Jump to content

Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street


webfact

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Scott said:

The self-driving vehicles were approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation, so they are legal.   Some states do not allow them and in all states that I am aware of, it is a testing/trial period.    So, Uber can have them, but they are not approved for personal use by others.

 

I hope that the technology continues to improve and they can become a reality, but even as a reality, I don't see them running without a human operator somewhere very handy.   Roads and traffic have way too many variables to easily react to the multitude of situations.   I can see a group of children playing ball well off the road and take the necessary action to avoid a child darting out from between two cars chasing a ball.  

I can read the caution signs as well.   It may not be able to do it.

I'm sure the car was 'legal', but are we not to question the judgement of those responsible for making it legal, when even you and I can see the inevitable risks? They were either idealistic or thought it was worth the odd death.

We drive around accepting that there will be deaths, but at least we have ourselves to blame. With this, there is no one, apparently, to blame. In any case, the compensation to the victim's family should be substantial and punitive to whoever is responsible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

I'm sure the car was 'legal', but are we not to question the judgement of those responsible for making it legal, when even you and I can see the inevitable risks? They were either idealistic or thought it was worth the odd death.

We drive around accepting that there will be deaths, but at least we have ourselves to blame. With this, there is no one, apparently, to blame. In any case, the compensation to the victim's family should be substantial and punitive to whoever is responsible.

We, or I am, moving a little off-topic, but the fact that this happened in the metro Phoenix area is not a big surprise.   Arizona has one of the highest rates of pedestrian deaths in the US.  

 

The city is designed with very flat, straight roads, and most are one mile between intersections.   This means traffic can move very quickly.   It also means that people wanting to cross the road may have a long way to go to the nearest crosswalk, so cutting across is common.   It's not a pedestrian friendly area and a high percentage of those who are pedestrians are the homeless.

 

I don't know who is going end up on the legal hook, but I suspect if there is a law suit, just about everyone from the driver, to Uber, to the Transportation Department could end up in the suit.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scott said:

We, or I am, moving a little off-topic, but the fact that this happened in the metro Phoenix area is not a big surprise.   Arizona has one of the highest rates of pedestrian deaths in the US.  

 

The city is designed with very flat, straight roads, and most are one mile between intersections.   This means traffic can move very quickly.   It also means that people wanting to cross the road may have a long way to go to the nearest crosswalk, so cutting across is common.   It's not a pedestrian friendly area and a high percentage of those who are pedestrians are the homeless.

 

I don't know who is going end up on the legal hook, but I suspect if there is a law suit, just about everyone from the driver, to Uber, to the Transportation Department could end up in the suit.     

Quite. I hope the penalty is sufficient to put an end to the whole misguided project. They can't go on learning from fatal error. You would have to admit, to be logical, that it's unworkable if it requires the constant vigilance of a human operator equivalent to that of an actual driver - that undermines the whole point of it. It's fine maybe in controlled low-speed conditions such as airport shuttles, but not for general use on public roads.

 

To my mind, the entire project is akin to creating food tablets - useful for certain applications, but who wouldn't rather have the messy, expensive, time-consuming palaver of cooking up a nice meal? People want to put their foot on the pedal and feel the engine roar; they want to twist the wheel and feel the car turn. It's what makes us human. The boffins behind self-driving cars are oblivious to the human element to a staggering extent.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

Quite. I hope the penalty is sufficient to put an end to the whole misguided project. They can't go on learning from fatal error. You would have to admit, to be logical, that it's unworkable if it requires the constant vigilance of a human operator equivalent to that of an actual driver - that undermines the whole point of it. It's fine maybe in controlled low-speed conditions such as airport shuttles, but not for general use on public roads.

 

To my mind, the entire project is akin to creating food tablets - useful for certain applications, but who wouldn't rather have the messy, expensive, time-consuming palaver of cooking up a nice meal? People want to put their foot on the pedal and feel the engine roar; they want to twist the wheel and feel the car turn. It's what makes us human. The boffins behind self-driving cars are oblivious to the human element to a staggering extent.

