cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I'm not even fairly certain, I'm dead certain my mother will not be stepping out in front of a moving vehicle.
Police release video of fatal collision between self-driving Uber and Arizona woman
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
alabama man
Posts: 563 +355
Why do you need a car to get out of home? Use your legs or wheelchair or mobility scooter or if needed taxi. Your life doesn't end the day they take away your drivers licence and I for one are happy to give it away before I hurt someone. People are really bad at judging them selves, they should require more checkups for drivers. Self driving cars can help disabled people but when I'm old why would I buy a car anymore? For that money I can use taxi for the rest of my life and give rest of the savings to my kids, I can't take the money with me and they don't want my old man disabled persons car. Shame your country sucks, here you get free/very discounted taxi if your blind, disabled, old or use wheelchair.
alabama man
Posts: 563 +355
At least here this is one of the most common ways of suicide. She was probably just mad you left her alive. Drugs might also be involved.
Skjorn
Posts: 831 +696
The footage is crap really, we have courts making decisions on whether or not the human eye could see that person based off footage taken from a camera. The camera looks like its a crap camera for night vision. When you drive at night are the dark spots in the middle of the city really that pitch black looking to you? No..they are not.
Any average person paying attention to the road would have noticed something up in front of them. They may not have picked out immediately that it was a human walking a bike across the street but maybe think it is a couch or something that fell out of someones car, then as you cautiously approach you see it is a human. Don't watch a video then come to the conclusion that yeah, my eyes and this camera see in the dark exactly the same.
Once again the big argument of applying the brakes... whichever technology is used to sense objects through fog and at night happened to sense her in time to actually brake that would be great but they weren't, they may not have triggered at all. If they did sense her though, perhaps a little too late to brake effectively, could it have known to swerve and also know that the road was wide open to cross into oncoming lanes?
Any average person paying attention to the road would have noticed something up in front of them. They may not have picked out immediately that it was a human walking a bike across the street but maybe think it is a couch or something that fell out of someones car, then as you cautiously approach you see it is a human. Don't watch a video then come to the conclusion that yeah, my eyes and this camera see in the dark exactly the same.
Once again the big argument of applying the brakes... whichever technology is used to sense objects through fog and at night happened to sense her in time to actually brake that would be great but they weren't, they may not have triggered at all. If they did sense her though, perhaps a little too late to brake effectively, could it have known to swerve and also know that the road was wide open to cross into oncoming lanes?
Skjorn
Posts: 831 +696
I have been there before, way more sudden too. Actually jumped in front of me and not this slow walk the woman did. You are right there is no time to stop. There is plenty of time to swerve though especially with a wide open road like this one. On this I will agree. However you can't jump out in front of a moving vehicle and expect it to stop, not even at a cross walk.[/QUOTE]
I didn't see anyone jump out in front of the car... I seen someone walking their bike across the road. Any good radar sensor with this motion would have been an easily traceable object. Straight lines, consistent speeds and it seemed rather level.
Too many people brushing this off on her being a jaywalker or not looking up to pay attention. Maybe it actually was the experimental driver-less car on public streets with Jabba the Hut driving and hardly looking at the road but instead its cell phone. What would really suck is if she was high at the time and was lost or confused when she got hit by the blind piece of metal being barely piloted. Should have swerved, wide open road.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,244
Really? Your professional expertise tells you this... despite a far more experienced chief of police saying otherwise? I call BS.... I love when people on this site assume that they are more qualified to give an opinion than the professionals WHOSE JOB IT IS to do so.
By the way, we just had yet another pedestrian fatality in our city last night - hit by a car WITH A DRIVER.... almost certainly the pedestrian's fault.... Wonder if a driverless car would have saved her life?
S
senketsu
I agree with @Skorn, how dark that footage looks is a little sketchy to me. Of course they wouldn't want it to look brighter would they, might mean they have some blame. Didn't seem very professional that the Chief of Police made such an off the cuff statement. She had not looked at all the evidence before she decided that "Uber would likely not be at fault" Arizona wants that self-driving business badly it appears
Skjorn
Posts: 831 +696
And you think the chief of police is an expert with self driving vehicle capabilities? I may not be an expert but I do have experience with avoiding humans in fractions of seconds. Do you?
