SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-is-everybody-else-you-have-to-watch-out-for dept.
More bad news for Uber: one of the ride-hailing giant's self-driving Volvo SUVs has been involved in a crash in Arizona — apparently leaving the vehicle flipped onto its side, and with damage to at least two other human-driven cars in the vicinity.
The aftermath of the accident is pictured in photos and a video posted to Twitter by a user of @FrescoNews, a service for selling content to news outlets. According to the company's tweets, the collision happened in Tempe, Arizona, and no injuries have yet been reported.
Uber has also confirmed the accident and the veracity of the photos to Bloomberg. We've reached out to the company with questions and will update this story with any response. Update: Uber has now provided us with the following statement: "We are continuing to look into this incident and can confirm we had no backseat passengers in the vehicle."
TechCrunch understands Uber's self-driving fleet in Arizona has been grounded, following the incident, while an investigation is undertaken. The company has confirmed the vehicle involved in the incident was in self-driving mode. We're told no one was seriously injured.
Local newspaper reports suggest another car failed to yield to Uber's SUV, hitting it and resulting in the autonomous vehicle flipping onto its side. Presumably the Uber driver was unable to take over the controls in time to prevent the accident.
Source: TechCrunch
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Monday March 27 2017, @06:57PM (6 children)
I have a CDL although I don't use it. One thing I learned while getting it is that when there is an accident, the commercial driver is considered almost always at fault, even if the truck was where it was supposed to be, even if it wasn't moving. The reason for this is because the commercial driver is held to a higher standard than the other guy. My question is should we not hold the AI to a higher standard in self-driving cars? This means that even though the human driver failed to yield, the AI should have anticipated the situation and avoided it. It's a good question, one I hope the idiot driver who hit the Uber car will ask his insurance company.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 27 2017, @07:20PM (1 child)
Statistically, self driving cars will be safer than human drivers. Over all. So they already will be at a higher standard. Once they are a reality.
Thinking that self driving cars should be automatically responsible for an accident is wrong. You can't build self driving cars that can avoid every possible accident that a human driver can deliberately try to cause. It's like asking to auto filter trolls from SN. Blaming the self driving car seems especially wrong when the self driver will probably have a ton of telemetry that proves the human driver at fault. It's like saying, I can prove X, but the the legislators think they know better. Oh, wait.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 27 2017, @11:17PM
Really?
If this isn't the most obvious "beg the question" example I don't know what is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday March 27 2017, @09:47PM (3 children)
Is this actually true, and not an exaggeration of the physical realities when applying "4 wheeler" logic to big trucks?
For example: if you rear-end somebody, you are automatically considered at fault (for following too close). In a standard passenger car, that makes sense. However, if a 4-wheeler cuts off a full-loaded semi at a stop-light, there is not much the driver of the truck can do.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 27 2017, @10:52PM (1 child)
|if you rear-end somebody, you are automatically considered at fault (for following too close).
Common misconception. In most states, this is not at all automatic. Most times the one who rear-ended the car in front is held at fault- but that is because they were at fault. If the lead car was determined to be the cause (such as a sudden lane-change and stop), they are cited.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday March 28 2017, @12:52AM
The thing is, it's not necessarily ALL your fault. It's quite possible that the car you hit did something wrong, and dangerous, and you would not have hit them otherwise. YOU ARE STILL AT FAULT. But you might be ruled e.g. 70% at fault rather than 100%. This is normally only important if you are being sued, but it's very very important then. Depending on the state, showing the other driver was ALSO at fault to some degree can either (in a few states) prevent them from suing you for the accident at all or (in more states) limit them to suing only for a portion of the amount they otherwise would. For instance, if there were $10k in damages, and you were 70% at fault, the other driver could only sue for $7k in expenses, rather than $10k.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday March 27 2017, @11:23PM
This is what I learned while getting my CDL, although it is not on the DMV exam or in the vehicle code. And from my own experience with a pickup truck vs. big rig accident in which I was at least partially at fault, there was no question whose insurance company was going to pay to fix my pickup: the big rig's.
Incidentally, this does not mean that the big rig driver will get a ticket if he's considered at fault. He has to be factually at fault.
Another bit of information about truckers. If the cops are called, the trucker is going to be given a drug test ASAP. If there is anything in his blood stream, even if it is under the legal limit, he can be charged with a DUI. There is no tolerance for drugs or alcohol among professional drivers. None at all.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.