Self driving car kills pedestrian

dixiefly

This is the first death of a pedestrian hit by an autonomous vehicle

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A woman in Tempe, Ariz., has died after being hit by a self-driving car operated by Uber, in what appears to be the first known death of a pedestrian struck by an autonomous vehicle on a public road.

The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman, who was crossing the street outside of a crosswalk, the Tempe police said in a statement. The episode happened on Sunday around 10 p.m. The woman was not publicly identified.

Uber said it had suspended testing of its self-driving cars in Tempe, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto.

“Our hearts go out to the victim’s family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident,” an Uber spokeswoman, Sarah Abboud, said in a statement.

The fatal crash will most likely raise questions about regulations for self-driving cars. Testing of self-driving cars is already underway for vehicles that have a human driver ready to take over if something goes wrong, but states are starting to allow companies to test cars without a person in the driver’s seat. This month, California said that, in April, it would start allowing companies to test autonomous vehicles without anyone behind the wheel.

Arizona already allows self-driving cars to operate without a driver behind the wheel. Since late last year, Waymo, the self-driving car unit from Google’s parent company Alphabet, has been using cars without a human in the driver’s seat to pick up and drop off passengers there. The state has largely taken a hands-off approach, promising that it would help keep the driverless car industry free from regulation. As a result, technology companies have flocked to Arizona to test their self-driving vehicles.

Autonomous cars are expected to ultimately be safer than human drivers, because they don’t get distracted and always observe traffic laws. However, researchers working on the technology have struggled with how to teach the autonomous systems to adjust for unpredictable human driving or behavior.

An Uber self-driving car was involved in another crash a year ago in Tempe. In that collision, one of Uber’s Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicles was hit when the driver of another car failed to yield, causing the Uber vehicle to roll over onto its side. The car was in self-driving mode with a safety driver behind the wheel, but police said the autonomous vehicle had not been at fault.

The National Transportation Safety Board was sending a small team of investigators to Arizona to gather information about the Uber crash, said Eric Weiss, an N.T.S.B. spokesman.

Cantona's Collars

So a woman walks out in front of a car and gets knocked down. The article says she wasn't crossing at a "crosswalk". She could just as easily have been hit by a standard vehicle but the incident will bring into question the use of self drive vehicles. You can put all the sensors and safety aids in place but if someone steps into the road they are putting themselves in harm's way.

Guy:Incognito

Presumably she walked out in front of it so? Otherwise would the guy in it not have reacted and braked?

Stheno

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So a woman walks out in front of a car and gets knocked down. The article says she wasn't crossing at a "crosswalk". She could just as easily have been hit by a standard vehicle but the incident will bring into question the use of self drive vehicles. You can put all the sensors and safety aids in place but if someone steps into the road they are putting themselves in harm's way.

I'd be asking questions as to what the safety driver was doing. Why couldnt they brake?

RayCun

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So a woman walks out in front of a car and gets knocked down. The article says she wasn't crossing at a "crosswalk". She could just as easily have been hit by a standard vehicle but the incident will bring into question the use of self drive vehicles. You can put all the sensors and safety aids in place but if someone steps into the road they are putting themselves in harm's way.

So you can put all the sensors and safety aids in place, and none of them are good enough to stop a car crashing into a person.

Not much cop, are they?

mrcheez

They'll probably find the safety driver played GTA and thus move the blame to video games.

Cantona's Collars

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So a woman walks out in front of a car and gets knocked down. The article says she wasn't crossing at a "crosswalk". She could just as easily have been hit by a standard vehicle but the incident will bring into question the use of self drive vehicles. You can put all the sensors and safety aids in place but if someone steps into the road they are putting themselves in harm's way.

Part of driving is anticipation. A driver in a regular car would likely have seen the woman before she entered the road and reacted in time. Autonomous cars need, for now at least, a limit of 20kph.

Guy:Incognito

RayCun wrote: »

So you can put all the sensors and safety aids in place, and none of them are good enough to stop a car crashing into a person.

Not much cop, are they?

I bet they kill less than manually driven cars for the same mileage driven.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Part of driving is anticipation. A driver in a regular car would likely have seen the woman before she entered the road and reacted in time. Autonomous cars need, for now at least, a limit of 20kph.

They "likely" have seen the person and stopped in time? Why are pedestrians killed all the time so?

yabadabado

Deleted User wrote: »

Part of driving is anticipation. A driver in a regular car would likely have seen the woman before she entered the road and reacted in time. Autonomous cars need, for now at least, a limit of 20kph.

So how do you explain all the collisions between pedestrians and driver's if a regular car/driver would have reacted in time?

kirving

RayCun wrote: »

So you can put all the sensors and safety aids in place, and none of them are good enough to stop a car crashing into a person.