Don't believe everything because someone in a badge or suit said it. They compared that video and human eye directly and people just bought it like "yeah that camera is spot on at matching the human eye if it can't see it then I can't see it." You think that the PUBLIC SERVANT really knows everything there is about all the sensors on the car, or how far off that camera really was compared to the human eye?
Why even have a safety driver if they aren't doing their job worth a **** but instead smirking at emojis? Maybe put eye sensors in these cars so the drivers HAVE to pay attention?
No a self driving car would not have saved the one struck by the driver. It probably would have just plowed straight through her with no brakes like this "self driving" one did.
Just remember this, the higher up you go the more corrupt it gets.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
The fact the car is self-driven is not completely relevant. The case still has to be judged regardless of that fact. Just because the autonomous vehicle was not found at fault, doesn't mean there is no room for improvement.
If ultimately the police do not find the car or "driver" at fault, then there will not likely be any charges filed and thus no trial and no judgement. Of course, there could still be a lawsuit of some kind and subsequent civil trial or settlement. I agree there is room for improvement. I wonder what this autonomous car would do if there was a large pothole or even a sinkhole in the road or a flooded intersection. Maybe just run into it I suppose.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,244
I see... so you’ve decided there is a conspiracy and the chief of police is somehow in on it? And you are wearing a tinfoil hat I assume?
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
Don't blame the car, the driver wasn't doing her job, but the jaywalker had terrible eyesight, bad spatial judgement, or a suicide plan. A driver paying attention may have hit them anyway, or flipped their car trying to avoid. Half the so-called drivers are texting, talking, fiddling with the radio/GPS, or applying makeup anyway, so what's the difference?
Skjorn
Posts: 831 +696
Conspiracy? No.. just people are easily convinced, like the chief of police, that the camera matches the human eye, most likely something Uber came up with to cover their *** and everyone ran with it. The LIDAR company says they don't know what happened with the tech and why it did not brake at all or detect.
It isn't really a matter of whose fault it is. Everyone seems to agree it was the biking woman's fault. Most people would have seen the car from very far off to avoid it. I kinda want to blame it on the "safety driver" paying more attention to their cellphone but we could say both because neither were really paying much attention.
It is a matter of if it could be avoided. Yeah, you are right about the room for improvement. I'm not against the tech at all, just needs a lot of improvement before the public should be exposed...sucks to be a beta tester.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,690 +8,832
Cliff, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that "the vehicle has the right of way", because in the legal sense, it is exactly the opposite. Granted vehicles, (and by extension their operators), generally "seize the right of way", by virtue of the size, speed, and power, but legally, it just ain't so.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,690 +8,832
As for the rest of you...........
Arguably, an autonomous vehicle should be able to react faster and more accurately than a human. Otherwise, how much sense would there be in their development? At least that's the sales pitch. "Self driving cars would not suffer from road rage, could stop faster, merge better, blah, blah, blah, and so forth.
But, in this case, both parties could reasonably be at fault. Even if the woman doomed herself by walking out in front of a fast moving vehicle, the car's telemetry should show proof of evasion or braking maneuvers, and demonstrate them with less response time than would a human driver.
Arguably, an autonomous vehicle should be able to react faster and more accurately than a human. Otherwise, how much sense would there be in their development? At least that's the sales pitch. "Self driving cars would not suffer from road rage, could stop faster, merge better, blah, blah, blah, and so forth.
But, in this case, both parties could reasonably be at fault. Even if the woman doomed herself by walking out in front of a fast moving vehicle, the car's telemetry should show proof of evasion or braking maneuvers, and demonstrate them with less response time than would a human driver.
slamscaper
Posts: 278 +85
Well I think this was bound to happen sooner or later. Is this a set-back for autonomous vehicles? Yes. Will it be the death knell for them? Absolutely not. They've had a perfect record up to this point with no serious crashes and excellent performance. The software and hardware integration is only going to become better. My only concern is that with all this capability, hackers will find more ways to control cars.
