Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the carmagedon dept.

A few Soylentils wrote in to tell us about a fatal accident between a pedestrian and an autonomous Uber vehicle.

Update - Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident

I debated just replying to the original story, but this seemed a pretty significant update to me:

The Uber vehicle was operating in autonomous mode when it crashed into 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday evening. Herzberg was transported to a hospital, where she later died from her injuries, in what may be the first known pedestrian fatality in a self-driving crash.

The video footage does not conclusively show who is at fault. Tempe police initially reported that Herzberg appeared suddenly; however, the video footage seems to show her coming into view a number of seconds before the crash. It also showed the vehicle operator behind the wheel intermittently looking down while the car was driving itself.

The link shows video of the seconds just before the accident.

The pedestrian did not step out in front of the vehicle, she was essentially out in the middle of the road, and all her lateral movement was nearly irrelevant. She might as well have been a stationary object in the middle of the road. You can see the headlights bring her feet into view first, (meaning she was pretty much in the line before the headlights could see her, and then move up her body; she's already in the middle of the road in front of him when she comes into view.

If I were driving that car, I think I'd have had time to hit brakes (but not stop in time). I also think that that if the camera view is an accurate representation of what was really visible, then the car was overdriving its headlights. Although given my experience with cameras, I wouldn't be surprised if actual visibility was better than what the video shows.

This, in my opinion, is pretty damning.

Police Chief: Uber Self-Driving Car "Likely" Not At Fault In Fatal Crash

The chief of the Tempe Police has told the San Francisco Chronicle that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg. “I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said chief Sylvia Moir.

Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."

After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway." Moir added that "it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available."

Self-Driving Car Testing Likely to Continue Unobstructed

Self-Driving Cars Keep Rolling Despite Uber Crash

The death of a woman who was struck by a self-driving Uber in Arizona on Sunday has auto-safety advocates demanding that U.S. regulators and lawmakers slow down the rush to bring autonomous vehicles to the nation's roadways. Don't count on it.

Efforts to streamline regulations to accommodate the emerging technology have been under way since the Obama administration with strong bipartisan support. And the Trump administration's aversion to restrictions and regulations makes it even more unlikely that the accident in Tempe, Arizona, in which an autonomous Uber sport utility vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, will result in significant new barriers, according to former U.S. officials and some safety advocates.

"Honestly, the last thing under this administration that car companies and self-driving vehicle developers have to worry about is heavy regulation," said David Friedman, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administrator under President Barack Obama who's now director of cars and product policy for Consumers Union.

Who is to blame when driverless cars have an accident?

[Partial] or full autonomy raises the question of who is to blame in the case of an accident involving a self-driving car? In conventional (human-driven) cars, the answer is simple: the driver is responsible because they are in control. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, it isn't so clear cut. We propose a blockchain-based framework that uses sensor data to ascertain liability in accidents involving self-driving cars.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3Original Submission #4

Related Stories

First Autonomous Car Death Reportedly Caused by Faulty Software 83 comments

The first machine to kill a human entirely on its own initiative was "Likely Caused By Software Set to Ignore Objects On Road" according to a new report on the collision which happened last March:

The car's sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, but Uber's software decided it didn't need to react right away. That's a result of how the software was tuned. Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber's software has the ability to ignore "false positives," or objects in its path that wouldn't actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road. In this case, Uber executives believe the company's system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects. But the tuning went too far, and the car didn't react fast enough, one of these people said.

Fast enough? She walked across three and a half lanes in what should have been plain view of the car's LIDAR the entire time.

takyon: Also at Reuters. Older report at The Drive.

Previously: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars After First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle
Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident, and More


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:47PM (70 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:47PM (#656569)

    with cameras, I wouldn't be surprised if actual visibility was better than what the video shows.

    Nope, that's the problem with self driving technology. People have excellent visual object resolution ability in a small area, and the ability to scan and focus that area where it's important. By comparison, cameras, LIDAR, and other obstacle detecting tech are relatively near sighted.

    Even if you have a 12 megapixel 15 degree FOV camera focused ahead, how much compute power does it take to process those images well enough to detect a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road? People are still much better at that kind of visual data acquisition and processing.

