Woman in Phoenix killed by autonomous Vehicle.

[Skinhead]

We all knew it was inevitable.  I didn't think it would happen this soon, or with the "back up" driver.  All testing on hold in Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and all other test sites.   I wonder when the first MC fatality will result from these things.
 

[Moonshot_1]

I'm going to wait for the final accident report before I make my judgment on the cause or fault.
If the woman just accidentally stepped out into the street as the car was passing by, can't see anyone or anything being able to instantaneously stop.
We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

[ridingron]

   We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

Sadly I must agree.

[Skinhead]

Yeah, I agree, very few details at this point.  The spokeswoman for the project started off with exactly that point,  How many have been killed by human drivers.  I'm sure a computer can drive better than half the drivers on the road, I just want to be sure they will detect a MC on the road.

[Daniel Meyer]

   We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

Sadly I must agree.

LOL! I work with computers, programming, and automation all day every day. I have more confidence in the teen on her cell phone.

It WILL be interesting to hear the final analysis...since the car did have a driver present, it could end up being pilot error.

[¿spoom]

   We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

Sadly I must agree.

LOL! I work with computers, programming, and automation all day every day. I have more confidence in the teen on her cell phone.

It WILL be interesting to hear the final analysis...since the car did have a driver present, it could end up being pilot error.

Yup, ever since the J1 absolute encoder on a Panrobo 369 went out, and it smacked me upside the head, I've not had the childlike confidence required to jump into a self-driving car. 

[RDKLL]

The news indicates that she was not using a crosswalk and was walking her bicycle...

[Serk]

[Jess from VA]

  We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

Sadly I must agree.

LOL! I work with computers, programming, and automation all day every day.  I have more confidence in the teen on her cell phone.

It WILL be interesting to hear the final analysis...since the car did have a driver present, it could end up being pilot error.

Well that's some good news.  

I wonder how the authorities will react when people start shooting them in self defense (the car, not the ride along drivers)?  I would assume going for the computer eyes (cameras?) would be the way to shut them down.  The tires might not get them stopped in time.

Let's see, lethal threat, disabling a moving machine, so it's not murder and not malicious destruction of property either.

[old2soon]

  We do know the computer operating the car was not on it's cell phone and texting. Frankly, I have more confidence in autonomous vehicles than a teen age girl armed with a cell phone and Daddy's SUV.

Sadly I must agree.

LOL! I work with computers, programming, and automation all day every day.  I have more confidence in the teen on her cell phone.

It WILL be interesting to hear the final analysis...since the car did have a driver present, it could end up being pilot error.

Well that's some good news.  

I wonder how the authorities will react when people start shooting them in self defense (the car, not the ride along drivers)?  I would assume going for the computer eyes (cameras?) would be the way to shut them down.  The tires might not get them stopped in time.

Let's see, lethal threat, disabling a moving machine, so it's not murder and not malicious destruction of property either.

               BUT the anti gunners want to disarm us!  And what IF the machine KNOWS we are tryin to kill it?  And what IF 5 rounds ain't enough?  RIDE SAFE.

[¿spoom]

I had to chuckle at the "Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time" in the story below. Um, duh. The human will never stop anything in time nor should ever be called the backup. The whole point of not driving the car yourself is, um, not driving the car yourself. 

DETROIT (AP) The deadly collision between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian near Phoenix is bringing calls for tougher self-driving regulations. But advocates for a hands-off approach say big changes aren't needed.

Police in Tempe, Arizona, say the female pedestrian walked in front of the Uber SUV Sunday night. Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time. Local authorities haven't determined fault.

Current federal regulations have few requirements specifically for self-driving vehicles, leaving it for states to handle. Many, such as Arizona, Nevada and Michigan, cede key decisions to companies.

Many federal and state officials say their regulations are sufficient to keep people safe while allowing the potentially life-saving technology to grow.

