Amazing, in less than six hours TV members have changed this unfortunate occurrence from an accident to suicide whilst affected by drugs or being of unsound mind. 

I will not say anymore .

1 minute ago, PJPom said:

Amazing, in less than six hours TV members have changed this unfortunate occurrence from an accident to suicide whilst affected by drugs or being of unsound mind. 

I will not say anymore .

I stick my my original idea of her being unreponsible.

 

I predict driverless tech is going to become a victim of its own success.  It'll be the story of vaccines all over again: countless lives saved, but every once in a while there's a mishap and people scream about how dangerous they are and demand they be banned.

55 minutes ago, HLover said:

I stick my my original idea of her being unreponsible.

 

 

Does that means she is not responsible for the accident?  So you fault the car?

 

The supposed benefit driverless cars is that the technology is sufficiently advanced that it should be able to "see" people in its path or even predict an object moving into its direction of travel and take evasive actions faster than a human driver could. 

 

Obviously that didn't happen in this case and that's why it needs to be investigated.  Drugs and/or insanity isn't an invisibility cloak for autonomous car sensors.  It could have been something as mundane as mechanical failure (brakes) or software bug.  If the reaction time for this incident was so short that the technology couldn't react to it, them I'm not surprised the human on board couldn't either.

An off topic post was removed. 

Drunk, high, homeless, mentally handicapped zombie... strangely enough I have managed to avoid hitting any idiot pedestrian who has staggered, walked, lunged, or ran in front of any vehicle I was driving in my 40 years on the roads.

 

Unfortunately autonomous vehicles aren't up to my standards... yet. I'll keep an open mind but they are a few years off from being ready for prime time.

I have no clue if driverless vehicles will catch on.

 

But the fear, which is perhaps deeply ingrained in our DNA, of the future and unknowns is always startling.

 

I'm picturing the lads sitting around the first fire and bitching about Ogg "discovering" it. "Oh crap, now we'll never get any sleep, and we'll have to eat cooked food."

 

People were afraid of the railroads, the telephone, airplanes, elevators, electricity, automobiles...early on.

 

Now I'm off for my weekly blood-letting.

 

 

when i was at ASU in Tempe i remember a professor being killed crossing the street.  

Perhaps the automobile was under the influence of high-octane petrol. 

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Does that means she is not responsible for the accident?  So you fault the car?

 

The supposed benefit driverless cars is that the technology is sufficiently advanced that it should be able to "see" people in its path or even predict an object moving into its direction of travel and take evasive actions faster than a human driver could. 

 

Obviously that didn't happen in this case and that's why it needs to be investigated.  Drugs and/or insanity isn't an invisibility cloak for autonomous car sensors.  It could have been something as mundane as mechanical failure (brakes) or software bug.  If the reaction time for this incident was so short that the technology couldn't react to it, them I'm not surprised the human on board couldn't either.

She is responsible.

I think a lot of people are being a little too quick to judge this accident.  The police traffic homicide unit has not completed their investigation yet and it may take a minimum of two weeks or more to do so.  It is quite possible the pedestrian was at fault, but as I said the traffic homicide investigation is still ongoing.  One possibility could be the pedestrian was only a couple of feet ahead of the vehicle which was traveling at 65 kph and then suddenly stepped out in front of it, leaving no possible way or time for the vehicle to react.   Let's wait for the investigation to be complete before judging.

5 minutes ago, BarnicaleBob said:

I think a lot of people are being a little too quick to judge this accident.  The police traffic homicide unit has not completed their investigation yet and it may take a minimum of two weeks or more to do so.  It is quite possible the pedestrian was at fault, but as I said the traffic homicide investigation is still ongoing.  One possibility could be the pedestrian was only a couple of feet ahead of the vehicle which was traveling at 65 kph and then suddenly stepped out in front of it, leaving no possible way or time for the vehicle to react.   Let's wait for the investigation to be complete before judging.

Aww, where's the fun in that.  

15 minutes ago, BarnicaleBob said:

I think a lot of people are being a little too quick to judge this accident.  The police traffic homicide unit has not completed their investigation yet and it may take a minimum of two weeks or more to do so.  It is quite possible the pedestrian was at fault, but as I said the traffic homicide investigation is still ongoing.  One possibility could be the pedestrian was only a couple of feet ahead of the vehicle which was traveling at 65 kph and then suddenly stepped out in front of it, leaving no possible way or time for the vehicle to react.   Let's wait for the investigation to be complete before judging.

Why would it take weeks? Plenty of cam footage from the self driving vehicle.

On average, how many km's per accident and how many per death? And how does this compare to the self driving cars?

 

Wouldn't surprise me if self driving cars are better in the stats.

17 minutes ago, stevenl said:

On average, how many km's per accident and how many per death? And how does this compare to the self driving cars?