    Now, as the Uber driver shows, people have much worse ADD and terrible consistency, so, someday the balance will turn, and children will be trained how to interact safely with autonomously driven death-boxes, and it will all be better overall. Meanwhile, we've got billions of people with decades of expectations (explicit and implicit) about how cars should behave, and they're going to behave differently when driven by machines.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:13PM (18 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:13PM (#656575) Journal

      By comparison, cameras, LIDAR, and other obstacle detecting tech are relatively near sighted.

      Relatively how much near sighted? The way I read on many places on the Web, the expectations are for some couple of hundred feet - 50m at least - for LIDAR. Night time won't be an impediment for LIDAR (fog/rain would - but the night was clear) and the damned car didn't even slow down The effects of impact scales roughly with the square of speed, even if the crash was inevitable, slowing down may have changed the outcome from "fatal" to "serious but not life threatening injuries"

      Even if you have a 12 megapixel 15 degree FOV camera focused ahead, how much compute power does it take to process those images well enough to detect a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road?

      With an engine capable of 50+kW and the space of a hypersized womb, I reckon one can afford to install quite a large computation computation power, don't you think? Or is it the "let's do it cheap" already a thing in self-driving cars?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:00PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:00PM (#656744)

        Is it a corporate initiative? Cost will be minimized, corners will be cut, "good enough" will be a common phrase.

        • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:28PM

          by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:28PM (#656874) Journal

          Is it a corporate initiative

          All the more reason NOT to cut corners while in the initial stages - you know, the ones before the laws have been finished and politicians and the public are still buying the whole "Well make this AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE" story...

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:35PM (#656812) Journal

        I watched the video and thought -- don't they have some form of radar? Night makes no difference. The woman was calmly crossing the road, not darting out suddenly. The car should have "seen" her immediately and from distance -- unless it war relying on the visible light video to make decisions. If that's the case, an accident like this at night is extremely foreseeable.

        Secondly, to the GP -- if a car can't detect a passenger in the road with its sensors and react in a safe way with its computing power, that's not a car, it's a dangerous weapon of random destruction and anyone who puts that on the road deserves prison (after bankruptcy).

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:54PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:54PM (#656860) Journal

          Exactly.

          The white shoes showed up in plenty of time for a panic stop, with resultant much slower impact speed.
          Radar, even 5 year old radar such as my car has, would have detected both the bike and the person much sooner.

          Spoke reflectors would have helped, but over driving the headlights seems readily obvious.
          She should have been spotted before she entered the driving lane.
          The car seems to be relying on cameras ONLY.

          The video is in color, but the driving cameras need only black and white which allows use of infrared led illumination.

          And lidar range is way better than human vision, whoever said it was near sighted is an idiot.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:13PM (12 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:13PM (#656867)

        50m at least - for LIDAR.

        Even with my old-ass eyes, I can see a pedestrian standing in the road at least 300m away, 500m in good light. I can't tell you their eye color, but that out of place thing in my lane - yeah, it's starting to get attention by 300m, and even at 35m/s with 100m stopping distance, that leaves over 5 seconds to focus attention on the anomaly and decide what kind of corrective action to take.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:08AM (11 children)

          by RS3 (6367) on Friday March 23 2018, @12:08AM (#656933)

          Even with my old-ass eyes, I can see a pedestrian standing in the road at least 300m away, 500m in good light.

          Is that also true if there's a hill and/or curve such that an oncoming car with HID or laser headlights are shining directly in your eyes?

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @12:33AM (10 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 23 2018, @12:33AM (#656939)

            Is that also true if there's a hill and/or curve such that an oncoming car with HID or laser headlights are shining directly in your eyes?

            Of course not, which is why I don't drive 125kph over blind hills or around sharp bends.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @02:42AM (9 children)

              by RS3 (6367) on Friday March 23 2018, @02:42AM (#656995)

              You took my question too personally. I was trying to lead up to making a general point about how insanely bright some newer headlights are, and how dangerous they are because _I_ can't see anything when being approached by one, especially if there are hills, curves, and combinations thereof, such that oncoming headlight are shining directly in my eyes. I would have to slow down to 5-10 MPH in those cases, or maybe stop completely, to avoid the possibility of hitting a pedestrian or any obstruction.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @04:04AM (8 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 23 2018, @04:04AM (#657013)

                The thing about oncoming brights is: unless the pedestrian wanders out after you get the blinding light in your eyes, you've probably already noticed them. Even with the blinding oncoming lights, they can silhouette a lot of things, not everything in your lane, but most things that stand as high or higher than the headlights. Yes, they suck, but oncoming headlights have always sucked, even before LED, Laser, HID, or Halogens.