[old2soon]

I had to chuckle at the "Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time" in the story below. Um, duh. The human will never stop anything in time nor should ever be called the backup. The whole point of not driving the car yourself is, um, not driving the car yourself. 

DETROIT (AP) The deadly collision between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian near Phoenix is bringing calls for tougher self-driving regulations. But advocates for a hands-off approach say big changes aren't needed.

Police in Tempe, Arizona, say the female pedestrian walked in front of the Uber SUV Sunday night. Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time. Local authorities haven't determined fault.

Current federal regulations have few requirements specifically for self-driving vehicles, leaving it for states to handle. Many, such as Arizona, Nevada and Michigan, cede key decisions to companies.

Many federal and state officials say their regulations are sufficient to keep people safe while allowing the potentially life-saving technology to grow.

               Sooooooooo don't blame the vehicle til proven it was the vehicle BUT on the other hand blame the gun NO MATTER WHAT! O K-got it! RIDE SAFE.

[¿spoom]

I had to chuckle at the "Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time" in the story below. Um, duh. The human will never stop anything in time nor should ever be called the backup. The whole point of not driving the car yourself is, um, not driving the car yourself. 

DETROIT (AP) The deadly collision between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian near Phoenix is bringing calls for tougher self-driving regulations. But advocates for a hands-off approach say big changes aren't needed.

Police in Tempe, Arizona, say the female pedestrian walked in front of the Uber SUV Sunday night. Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time. Local authorities haven't determined fault.

Current federal regulations have few requirements specifically for self-driving vehicles, leaving it for states to handle. Many, such as Arizona, Nevada and Michigan, cede key decisions to companies.

Many federal and state officials say their regulations are sufficient to keep people safe while allowing the potentially life-saving technology to grow.

               Sooooooooo don't blame the vehicle til proven it was the vehicle BUT on the other hand blame the gun NO MATTER WHAT! O K-got it! RIDE SAFE.

exactly, wait'll we have a few killings by a drone with handgun duct taped to it...

[Gryphon Rider]

They've released video.  To me it looks like poor headlight aim is what prevented the driver (whether computer or human) from seeing the pedestrian in time.  The lights appear to be aimed to illuminate a maximum of 50 feet or so of road in front of the car.  The jaywalking and dark colour of the pedestrian's clothes didn't help, but at the speed the car was going, with properly aimed headlights any attentive driver (probably even the computer) could have stopped in time or at least slowed enough so the impact wouldn't be fatal.

https://news.sky.com/video/fatal-autonomous-uber-crash-on-camera-11299527

[Daniel Meyer]

They've released video.  To me it looks like poor headlight aim is what prevented the driver (whether computer or human) from seeing the pedestrian in time.  The lights appear to be aimed to illuminate a maximum of 50 feet or so of road in front of the car.  The jaywalking and dark colour of the pedestrian's clothes didn't help, but at the speed the car was going, with properly aimed headlights any attentive driver (probably even the computer) could have stopped in time or at least slowed enough so the impact wouldn't be fatal.

https://news.sky.com/video/fatal-autonomous-uber-crash-on-camera-11299527

And god help us if they're putting these things on the road with only visual/headlight dependent sensors. Even the wife's jeep has radar and would have  flagged that one. Lady was already in the roadway and intersecting the car's path. The car should have "seen" that long before a human driver could...

[RP#62]

I read a couple articles about it today.  Consensus seems to be that a human driver may not have been able to stop in time, but even with dim light, the LIDAR and Radar should have seen her, identified her as human and stopped.  This will be a set back, but I don't think it will keep them from coming.  Too much momentum now.

On another note, I drive through Tempe all the time and when I first heard this story, it didn't surprise me.  I see people crossing the street there all the time without looking.  They just assume that they have right of way and cars will stop.  I remember thinking to myself several times, one day, someone is not going to see you and you're going to get creamed.

