’s shocking to look back in the past and see how common airliner accidents were at one time.
Would a driverless vehicle smash into another vehicle in order to avoid hitting a child that suddenly ran into the street? Would it swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid a dog? Would it run a red light to avoid someone about to crash into your rear end?
Example....someone is in a parking lot....there are no crosswalks....so I can hit him??
And remember, this car had not one....but two drivers. One was dozing...the other (the magic car), all his life, wanted a bike.
I have to push back on this. A person in the middle of the street "was not anticipated"? Come on. A self-driving car doesn't use radar / lidar / sonar sensors to stay between the lines; those things are for figuring out where things are. As I wrote in an earlier response, if it's not able to avoid a person right in front of it on a straight road, it shouldn't be out in public.
Secondly, many cars in the last two or three years have a "follow" option that keeps you following a safe distance behind the car in front of you. If that car slows down, you slow down. Nobody can make the claim that this sensor technology exists without software to make use of the information gathered.
You might have hit her if you had tunnel vision...but I believe there was a crosswalk up ahead. The camera didn’t do the lady justice.
indeed - the victim, Elaine, was carefully crossing the street safely and exercising normal due care.
Headlights illuminate at least 200 feet, plus victim was crossing under streetlanps.
200 feet at 35 MPH is about 4 seconds,
negligent homicide
Talk about tying your own noose.
I’m taking that into account. I have a lot of videos of deer crossing in front of me at night.
That’s why I’m not positive, but pretty darned sure.
Once in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I noticed a lexus in the lane next to me continuously approaching the car in front of it, then slamming on the brakes at the last second. Every time traffic inched forward, the lexus did this.
Finally got next to it, and expected to see a small asian woman, squinting through glasses, with hands at 10 and 2.
Nope. It was a college girl, texting. She was relying on the car’s anti-collision system to avoid hitting the car ahead. When the car slammed on the brakes, she didn’t even look up.
We don't even know if the Uber car was going at the right speed for conditions.
If the sensors are not cleaned regularly, they won’t work right.
The current technology is probably programmed to hit the smaller object. Although I don’t think most manufacturers have swerve capability that isn’t initiated by a safety driver.
Having said that, I thought the autonomous vehicles had ultrasonic or RADAR collision sensing -- not dependent on optical lighting...
visible-light-optics dependent, then, the headlights definitely should have been on high beam.
The police have so far given the safety driver a pass even after viewing the video. They were actually quite quick about it. I am sure they are still reviewing it. I've read AZ doesn't have very strict distracted driving laws if any. That might be one of the reasons they are testing in AZ. If the homicide had occurred in my town, I suspect the driver would be facing negligent homicide charges.
(For once your tagline actually fits.)
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.