                My biggest pet peeve are the old junkers with the plastic headlight covers that are completely fogged with age, it just takes a few minutes with rubbing compound to restore them, but owners of the old junkers never seem to take the time to do that, so when they go out at night even their low beams are fully diffused - they can't see much, and low beams vs high beams all go the same place: everywhere.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday March 23 2018, @04:30PM (7 children)

                  by dry (223) on Friday March 23 2018, @04:30PM (#657156) Journal

                  I spent over an hour sanding and polishing my old junkers plastic headlights and while it made one hell of an improvement, they're still somewhat foggy. Definitely not just a couple of minutes of work.
                  Simplest now, with my old eyes, is to avoid driving at night. Unluckily hard to do in the winter.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @07:55PM (6 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 23 2018, @07:55PM (#657239)

                    I went at mine with a series of 600, 1500, 3000 grit wet sandpaper and followed up with some optical rubbing compound, took about 20 minutes per headlamp and they're pretty clear now. I thought I was going to spray them with clearcoat to preserve them, but as easy as that restoration was, I think I'll just do it again in a few years, God only knows how messed up the clearcoat will make things when it fails.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday March 23 2018, @08:27PM (5 children)

                      by dry (223) on Friday March 23 2018, @08:27PM (#657246) Journal

                      Basically how I did it, though I was at it for more like 30 minutes a side and as I said, they still weren't that clear. I think the truck was parked for a decade or so facing south. The paint on the hood is pretty screwed up to.
                      Never did do the clear coat thing nor waxing which I understand is enough to protect the lenses. Need to revisit them once it warms up.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @11:43PM (4 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 23 2018, @11:43PM (#657311)

                        I did a '99 Miata, and a '99 Dodge Ram this way just a few months ago. God knows the Miata's history, we just bought it a little while ago and they were fogged, but not awful. The truck has always lived outside, but usually under trees - it was quite a bit worse, and harder to work on due to bumps on the outside of the lens, but it cleaned up reasonably well, mostly got all the green stuff off and is near clear. The Miata came back to almost like new clear.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:10AM (3 children)

                          by dry (223) on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:10AM (#657391) Journal

                          I think by '99 they were starting to get the plastic fogging under control though it may have been a bit later. Mine is a '91 F150.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:01AM (2 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:01AM (#657772)

                            The truck was impressively bad, especially the green stuff growing on the hazy plastic.

                            The Miata may have been cleaned before, or maybe garaged some of it's life.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:37AM (1 child)

                              by dry (223) on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:37AM (#657792) Journal

                              That green stuff actually protects from the UV rays :) Not doubting you but even you admitted it can take more then a couple of minutes of work to clear the lenses. Obviously a lot of people are ignorant about how to deal with the fogginess, too lazy or like one friend of mine, lives somewhere where the condo association will come down on you for doing any work on your vehicle.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 26 2018, @02:56AM

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday March 26 2018, @02:56AM (#658197)

                                lives somewhere where the condo association will come down on you for doing any work on your vehicle.

                                I know better than to ever live (by choice) in a condo association again, however - if they've got a problem with me sitting in front of my car for less than an hour with a bucket, rag, some sandpaper and a bottle of rubbing compound, I would take that opportunity to sue them silly for overreaching their charter, starting with cell phone video recording of the harassment which should be enough to cow an experienced condo commando, but if they want to push it past that I think a good lawyer can get his fees paid by the association to "clarify the resident's rights" to wash, and even polish, their vehicle. If they're dumb enough to put any kind of citation in writing, that should take care of itself in court. However, you're right, it's not really worth the hassle, which is why I moved.

                                The condo association I used to live in had rules about vehicle repairs, but didn't seem to notice when I swapped out the steering knuckle assemblies on that truck.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:15PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:15PM (#656869)

        Or is it the "let's do it cheap" already a thing in self-driving cars?