-RP

[Dave Ritsema]

Based on that footage it appeared that the human element was looking down at his computer screen  immediately prior to the impact and his eyes were not on the road as well. Like has been said, it is difficult to believe that the vehicle was equipped with radar as that should have easily been seen by the vehicle if so equipped.

If the backup driver isn't in the same state of awareness that a typical driver should be in then I question their relevance to the safety of the vehicle unless you just need someone to call the authorities and report what happened.

What concerns me even more is semi's barreling down the interstate autonomously. Maybe I shouldn't have let the Steven King book and movie "Maximum Overdrive" bother me as much as it did. 

They've released video.  To me it looks like poor headlight aim is what prevented the driver (whether computer or human) from seeing the pedestrian in time.  The lights appear to be aimed to illuminate a maximum of 50 feet or so of road in front of the car.  The jaywalking and dark colour of the pedestrian's clothes didn't help, but at the speed the car was going, with properly aimed headlights any attentive driver (probably even the computer) could have stopped in time or at least slowed enough so the impact wouldn't be fatal.

https://news.sky.com/video/fatal-autonomous-uber-crash-on-camera-11299527

[¿spoom]

The only way that autonomous cars should be approved is if they are deemed safe with no person even in the car, because we all know that's how useful a person will be if they ARE in an autonomous car. I don't watch out for other planes when I'm on an airplane, and if I'm not driving the car I'm in, I get bored easily and don't pay attention. There's no reason to HAVE these cars if human interaction is required or even assumed.

[Romeo]

I had to chuckle at the "Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time" in the story below. Um, duh. The human will never stop anything in time nor should ever be called the backup. The whole point of not driving the car yourself is, um, not driving the car yourself. 

DETROIT (AP) The deadly collision between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian near Phoenix is bringing calls for tougher self-driving regulations. But advocates for a hands-off approach say big changes aren't needed.

Police in Tempe, Arizona, say the female pedestrian walked in front of the Uber SUV Sunday night. Neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time. Local authorities haven't determined fault.

Current federal regulations have few requirements specifically for self-driving vehicles, leaving it for states to handle. Many, such as Arizona, Nevada and Michigan, cede key decisions to companies.

Many federal and state officials say their regulations are sufficient to keep people safe while allowing the potentially life-saving technology to grow.

               Sooooooooo don't blame the vehicle til proven it was the vehicle BUT on the other hand blame the gun NO MATTER WHAT! O K-got it! RIDE SAFE.

guess what, this thread has nothing to do with gun control. NOTHING.

[Moonshot_1]

Looking at the video, I can make my assessment of this accident.

For an autonomous vehicle to be cut loose on public roads and highways, a high degree of technology must be used. There is ample technology to have detected the woman and bike in the roadway even if there were no lighting at all. It was not as if she stepped out from behind another vehicle or building. She was in the roadway for an adequate time for the car to detect and stop or to at least slow down and alert the driver.

It would be one thing if the woman came out of nowhere and hit the car. But the car hit her and clearly should have detected the woman in the roadway long before impact.

[Oss]

driving my car in blizzard conditions I have gotten a prompt that the camera is  blocked..........

So if the camera is blocked how the heck can the car "see" what is ahead of it.

This is not the "train to the plane" that runs on its own track

I dont trust the things, probably never will trust a self driving car with no driver

[The emperor has no clothes]

I dont trust the things, probably never will trust a self driving car with no driver

+1, the concept is kind of cool. Being able to sleep or eat or read or whatever instead of actually be driving. But, I doubt I'd be able to. I'd be constantly watching the road, ready to take over.

[Serk]

Ya'll do realize that the pilots on most commercial flights these days are mostly there to make you feel better, right?

Even with the current crude state of the art, statistically if we were to compare deaths per X miles, I'd put my fate in the hands of the automated cars instead of the average driver...

I don't fear automated cars. What I fear is the coming laws making them mandatory and banning those of us who prefer to operate our own vehicles from doing so.