I'd hate to see a scenario similar to what happened in the last 'Fast and the Furious' movie, where a hacker took control of all cars with a zero-day exploit and used them as weapons to trap a high-profile politician carrying nuclear codes. While this kind of thing is complete BS today, who's to say this couldn't happen in the future if failsafe's are not in place to keep the manufacturers and car owners a few steps ahead of hackers.
I'd hate to see a scenario similar to what happened in the last 'Fast and the Furious' movie, where a hacker took control of all cars with a zero-day exploit and used them as weapons to trap a high-profile politician carrying nuclear codes. While this kind of thing is complete BS today, who's to say this couldn't happen in the future if failsafe's are not in place to keep the manufacturers and car owners a few steps ahead of hackers.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
You have introduced irrelevancy.
Any time the normal flow of traffic is going to be interrupted, there will be flashing lights and/or clearly posted signs. This is no different than the speed signs and stop signs regulating your freedom as you drive. To simplify for you, when a light turns green, the driver is then given the right of way to proceed. It has nothing to do with size speed and power. Even the vehicles themselves is equipped with signs to notify other drivers what they are doing. Without these signs the person failing to present them is the one at fault for "Failure To Yield The Right Of Way".
Camikazi
Posts: 982 +339
Actually, at a crosswalk she would have to wait for the green and the cars do stop at red lights so no, she most likely would not have been hit there. It is not ONLY her fault but she crossed where she shouldn't, she did not look at all, she had no type of reflectors or bright clothing to be seen but yes the car should have some type of LIDAR or RADAR that should have seen her. It isn't only her fault but her actions did ad on to the problem, you can't call her innocent.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,690 +8,832
No Cliff, in your opinion I have introduced irrelevancy, because I disagreed with you.
Assuming a pedestrian is adhering to prevailing traffic law, the pedestrian has the right of way.
While your examples are stellar, not every crosswalk is equipped with all the happy horse poop you describe. In fact, as a relative percentage, very few are. Why even here in the big city, you can go blocks without encountering a traffic light.
At a simple four way stop intersection, the pedestrian has the right of way, and traffic must wait until said pedestrian completes his or her criossing, before they proceed.
§ 3542. Right-of-way of pedestrians in crosswalks. (a) General rule.--When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
That's about as much research as I'm going to do, or willing to do. If you have any more questions, look it up yourself, before you dismiss my contribution.
That section is taken from Pennsylvania traffic law. Your results, in whatever part of the wild west you're from, may obviously vary.
Last edited:
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,244
But the POINT was that the pedestrian only has the right of way when there is an intersection or crosswalk.... THIS example was no such thing!! She was NOT crossing at a crosswalk, nor was it an intersection! The pedestrian did NOT have right of way - and so while it's tragic that she died, it is HER FAULT!
captaincranky
Posts: 19,690 +8,832
Oddly I thought the point was the car nor the "safety operator", did nothing. As I said, there can be two wrongs. This isn't an either the car or the pedestrian was at fault issue.
A blanket statement that, "the vehicle has the right of way", is patently false. And yes certainly circumstances attach.
Obviously a 120 pound pedestrian can't seize the right of way from a 40 ton truck.
Now why don't you go lecture your 1st graders about the motor vehicle code, versus exigent circumstance, I don't really need it.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Blah blah blah
Sometimes I think you even disagree with yourself.
Tell that to the next cop working an accident scene from a collision.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,244
Well, as is clearly the case to everyone except you, you thought wrong!
The chief of police stated that the car was not at fault - and that even a car with a driver would likely have had the exact same thing happen.... Therefore, no charges will be levied, and the fault is clearly with the deceased.
I do love how people on here, not having been at the scene itself, and having no traffic police experience, assume their conclusions - which are solely based on the released video along with their own biases - must be superior to the experts.
Sometimes, there's no need to invoke a conspiracy when simple stupidity solves everything
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I'm not going to suggest everyone be experts. But if we are going to be held liable for incident, we should have some basic understanding as to why before the incident occurs. This thread alone seems to suggest no one should be held liable, because no one seems to understand why or agree on why they would be held liable.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Opinion: Could Broadcom buy Intel?- Endymio replied
-
Windows 11 to receive default BitLocker encryption, new RAM speed metrics in Task Manager- Anton Longshot replied