        Can't target the consumer market with a "self-driving brain" that costs more than the average car, can we? I'd be surprised if consumers are willing to pay even a 10% premium to get self-drive capability.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:29PM (40 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:29PM (#656582) Homepage
      Indeed - and that video *was* the camera's view. It got jump-scared.

      A human would have been at a lower eye level, would have seen less of the headlight-illuminated road, would therefore have been less saturated, and probably have been able to see further ahead.

      However, as a pedestrian and cyclist, never a car driver, my conclusion just from the vid is that the distribution of blame is mostly upon the pedestrian:
      (1) busy road with fast heavy things on, should have been paying more attention - seemed to be paying none - those cars were all aglow after all;
      (2) no reflectors on clothes (which should be totally subsidised, IMHO, as they make the streets safer for everyone);
      (3) not crossing at a crossing
      My guess is that she might be schizophrenic, in her own little world for a moment when she shouldn't have been. I can only hope the death was swift and painless.

      However, I still would like to see *all* the data that was available to the autopilot, all the camera views, and the lidar reconstruction, before relieving the vehicle of all blame. There is if course the old adage "if you can't see it, then be prepared to stop for it", and if the car couldn't have seen, it should have been more cautious. So some blame seems irremovable.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:37PM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:37PM (#656585) Journal

        I can only hope the death was swift and painless.

        She was transported to a hospital were she died later.
        It wasn't swift, unless the ambulances travel at light speed in Tempe. Do they?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:00PM (#656592)

          I always took that for euphemism for "died at the scene but we really wanted to make sure".

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:06PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:06PM (#656593) Journal

          Yes they do...but they hit a lot of pedestrians going that fast. Lots being relative.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:16AM (1 child)

          by RS3 (6367) on Friday March 23 2018, @12:16AM (#656934)

          The story said she was unconscious after the hit. Not clear if she every regained consciousness.

          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:21AM

            by RS3 (6367) on Friday March 23 2018, @12:21AM (#656936)

            every ever

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:56PM (10 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:56PM (#656590)

        That's the thing though, isn't it? If that camera view was the car's view, then the car was grossly over-driving it's headlights - it's the responsibility of a driver to drive within the limits of available visibility for exactly such a reason - hitting something stationary in the road is ALWAYS your fault.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:23PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:23PM (#656601)

          There's some precise question about how accurate the footage is in that respect, however, it does appear that the headlights weren't properly aimed, for whatever reason. If you watch the video, only a handful of strips are actually visible in the video, which indicates that the headlights aren't showing as far away as they should. Even if it hadn't been a person, a car with headlights like that is liable to run into all manner of items in the road because they won't be visible until it's too late.

          Really, this shouldn't be unexpected, Uber has a well deserved reputation for not thinking about the consequences of their actions. It wasn't that long ago that the drivers didn't have insurance policies to cover commercial driving and the company still doesn't have real permission to operate as a taxi service in most areas.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:32PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:32PM (#656717)

            Regular headlights are aimed low. This is required by law. You are not allowed to blind the oncoming drivers.

            Vehicles are also required to have bright headlights. These are required to be aimed higher, for greater reach. These are to be used when there isn't oncoming traffic.

            Does the self-driving system operate the headlights at all? (maybe the user is left to flip them on) If it operates them, does it ever turn on the brights?

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:59PM (#656862) Journal

              What does the law sat about infrared headlights that only can be seen by cameras, wise guy?

              If the drive system is ONLY using the camera supplying this video, then that is engineering malfeasances.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:35PM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:35PM (#656876)

                As soon as there are two IR sensing cars on the road, those IR high beams will need to be dimmed for oncoming traffic just like visible light.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:55PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:55PM (#656619)

          That video has been tampered with to make it darker. I also doubt that video is used by the car in the processing of information.

          Release the LIDAR. There is NO reason LIDAR should not have picked this up.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:03PM (2 children)

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:03PM (#656621)

            Supporting evidence for this assertion:

            The pedestrian is crossing 5~10 metres away from a pair of street lights (a sensible place to cross and be seen) but is not visible in the video until she's covered by the (low) beam of the headlights.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:04PM (#656694)

              LIDAR has nothing to do with 'visible'. The vehicle is clearly lacking if it can't see in the 'dark'. Airliners have TCAS. There is no reason not to supply other vehicles with the same type of technology. Every cel phone can have a transmitter.