 

 

Full time autonomous is a fad and hype for now, the future is semi autonomous/driver assist

 

 

No one is going to hop onto their self driving electric Harley and go for a ride

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am finding these LUDDITE comments amusing.

They are wrong.

It's going to happen. 

Within a decade or two the majority of commercial and private vehicles on American roads are going to be fully autonomous. The higher the percentage of that, the safer the roads get.  Individual ownership will greatly decline. There will be much less need for that. Parking spaces will be transformed, cities will be transformed. 

Doesn't matter if you like it or ... it's going to happen. 

 

ludd.jpg.0ae396c697317a97af82e26a1102cb0a.jpg

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

Quite. I hope the penalty is sufficient to put an end to the whole misguided project. They can't go on learning from fatal error. You would have to admit, to be logical, that it's unworkable if it requires the constant vigilance of a human operator equivalent to that of an actual driver - that undermines the whole point of it. It's fine maybe in controlled low-speed conditions such as airport shuttles, but not for general use on public roads.

 

To my mind, the entire project is akin to creating food tablets - useful for certain applications, but who wouldn't rather have the messy, expensive, time-consuming palaver of cooking up a nice meal? People want to put their foot on the pedal and feel the engine roar; they want to twist the wheel and feel the car turn. It's what makes us human. The boffins behind self-driving cars are oblivious to the human element to a staggering extent.

Agree 100%.

Self driving technology should be limited to specific applications, like in mines, where they are already being used. Airports would be another.

However, only in controlled environments, as people will always make illogical decisions, and computers are not yet able to incorporate the illogical into their control systems.

Should never be allowed in public areas till AI is established, which is not yet. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I'm not convinced Jing...

 

I think the final outcome will be a hybrid autonomous vehicle for most regular users.

 

Commercial vehicles and long-haul busses/trucks may well be fully automated.

Actually, I think most of the individual cars will be SHARED cars and they will be fully automated. The hybrid thing is strictly a transition thing and about the testing phase which of course will take several years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I am finding these LUDDITE comments amusing.

They are wrong.

It's going to happen. 

Within a decade or two the majority of commercial and private vehicles on American roads are going to be fully autonomous. The higher the percentage of that, the safer the roads get.  Individual ownership will greatly decline. There will be much less need for that. Parking spaces will be transformed, cities will be transformed. 

Doesn't matter if you like it or ... it's going to happen. 

 

ludd.jpg.0ae396c697317a97af82e26a1102cb0a.jpg

I do not disagree, but what do you suggest should happen with the hundreds of thousands of professional drivers that will become unemployed?

The subject isn't just about self driving but HAS to consider the impact such technology has on society.

It's not going to help society if unemployed and desperate ex drivers blockade every road in protest. They ain't just going to go away and die quietly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jdiddy said:

Looks like uber's camera is a potato and very misleading. Skip to :30 in for accident site

 

 

Thank's for the VDO. It would appear the car's VDO is erroneous, but makes the collision even more inexcusable if it was as visible as it must have been.

I'm guessing, but if the road was that well illuminated, the back up driver is in for a legal kicking, as she would have seen the cyclist and would have been able to take action if she was doing her job and watching the road.

Edited by thaibeachlovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The higher the percentage of that, the safer the roads get

Off to a really bad start with that, conventional vehicles:1.25 deaths per 100 million miles traveled vs Uber "driverless" cars (that still need the human driver to intervene once every 13 miles on average): 1 death for 3 million miles traveled

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jdiddy said:

Off to a really bad start with that, conventional vehicles:1.25 deaths per 100 million miles traveled vs Uber "driverless" cars (that still need the human driver to intervene once every 13 miles on average): 1 death for 3 million miles traveled

Totally irrelevant to what I said.

We're in the historically early stages of testing and development.

I'm talking about much later when there is a critical mass of these vehicles in operation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

It's going to happen. 

Within a decade or two the majority of commercial and private vehicles on American roads are going to be fully autonomous. The higher the percentage of that, the safer the roads get.  Individual ownership will greatly decline. There will be much less need for that. Parking spaces will be transformed, cities will be transformed. 