[Jess from VA]

I've had the experience of teaching a couple people to drive cars.

Neither were naturals (not even close).

There was no brake on my side, but I still dented the floor.

I'm never doing it again.

The only way I'd get in one of those cars is if forced at gunpoint.

And as soon as no one's looking, I'm bailing out.  

On the other hand, I would support the idea of roads to only be used by driver-less cars, and texters/cell phone drivers (they deserve each other).

[Serk]

I've had the experience of teaching a couple people to drive cars.

I just added the 15 year old spawnling to our insurance... Don't remind me...

And once I get through this, assuming I and she survives, I'll get to do it 3 times more all at once...      

[Jess from VA]

You know, some people learn to drive easily.  Like me.  And I was not allowed to drive up and down our private street or ever, until driver's ed.  It just came naturally (in a '67 automatic Impala, the same new car that was sitting at my house).  I'm sure there are many who take to it right off.

It took me months to teach my wife.  And when they sent me away to USAF school, my mom took over (she taught me to drive a standard, in about 3 hours).  Then she called me at school and said.... Jess, I want to stay friends with your wife, so I'm going to pay someone to teach her.  

She's been at it now for about 28 years, and man I really hate it if I ever have to be her passenger.

Years later she wanted to learn to ride a motorcycle. (Oh Lord, not this sh!t again) (first time ever on a standard shift, and it showed) (at least I didn't have to be on the same bike).

The truth is, I don't like being anyone's passenger.  And I arrange it so I rarely am.

When you start out with Kali, get in the back seat and strap in good.  That's always a good confidence builder.  

You start out in big empty parking lots, and tell them.... today's goal is to not hit any of these light poles.

You'd think computer geeks could benefit from some digital training (before the street).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a691Oxj4-4E

[scooperhsd]

I'm not a very good passenger either, anymore. I can tolerate the wife because I know she takes as much care  with it as I do. I don't think I can be a motorcycle passenger, though. Even if the driver is as good as or better than me - no disrespect to them.

I am not really sure I want to see autonomous cars on the road. Even as a passenger I am constantly scanning (unless I'm asleep). And I'm concerned about how the AC's will deal with motorcycles and other smaller vehicles (bicycles/ scooters, for example). I'm not so sure about those autonomous trucks (18 wheelers) that will be driven by remote control either (same concerns).

Heck I don't mess with my GPS unless I'm stopped, nor MAKE phone calls. Texting is strictly a "stopped" activity. I will TAKE a phone call on handsfree if I can do it safely.

[old2soon]

In another life I drove 18 wheeler all over our fair Nation. I have a "feel" for what the roadway I am traveling on tells me through the actions of the vehicle itself the weather conditions and the road conditions. There is a looseness in areas of my body when my big truck started that slidy thing. Would my "feel" for certain "stuff" be inside or outside of the puters parameters? How do you program a "feel"? While on that ride I posted about recently the front end started a minor wash out due to unseen grit on the road surface. Conditioned reflexes went immediately to work to correct the situation. I did NOT go down! Evan-Oss-mentioned a camera warning after the lens got snow covered. So if the puter can't "see" a woman and a bicycle will it "see" an 18 wheeler? Will it "see" a motorcyclist? Think Twister here. Will it "see" a tree slidin towards the vehicle? Neither one of my wives were "good" drivers. At this point in time I ride in a cage with one and only one Person I TRUST. My Brother Ross. Even as tired as my eyes are there is NO replacing the MK I MOD I eyeball.  RIDE SAFE.

[Romeo]

Too bad we didn’t have social media back in the days of Ford and Daimler. It would be interesting to compare the comments from those folks from the horse and buggy days to those today.

[Gryphon Rider]

Too bad we didn’t have social media back in the days of Ford and Daimler. It would be interesting to compare the comments from those folks from the horse and buggy days to those today.

https://www.nha.org/library/hn/HN-fall88-clintonfolger.htm