 

Wouldn't surprise me if self driving cars are better in the stats.

Probably true. But the sample size would be proportionately microscopic at this point. I doubt any meaningful statistical significance could be claimed.

 

I have a gut feeling that ultimately self driving cars will be better than 60% of the human drivers out there.

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by mikebike

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Why would it take weeks? Plenty of cam footage from the self driving vehicle.

Having been a certified traffic homicide investigator, I can tell you it would be rare indeed for a homicide investigation to be done in under two weeks.  The dead woman's history must be looked into, including if she had any disabilities (like maybe blind in one eye) that could have caused her to step in front of a moving vehicle.  What and where had she been during the day leading up to the accident (was she coming from a bar or a drinking party, had she just taken recreational drugs before the accident).  The investigator must attend the autopsy, which would include screening for chemicals in the blood or organs and were there any other preexisting injuries that may have impaired the victim.  Interviews with all of the victims relatives to determine her mental state, was she suicidal and things like that.  All this take a considerable amount of time to line up appointments to do.   And then there is the vehicle, all of its records, software, tires, brakes and many other things about it must be thoroughly investigated. 

 

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by BarnicaleBob

1 hour ago, BarnicaleBob said:

Having been a certified traffic homicide investigator, I can tell you it would be rare indeed for a homicide investigation to be done in under two weeks.  The dead woman's history must be looked into, including if she had any disabilities (like maybe blind in one eye) that could have caused her to step in front of a moving vehicle.  What and where had she been during the day leading up to the accident (was she coming from a bar or a drinking party, had she just taken recreational drugs before the accident).  The investigator must attend the autopsy, which would include screening for chemicals in the blood or organs and were there any other preexisting injuries that may have impaired the victim.  Interviews with all of the victims relatives to determine her mental state, was she suicidal and things like that.  All this take a considerable amount of time to line up appointments to do.   And then there is the vehicle, all of its records, software, tires, brakes and many other things about it must be thoroughly investigated. 

 

Wow, you could have saved all that work by just living in Thailand.

Maybe I'm too old but I hope I don't see driverless cars on the streets and freeways of Los Angeles.  There is just no way a driverless vehicle can be as aware as a person when driving 65 or 75 mph on the crowded freeways in Los Angeles. In addition will driverless cars be traveling at the flow of traffic or remain at or under the speed limit, thus choking traffic even more.  Maybe there are some applications somewhere they might work but a driverless vehicle on a freeway in major cities does not have the ability to anticipate other drivers' actions.  It can only follow the programmed instructions in the computer.  

26 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Maybe I'm too old but I hope I don't see driverless cars on the streets and freeways of Los Angeles.  There is just no way a driverless vehicle can be as aware as a person when driving 65 or 75 mph on the crowded freeways in Los Angeles. In addition will driverless cars be traveling at the flow of traffic or remain at or under the speed limit, thus choking traffic even more.  Maybe there are some applications somewhere they might work but a driverless vehicle on a freeway in major cities does not have the ability to anticipate other drivers' actions.  It can only follow the programmed instructions in the computer.  

Gonna need a lot of sensors to detect and avoid Southern California's lane splitting motorcycles; or will the motorcycles be self driven as well? Not to mention the occasional shoe on the side of the road that sometimes backs up traffic.

14 hours ago, owl sees all said:

It could be that this lady might have been knocked over by a regular vehicle. Too early to say.

I agree. It could well be that a human driver might not have fared much better. Of course, there was an operator on board, but we don't know how long it takes to re-assume control, or even if they were paying any attention to what was going on. Human nature being what it is, one could imagine a sort of blasé attitude developing if you're in one of these vehicles for any length of time.

 

One possible deficiency in the technology that occurs to me is a lack of situational awareness. For example, if I see children playing at the side of the road I'm going to be aware they might dash out into the road unexpectedly. I doubt very much the technology is sophisticated enough to recognise and respond to such situations.

 

4 minutes ago, nausea said:

I agree. It could well be that a human driver might not have fared much better. Of course, there was an operator on board, but we don't know how long it takes to re-assume control, or even if they were paying any attention to what was going on. Human nature being what it is, one could imagine a sort of blasé attitude developing if you're in one of these vehicles for any length of time.

 

One possible deficiency in the technology that occurs to me is a lack of situational awareness. For example, if I see children playing at the side of the road I'm going to be aware they might dash out into the road unexpectedly. I doubt very much the technology is sophisticated enough to recognise and respond to such situations.

 

 

3 meter deer fences along every road?

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

3 meter deer fences along every road?

Heck, why not a wall?   A big, beautiful wall and we'll make Uber pay for it.

What is terribly sad is that you had both an operator and the best technology available and still this occurred.   

