First Driverless Car Death

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › First Driverless Car Death

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1981347 22-Mar-2018 09:58

cadman:

Are you sure you're not thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey. No 'Douglai' were in that but Leonard Rossiter was - he looks a little similar to them but wasn't in that particular role. I see Kirk is still kicking too - over 100 now. Stuff that.

No, I know that film well. This is a different one and it definitely had one of the Douglai in it. It is very old, nearly as old as Kirk.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1981371 22-Mar-2018 10:43

kryptonjohn:

But 3mph... they must have intentionally built in an allowable variance. This 3mph figure is from their own data after all.

These cars are undergoing test and development. There could be numerous reasons why it was over the limit, such as they where testing/developing the adaptive cruise control or engine/regen/friction braking down a hill etc

djtOtago

1181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 605

#1981477 22-Mar-2018 13:44

The Tempe Police appear to have released some in-car video footage.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/21/uber-tempe-self-driving-crash-video/

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1981486 22-Mar-2018 13:57

Looks preventable - slow moving pedestrian would have been visible miles off to IR or night vision?

The person in the car was not much use looking everywhere but ahead.

Speaking of video... here's the bridge collapse: Zero chance to avoid getting squashed either by human or AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=Ucflj-MsJBI

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1981487 22-Mar-2018 13:58

That's awful.

I have to say ... the person in the car wasn't really paying attention. Appears to be reading or watching something other than the road. Hardly what I would call active supervision

The victim's white shoes appear to be visible from a reasonable way out. She was just on the dark side of very sharp transition from light to dark, so I can see why a computer might have trouble picking her up using visible light

She should have been visible to non-visible spectra if those systems were in use. There wasn't a line of sight obstruction.

The left lane appears to have been empty.

My initial impression .... looks avoidable.

Mike

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#1981542 22-Mar-2018 14:36

Jesus, Avoiding that person is tech today you can buy in a car, how is it that their self-driving tech is that far behind current non-selfdriving tech

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981584 22-Mar-2018 14:47

cadman:

You can't stop a suicidal pedestrian from using your vehicle to their own end. The laws of physics still apply to driverless vehicles.

No you can't. But if your 5 year old ran across the street and the computer algorithm wasn't coded for it because engineers were aged 35, then you would not be a very happy person.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981585 22-Mar-2018 14:51

networkn:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43459156

It was inevitable.

Of course, there will be plenty of commentaries that humans kill people in cars as well.

The difference is, people can be held accountable.

Uber has suspended it's driverless operations whilst it investigates, a logical and smart thing to do.

Interestingly, there was a human monitor in the car. The person killed was not on a ped crossing.

I don't believe computers are ever and will ever be infallible. Humans design them. I'd trust an experienced human judgement more than a computer when decisions are to be made. Computers are very good at assisting though.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1981592 22-Mar-2018 14:58

A question that just occurred to me: If the AI is tasked with deciding who can best be sacrificed in a no-win situation, how do you tell it that your car is full of Girl Guides?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1981597 22-Mar-2018 15:03

And in the #metoo world what if it had to choose between a bus full of boys and a car full of said girl guides?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1981601 22-Mar-2018 15:08

Since only one boy is needed to impregnate a car full of girls, I would say that the girls win.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

mclean

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 182

Subscriber

#1981607 22-Mar-2018 15:18

Working from memory here: A very large population survey on how driverless cars should be programmed to handle to ethical dilemmas posed the following options: Maximise the outcome for civilisation (ie kill the least number of people) or maximise the outcome for the driver.

Most said the first option was the right one. And almost everyone said they would never buy a car programmed like that.