Not much cop, are they?

Fairly complete assessment of a multi-billion dollar industry you have there.

Autonomous cars have the potential to eliminate well over 99% of collisions by taking humans out of the equation. The rest is down to the physics behind stopping a 2 ton car faster than a pedestrian can jump in front of it.

Cantona's Collars

Stheno wrote: »

I'd be asking questions as to what the safety driver was doing. Why couldnt they brake?

On the phone?

kirving

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Part of driving is anticipation. A driver in a regular car would likely have seen the woman before she entered the road and reacted in time. Autonomous cars need, for now at least, a limit of 20kph.

Care to tell me how you determined 20kph as the safe limit? If you're going to come up with figures, and least give the reasoning behind doing so.

A radar can see through fog and an IR camera can see in the dark. Much better than a human at anticipation.

Look at no. 6 here.
https://youtu.be/3BH_FZvpFbo

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They "likely" have seen the person and stopped in time? Why are pedestrians killed all the time so?

Because of poor driving skills. Because people are driving like the safety driver in this car - with eyes closed.

yabadabado

yabadabado wrote: »

So how do you explain all the collisions between pedestrians and driver's if a regular car/driver would have reacted in time?

What about all the others not hit because a driver was paying attention?

Kevin Irving

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Care to tell me how you determined 20kph as the safe limit? If you're going to come up with figures, and least give the reasoning behind doing so.

You are an intelligent chap, work it out.

punisher5112

No matter how good the auto driver system is if someone darts out without looking and there isn't enough space to stop then I can't see it causing too much of an issue...

It's sad of course but people really need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Happened me few years ago where I could see the person and reacted but it was still too late.

Teaching kids in school and setting an example goes a long way but it's just something that will happen.

bear1

I think we are going down a very dangerous path with this autonomous crap.
You'll find people sitting in the drivers seat become more and more relaxed and simply doze off on the phone or just stop paying attention in general which will impede their need to be attentive behind the wheel and if the person behind the wheel needs to be attentive then what's the point of the autonomous car?
I honestly cannot see the point of autonomous cars and their role around the majority of the planet.
I suspect this won't be the last incident.

punisher5112

bear1 wrote: »

I think we are going down a very dangerous path with this autonomous crap.
You'll find people sitting in the drivers seat become more and more relaxed and simply doze off on the phone or just stop paying attention in general which will impede their need to be attentive behind the wheel and if the person behind the wheel needs to be attentive then what's the point of the autonomous car?
I honestly cannot see the point of autonomous cars and their role around the majority of the planet.
I suspect this won't be the last incident.

Won't be the last but it may well change things to the point that car travel is even safer for those on board and anyone else around.

beauf

bear1 wrote: »

.....
You'll find people sitting in the drivers seat become more and more relaxed and simply doze off on the phone or just stop paying attention in general which will impede their need to be attentive behind the wheel ....

Thus far you can't do that. These systems check that the driver is alert. Hands on wheel, eyes open etc.

No system is perfect, all it has to be is better statistically than human control.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

RayCun wrote: »

Not much cop, are they?

I don't understand this sentence. What does this mean?

Deleted User wrote: »

Part of driving is anticipation. A driver in a regular car would likely have seen the woman before she entered the road and reacted in time. Autonomous cars need, for now at least, a limit of 20kph.

How have you come to that conclusion? How, without knowing anything else about the case, can you tell that it wouldn't have happened with a regular car? Do drivers in regular cars have better vision? Why 20Kmph? Do you not think driving that slow is dangerous?

Deleted User wrote: »

What about all the others not hit because a driver was paying attention?

Your red herring doesn't make any sense.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because of poor driving skills. Because people are driving like the safety driver in this car - with eyes closed.

It seems that you know a lot about more about the incident that anybody else involved. I hope you approached the authorities and given your unbiased report of what happened. :rolleyes:

bear1

beauf wrote: »

Thus far you can't do that. These systems check that the driver is alert. Hands on wheel, eyes open etc.

No system is perfect, all it has to be is better statistically than human control.

How would it know if your eyes are open?
Tbh electronics can and do fail and Id still feel safer knowing an actual human was driving the car than a computer even if statistically the computer would fair better.

yabadabado

bear1 wrote: »

How would it know if your eyes are open?
Tbh electronics can and do fail and Id still feel safer knowing an actual human was driving the car than a computer even if statistically the computer would fair better.

Several different types of tech to detect it. Body monitors/face and eye cameras/Lane assist are all available to help. Microsleep could be an issue but that's for any driver or type of vehicle.