 

I have a lot of the collision avoidance equipment, but it still can't detect an animal (or person) headed straight for me.   It does a good job of emergency braking if the vehicle in front slams on its brakes, but there is so much activity that occurs outside the lane is operating in that needs to be taken into account.   

17 minutes ago, Quidio said:

Heck, why not a wall?   A big, beautiful wall and we'll make Uber pay for it.

 

There ya go!

7 hours ago, Credo said:

What is terribly sad is that you had both an operator and the best technology available and still this occurred.   

 

There have been ~ 9,600 road fatalities so far this year, all but one involving operator-driven vehicles.

 

Sad.

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:07 AM, webfact said:

U.S. lawmakers have been debating legislation that would speed introduction of self-driving cars.

I smell the stench of lobbyists money.

What do those people not understand about robot cars replacing humans and creating yet another humanitarian crisis as hundreds of thousands of professional drivers are instantly unemployed.

Are they so completely and utterly ignorant that they can't see what the destruction of the coal industry without alternative employment in place caused?

Perhaps they are aware, but live by the mantra of "I'm all right Jack", with their lux lifestyle, paid for by the very people who's lives they are trying to ruin.

 

As for the death of that unfortunate person, either she'll be the thing that stopped it, or just another casualty as rich people rush to divest their companies of human beings, and make even more money ( till it all goes wrong ).

8 hours ago, Trouble said:

Maybe I'm too old but I hope I don't see driverless cars on the streets and freeways of Los Angeles.  There is just no way a driverless vehicle can be as aware as a person when driving 65 or 75 mph on the crowded freeways in Los Angeles. In addition will driverless cars be traveling at the flow of traffic or remain at or under the speed limit, thus choking traffic even more.  Maybe there are some applications somewhere they might work but a driverless vehicle on a freeway in major cities does not have the ability to anticipate other drivers' actions.  It can only follow the programmed instructions in the computer.  

Well put. 

BTW, of course they'll travel at the lawful speed. If they stay at a proper distance though, it'll make traffic move faster.

 

However, this is being driven not by any desire to make driving safer, but by greed ( as always ).

If they wanted to make the roads safer, they'd be using one of the alternative flexible mass travel options with small cars so people don't have to sit in a carriage with lots of other ( potentially dangerous ) people. Such systems already exist in the development phase, but the people that control the money see larger profits in creating the infrastructure, and selling millions of driverless cars.

 

No one is ( yet ) saying how long after the technology is proven people will have before being banned from driving themselves on the road. 

16 hours ago, BarnicaleBob said:

Having been a certified traffic homicide investigator, I can tell you it would be rare indeed for a homicide investigation to be done in under two weeks.  The dead woman's history must be looked into, including if she had any disabilities (like maybe blind in one eye) that could have caused her to step in front of a moving vehicle.  What and where had she been during the day leading up to the accident (was she coming from a bar or a drinking party, had she just taken recreational drugs before the accident).  The investigator must attend the autopsy, which would include screening for chemicals in the blood or organs and were there any other preexisting injuries that may have impaired the victim.  Interviews with all of the victims relatives to determine her mental state, was she suicidal and things like that.  All this take a considerable amount of time to line up appointments to do.   And then there is the vehicle, all of its records, software, tires, brakes and many other things about it must be thoroughly investigated. 

 

I can't help but think about all these wasted resources when there already is one clear and indisputable source of evidence in the form of dashcam footage. Thousands of dollars spent for nothing - once the responsibility for the accident is clearly established, of what interest are the other facts? who pays for the autopsy and the hours of investigation into an accident that has already been elucidated?

10 hours ago, Trouble said:

Maybe I'm too old but I hope I don't see driverless cars on the streets and freeways of Los Angeles.  There is just no way a driverless vehicle can be as aware as a person when driving 65 or 75 mph on the crowded freeways in Los Angeles. In addition will driverless cars be traveling at the flow of traffic or remain at or under the speed limit, thus choking traffic even more.  Maybe there are some applications somewhere they might work but a driverless vehicle on a freeway in major cities does not have the ability to anticipate other drivers' actions.  It can only follow the programmed instructions in the computer.  

ha - wait until the treehuggers take over.

In Switzerland, driving a car in the city of Zurich (administered by red-green totalitarians) has been made so disgusting that I hardly leave the apartment anymore when I am there.

Such cities will soon become SDV paradise.

15 minutes ago, manarak said:

I can't help but think about all these wasted resources when there already is one clear and indisputable source of evidence in the form of dashcam footage. Thousands of dollars spent for nothing - once the responsibility for the accident is clearly established, of what interest are the other facts? who pays for the autopsy and the hours of investigation into an accident that has already been elucidated?

The purpose of the "in-depth" investigations is so that insurance companies can proportionalize blame and therefore control costs and payouts.