Doesn't matter if you like it or ... it's going to happen. 

 

Just as the deaths of Bridget Driscoll and Henry H. Bliss in the late 1800's didn't stop the original automobile from taking off, the deaths of Joshua Brown and Elaine Herzberg won't prevent autonomous vehicles from becoming ubiquitous as well. Technology continues to move forward and hopefully so will the needed safety measures as well. To me, it seems Uber was pushing their design beyond its capabilities and someone else paid the price dearly. 

Edited by Silurian
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Actually, I think most of the individual cars will be SHARED cars and they will be fully automated. The hybrid thing is strictly a transition thing and about the testing phase which of course will take several years. 

Most consumers in the USA aren't that big on "shared" anything... that communist, lefty, socialist scenario of yours will take more than the decade or two you stated... LOL!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

Just as the deaths of Bridget Driscoll and Henry H. Bliss in the late 1800's didn't stop the original automobile from taking off, the deaths of Joshua Brown and Elaine Herzberg won't prevent autonomous vehicles from becoming ubiquitous as well. Technology continues to move forward and hopefully so will the needed safety measures as well. To me, it seems Uber was pushing their design beyond its capabilities and someone else paid the price dearly. 

Its like early drug studies being done on humans and not lab animals.

 

What is with these jurisdictions that think its OK to test on public roads thereby subsidizing corporations and adding a new danger for the public?

 

Let these companies set up and pay for their own private testing facilities far away from public roads until the body count is roughly equal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Most consumers in the USA aren't that big on "shared" anything... that communist, lefty, socialist scenario of yours will take more than the decade or two you stated... LOL!!

Yes and no.

Sooner or later it's about ECONOMICS.

Running a private vehicle is very expensive.

Younger Americans already do so at lower rates than previous generations. They're much more culturally into sharing all kinds of stuff, look at social media.

Where we're going is to a place where using shared automated vehicles is going to be significantly LESS EXPENSIVE than private ownership with a similar level of convenience. It will be less convenient in some ways but MORE CONVENIENT in others (parking). It will take time but that's where things are going. 

 

Obviously there will be many years of transition, but once it gets over 50 percent automated and mostly shared, there will be no turning back. 

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Its like early drug studies being done on humans and not lab animals.

 

What is with these jurisdictions that think its OK to test on public roads thereby subsidizing corporations and adding a new danger for the public?

 

Let these companies set up and pay for their own private testing facilities far away from public roads until the body count is roughly equal.

The trouble with that POV is that there are also private facilities but the public road testing and development is totally necessary for this to go forward. I believe it will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes and no.

Sooner or later it's about ECONOMICS.

Running a private vehicle is very expensive.

Younger Americans already do so at lower rates than previous generations. They're much more culturally into sharing all kinds of stuff, look at social media.

Where we're going is to a place where using shared automated vehicles is going to be significantly LESS EXPENSIVE than private ownership with a similar level of convenience. It will be less convenient in some ways but MORE CONVENIENT in others (parking). It will take time but that's where things are going. 

 

Obviously there will be many years of transition, but once it gets over 50 percent automated and mostly shared, there will be no turning back. 

Far more likely to be small vehicles that only take 2 people max, and are not shared for the duration of the journey.

I wouldn't like to be sharing a taxi with strangers, and I guarantee women won't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further points.

 

Another demographic change stimulating demand for self driving cars not privately owned is BABY BOOMERS.

 

They're getting old.

Most of them are underfunded for retirement so many will find maintaining a private vehicle no longer economically viable. 

Many of those underfunded older people won't be able to retire at all, and lower cost than private fleet automated cars will allow many of them to continue commuting to jobs.

Also, older people in general gradually lose their fitness to drive at all especially at night.

Older people VOTE in very high numbers so when there are political issues about promoting this trend, older people will be SUPPORTING it (because losing mobility is almost the same as death in American culture). 

 

So the demographic demand is going to come from both youth and age.