I'd prefer to be in whatever system is the safest and I've a feeling its going to be computer over humans. No system will be 100% fool proof.

Charli Unimportant Shirt

Charli Unimportant Shirt wrote: »

I don't understand this sentence. What does this mean?



How have you come to that conclusion? How, without knowing anything else about the case, can you tell that it wouldn't have happened with a regular car? Do drivers in regular cars have better vision? Why 20Kmph? Do you not think driving that slow is dangerous?



Your red herring doesn't make any sense.



It seems that you know a lot about more about the incident that anybody else involved. I hope you approached the authorities and given your unbiased report of what happened. :rolleyes:

Oh dear.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh dear.

That's the best you can come up with?

Last year, 4,743 people were killed while walking and 726 while biking

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/11/14/its-official-33561-people-killed-in-traffic-on-american-streets-last-year/

I think those statistics speak for themselves.

eeguy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the best you can come up with?



https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/11/14/its-official-33561-people-killed-in-traffic-on-american-streets-last-year/

I think those statistics speak for themselves.

And the US is actually quite good for road safety.
Over three thousand people died on the roads around the world today.

Delaying the launch or waiting until the technology is near perfect will only lead to more death.
https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html

bladespin

Kevin Irving wrote:

Autonomous cars have the potential to eliminate well over 99% of collisions by taking humans out of the equation. The rest is down to the physics behind stopping a 2 ton car faster than a pedestrian can jump in front of it.

Source? 99% is a pretty incredible claim.

bazz26

I blame Trump.

dr.fuzzenstein

bazz26 wrote: »

I blame Trump.

I'm sure it was Putin. Or is Trump just Putin in a fat suit? Or maybe Trump is just a suit filled with several hundred rats.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the best you can come up with?



https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/11/14/its-official-33561-people-killed-in-traffic-on-american-streets-last-year/

I think those statistics speak for themselves.

Your statistics only make sense if you compare miles travelled. There are millions more miles done attended than not. Just spouting numbers with no context, well, oh dear.

Dravokivich

beauf wrote: »

Thus far you can't do that. These systems check that the driver is alert. Hands on wheel, eyes open etc.

No system is perfect, all it has to be is better statistically than human control.

Hands on wheel was defeated by an orange.

eeguy

Dravokivich wrote: »

Hands on wheel was defeated by an orange.

The Ford and Renault venhicles don't need hands on wheels

DaveyDave

Can we correct the title to "woman jaywalking walks out in front of car"? She wasn't killed by the car, she was killed by her poor decision.

The roads are huge in the US, there's a reason why jaywalking is illegal.

Ubbquittious

You can bet your bottom dollah that these yokes are crashing a lot more than you see in the news. I'm sure the megacorps behind them realise it's better for the shares to hand out a few wads of cash when a crash happens to prevent the news getting out

Ultimate Seduction

What's the point of having a self driving car if the "driver" still has to be alert and ready to brake at any minute? Does that not defeat it's purpose.

eeguy

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

What's the point of having a self driving car if the "driver" still has to be alert and ready to brake at any minute? Does that not defeat it's purpose.

The driver doesn't have to be alert. These things aren't for sale yet.

Ultimate Seduction

eeguy wrote: »

The driver doesn't have to be alert. These things aren't for sale yet.

Ok. Just seen previous poster ask why the safety driver didn't hit the brakes..

Hurrache

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Autonomous cars have the potential to eliminate well over 99% of collisions by taking humans out of the equation.

I don't think killing them is the correct method of taking humans out of the equation though.

seamus

What this actually highlights is a need to oversee and regulate exactly who is developing autonomous vehicles and what standards they need to reach before tests are permitted on open streets.

It's been known for a long time now that Uber's solution was well behind the curve and they've been cutting corners everywhere in an attempt to catch up. This was inevitable.

K.Flyer

Ubbquittious wrote: »

You can bet your bottom dollah that these yokes are crashing a lot more than you see in the news. I'm sure the megacorps behind them realise it's better for the shares to hand out a few wads of cash when a crash happens to prevent the news getting out

I was reading a U.S. based media article yesterday about autonomous car testing being suspended in several states due to concerns.

Here is a piece from a similar item

2017 it temporarily suspended its vehicles in Arizona after a crash involving one of its cars, a Volvo SUV.

Its vehicles ran into trouble in 2016 when some were found to be jumping red lights.
...
But Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has also said technology and car companies need to allay public fears of self-driving vehicles.

She highlighted a poll showing that 78% of people fear riding in autonomous vehicles.
...
California is among those that require manufacturers to report any incidents to the motor vehicle department during the autonomous vehicle testing phase.

By early March, the agency received 59 such reports.

Guy:Incognito

seamus wrote: »

What this actually highlights is a need to oversee and regulate exactly who is developing autonomous vehicles and what standards they need to reach before tests are permitted on open streets.

It's been known for a long time now that Uber's solution was well behind the curve and they've been cutting corners everywhere in an attempt to catch up. This was inevitable.

It's been well known since cars were invented that you don't walk out in front of them. They are heavier and much more solid than you.

Hurrache

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's been well known since cars were invented that you don't walk out in front of them.

No, pedestrians had the rights on the roads and it was up to the drivers to worry about people being on the road and give way to them. Jay walking was an invention of the car manufacturers and interest groups

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

punisher5112

Hurrache wrote: »

No, pedestrians had the rights on the roads and it was up to the drivers to worry about people being on the road and give way to them. Jay walking was an invention of the car manufacturers and interest groups

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

So is what you're saying is that no matter what the circumstances the driver must be able to avoid a collision???

I've had people walk, fall, run out etc.

Even harder one to tell is when they are walking in the same direction and all of a sudden step off the path.

City centres should have adequate aids to help stop people stepping out or running out and so on such as fencing or poles with chains for example.

It would cut down on deaths also and also cut chances of vehicles mounting footpaths.

Hurrache

punisher5112 wrote: »

So is what you're saying is that no matter what the circumstances the driver must be able to avoid a collision???

Your conclusions bear no resemblance to what I posted.

punisher5112

Hurrache wrote: »

Your conclusions bear no resemblance to what I posted.

Read your post or make it more clear it's not what you're saying.

Hurrache

punisher5112 wrote: »

Read your post or make it more clear it's not what you're saying.

I honestly don't think it can be any more straightforward.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's been well known since cars were invented that you don't walk out in front of them.

Hurrache wrote: »

No, pedestrians had the rights on the roads and it was up to the drivers to worry about people being on the road and give way to them. Jay walking was an invention of the car manufacturers and interest groups

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

RacoonQueen

Autonomous cars are never going to 100% prevent accidents. Because people will still be walking/cycling in the vicinity. The way the story is written, in numerous places, it seems more that she walked out in front of a car. Though it was initially reported that she was a cyclist (seems the was walking with a bike?)

Moral machine looks at the sort of dilemmas autonomous vehicles will come up against when they have to decide between harming the people who have walked in front of the car or harming the car's occupants.
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

Hurrache

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Though it was initially reported that she was a cyclist (seems the was walking with a bike?)

Some of the photos were showing a bike on the ground at the accident scene.

ELM327

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Autonomous cars are never going to 100% prevent accidents. Because people will still be walking/cycling in the vicinity. The way the story is written, in numerous places, it seems more that she walked out in front of a car. Though it was initially reported that she was a cyclist (seems the was walking with a bike?)

Moral machine looks at the sort of dilemmas autonomous vehicles will come up against when they have to decide between harming the people who have walked in front of the car or harming the car's occupants.
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

That's an interesting link, I completed the questions.

If someone jaywalks in front of a car, be it autonomous or not they are likely to be ran over. Wouldn't blame the tech.

TooObvious

What is very interesting about all of this new technology is that ultimately little has changed or will change.

- Cars are not getting smaller
- They will continue to generally be occupied in the main by 1 occupant only
- Accidents will continue to occur, if not to car drivers, than to pedestrians and cyclists,
- They will continue to take up large amounts of space in our towns and cities. Valuable real estate that could be used for housing or green/amenity spaces.

Expanding the 3rd point further, if for instance they wipe out 100% of all car - v - car accidents, it will somehow be acceptable for them to "collide" with pedestrians or cyclists - those choosing another form of transport. The solution to this will of course be to limit the cycling and pedestrians and/or enact legislation which will make it increasingly difficult to cycle or walk for their own safety of course!

eeguy

TooObvious wrote: »

What is very interesting about all of this new technology is that ultimately little has changed or will change.

- Cars are not getting smaller
- They will continue to generally be occupied in the main by 1 occupant only
- Accidents will continue to occur, if not to car drivers, than to pedestrians and cyclists,
- They will continue to take up large amounts of space in our towns and cities. Valuable real estate that could be used for housing or green/amenity spaces.

Expanding the 3rd point further, if for instance they wipe out 100% of all car - v - car accidents, it will somehow be acceptable for them to "collide" with pedestrians or cyclists - those choosing another form of transport. The solution to this will of course be to limit the cycling and pedestrians and/or enact legislation which will make it increasingly difficult to cycle or walk for their own safety of course!

All of this tech is very US centred. There's no way the US is going to be weaned off private cars any time soon.