 

By shared vehicles, I never meant that you buy a car with a bunch of neighbors! As far as sharing rides with strangers, that could be part of it for some market segments, but that isn't really the point I was making. Shared was meant that you have private DOOR TO DOOR transport but you never OWN the vehicle. 

 

I'm talking about huge commercial fleets owned by competing companies (hopefully not a total monopoly) where you pay for the service on some kind of subscription method tied to usage, like an internet package but obviously more expensive.

 

The joy of driving thing is real but that's more about the OPEN ROAD.

 

The vast majority of Americans now live in URBAN AREAS and much of their time driving means being stuck in traffic -- hardly a joy!

 

Rural areas may never transition. Doesn't matter to the trend.

 

The wastefulness, economically and ecologically, of nearly everyone owning a private vehicle that sits idle most of the time is absurd.

 

Here comes progress, or if not, it really should. 

 

BTW -- one DOWNSIDE of this trend is that traditional public transportation (buses, street cars, subways) will likely decline. I consider that a negative but given that the vast majority of the USA lacks decent traditional public transport, it's not that big of a loss to go from bad to very bad. 

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I am finding these LUDDITE comments amusing.

They are wrong.

It's going to happen. 

Within a decade or two the majority of commercial and private vehicles on American roads are going to be fully autonomous. The higher the percentage of that, the safer the roads get.  Individual ownership will greatly decline. There will be much less need for that. Parking spaces will be transformed, cities will be transformed. 

Doesn't matter if you like it or ... it's going to happen. 

 

It must be nice there in your utopia. But utopias require everyone to think and act the same way.

Yours doesn't take into account human nature which will always demand manually-driven cars. We can't live by algorithm. And you know what will happen if manual and automated vehicles share the road: human drivers will quickly learn how to out-risk the automated vehicles. It will be a mess.

 

Maybe in a few hundred years when we've stopped being human, but then life won't be worth living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

It must be nice there in your utopia. But utopias require everyone to think and act the same way.

Yours doesn't take into account human nature which will always demand manually-driven cars. We can't live by algorithm. And you know what will happen if manual and automated vehicles share the road: human drivers will quickly learn how to out-risk the automated vehicles. It will be a mess.

 

Maybe in a few hundred years when we've stopped being human, but then life won't be worth living.

I have zero doubt that horse riders said very similar things in the early days of automobiles. :stoner:

There are actually lots of parallels. In the early days before cars took over people were understandably horrified about people being hit by cars. But then the legal system adapted and pedestrians ended up having almost no rights compared to keeping the car traffic flowing. That wasn't all positive but I see the same thing will happen with this new technology.

Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The trouble with that POV is that there are also private facilities but the public road testing and development is totally necessary for this to go forward. I believe it will. 

I don’t believe the risk-reward balance is there yet, in the terms of human life, for real world testing, if the numbers quoted were correct.

 

Also think that the sharing of vehicles is never going to be economically or culturallly viable outside of urban areas anywhere in NA. That is a lot of consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe the risk-reward balance is there yet, in the terms of human life, for real world testing, if the numbers quoted were correct.
 
Also think that the sharing of vehicles is never going to be economically or culturallly viable outside of urban areas anywhere in NA. That is a lot of consumers.
Most Americans live in urban areas. 85 percent. I didn't say now. Going towards that over time.. I don't think 100 years. More like, 10 to 20.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Some further points.

 

Another demographic change stimulating demand for self driving cars not privately owned is BABY BOOMERS.

 

They're getting old.

Most of them are underfunded for retirement so many will find maintaining a private vehicle no longer economically viable. 

Many of those underfunded older people won't be able to retire at all, and lower cost than private fleet automated cars will allow many of them to continue commuting to jobs.

Also, older people in general gradually lose their fitness to drive at all especially at night.

Older people VOTE in very high numbers so when there are political issues about promoting this trend, older people will be SUPPORTING it (because losing mobility is almost the same as death in American culture). 

 

So the demographic demand is going to come from both youth and age.

 

By shared vehicles, I never meant that you buy a car with a bunch of neighbors! As far as sharing rides with strangers, that could be part of it for some market segments, but that isn't really the point I was making. Shared was meant that you have private DOOR TO DOOR transport but you never OWN the vehicle. 

 

I'm talking about huge commercial fleets owned by competing companies (hopefully not a total monopoly) where you pay for the service on some kind of subscription method tied to usage, like an internet package but obviously more expensive.

 

The joy of driving thing is real but that's more about the OPEN ROAD.

 

The vast majority of Americans now live in URBAN AREAS and much of their time driving means being stuck in traffic -- hardly a joy!

 

Rural areas may never transition. Doesn't matter to the trend.

 

The wastefulness, economically and ecologically, of nearly everyone owning a private vehicle that sits idle most of the time is absurd.

 

Here comes progress, or if not, it really should. 

 

BTW -- one DOWNSIDE of this trend is that traditional public transportation (buses, street cars, subways) will likely decline. I consider that a negative but given that the vast majority of the USA lacks decent traditional public transport, it's not that big of a loss to go from bad to very bad. 

While I agree that older people are less likely to own vehicles for the reasons given, I disagree that this will cause them to move to autonomous vehicles. It is my experience that they change to a subsidised (my local area) taxi service where they have a driver to help them load and unload groceries, walkers and wheelchairs and offer assistance to and from the vehicle where required.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

By shared vehicles, I never meant that you buy a car with a bunch of neighbors! As far as sharing rides with strangers, that could be part of it for some market segments, but that isn't really the point I was making. Shared was meant that you have private DOOR TO DOOR transport but you never OWN the vehicle. 

So you are talking about taxis?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, halloween said:

While I agree that older people are less likely to own vehicles for the reasons given, I disagree that this will cause them to move to autonomous vehicles. It is my experience that they change to a subsidised (my local area) taxi service where they have a driver to help them load and unload groceries, walkers and wheelchairs and offer assistance to and from the vehicle where required.

 

That happened many years ago in New Zealand where some taxis are fitted with wheelchair hoists. There used to be a "Dial a ride" organisation specifically for disabled, but anyone unable to use a normal taxi, then it was given over to taxi companies with, presumably, subsidies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is about technology.

 

It's about transfer of wealth. Money that was previously paid to millions of people that do some form of driving for a living will soon be paid to a handful of corporations.

 

Not sure what the 'benefit to society' is of all this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pedro01 said:

I don't think this is about technology.

 

It's about transfer of wealth. Money that was previously paid to millions of people that do some form of driving for a living will soon be paid to a handful of corporations.

 

Not sure what the 'benefit to society' is of all this.

None at all, and they will have "shot themselves in the foot", once thousands of unemployed drivers start demonstrating and generally disrupting things.

This is the sort of change that should be brought in very slowly, but greedy corporations will probably try to bring it in en mass. 

However, they got away with destroying middle America's steel and coal industry in a short time, so they may be counting on getting away with it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 6,330

      Australian Aged Pension

    2. 3

      Thailand Live Friday 20 September 2024

    3. 3,396

      President Kamala Harris

    4. 111

      Pager Explosions in Lebanon Target Hezbollah Members 9 Dead Thousands Injured

    5. 58

      PM Faces Pressure Over Thaksin's Alleged Hospital Fake-Out

    6. 1

      Thailand Introduces New Bill to Regulate Cannabis While Keeping It Legal

    7. 1

      Thailand Introduces New Bill to Regulate Cannabis While Keeping It Legal

    8. 29

      A full medical check up in the Bangkok area?

    9. 0

      Israeli Citizen Arrested Over Alleged Iranian Plot to Assassinate Netanyahu

    10. 0

      Mohamed Al Fayed Accused of Systematic Sexual Abuse: Harrods’ Dark History

    11. 0

      Israel Shifts Focus to Northern Front as Walkie-Talkie Bombs Signal New War Phase

    12. 0

      Teamsters’ Neutral Stance: A Blow to Harris and a Challenge for Trump

×
×
  • Create New...
""