              Ahhh, but the money shot was the driver's face. Worth a million bucks that was!

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:25PM (#656760)

              How this got promoted up in in question.

              But im sorry being visible to the camera means nothing to being visible to LIDAR.

              The car either saw her, and disregarded it, or did not see her. Either way the car's hardware or software is at fault. There is NO FREAKING WAY that that video is representative of what the car actually saw.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:45PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:45PM (#656898)

          The car didn't hit something that was stationary.

          The pedestrian WALKED INTO THE PATH OF THE CAR.

          I am guessing you don't drive much, if at all, because your failure to note the pedestrian was MOVING is a basic mistake that a person who has much driving experience is unlikely to make.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:41AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:41AM (#657062)

            The pedestrian might as well be stationary, the head lights hit her shoes first, not the front wheel of her bicycle like it would if she walked into the light beam.

            Had it been a block of concrete instead, the only difference would be which side of the car was damaged.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:53PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:53PM (#656616)

        However, as a pedestrian and cyclist, never a car driver, my conclusion just from the vid is that the distribution of blame is mostly upon the pedestrian:

        Obviously we should blame the dead lady. She was on the road. Everyone knows that roads are for cars, not for people. How... pedestrian of her to be standing in a place that is reserved for cars. It's no wonder she got killed.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:44PM (9 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:44PM (#656641) Journal

          Despite your sarcasm - there is truth in what you say. A pedestrian who exercises zero caution is at fault. A pedestrian who exercises insufficient caution may well be at fault.

          I speak as a man who once struck a pedestrian. There were no charges filed. A claim was made against my insurance. Insurance company questioned the claim, then paid off on the medical bills, and a couple hundred dollars more. They didn't WANT TO pay the medical, because every ordinance and law applicable to the case clearly stated that the pedestrian was at fault. However, pedestrians aren't required to carry liability insurance, and all things considered, the insurance company decided that it would be cheapest to just pay the medical bills.

          It's kinda like the running of the bulls in Spain. Those damned bulls don't have insurance. If you want to run with the bulls, you better have your own insurance! Don't run with the bulls, they won't run your ass over. Don't play in traffic, the traffic is unlikely to come hunting for you in your own back yard.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM (6 children)

            by qzm (3260) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM (#656826)

            Bull shit Runaway, I know you like to spout plenty of that, but this one is indefensible.

            Do you simply not realise that a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?
            If they do not have the visibility ahead, then they must slow down to the point where they can do that.

            This video shows the Uber is EXACTLY and 100% at fault here.
            The woman is clearly in the middle of the road traveling at a constant speed across a straight piece of road with on visual obstacles.
            The Uber 'driver' is not watching the road.
            The Uber was above the legal speed limit (already admitted).
            The Uber appears to make no attempt to brake/swerve, even once the woman is CLEARLY visible.

            So stop being an idiot, there is no 'running with the bulls' crossing a road, there is simple law, and the Uber is heavily on the wrong side of it.
            Hitting her while attempting to avoid would likely be Manslaughter.
            Ploughing on straight ahead with no attempt to avoid? borders on Murder.

            • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:30PM

              by legont (4179) on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:30PM (#656843)

              Yep. I'd add to it that any human - well, not a psychopath - would at least try to steer away even if it would create a danger for him and/or other cars. That's empathy that AI does not have and probably never will.

              --
              "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:23PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:23PM (#656872)

              Florida law states: "Pedestrians shall not leave a place of safety." Meaning: if a pedestrian is standing on a sidewalk and you're driving by, if they suddenly jump off the sidewalk in front of you it's absolutely not your fault. Somewhere between the suicide leap and standing in the middle of the road wearing high visibility clothing in broad daylight, the responsibility does shift back to the driver - when in question, the exact demarkation line is determined by expensive legal proceedings - best to stay on the safe side.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:37AM (#657059)

                In this case the driver was reading a book or using a cell phone. He reacted, but that reaction time was spent regaining control of the vehicle instead of evading. Had he already been in control, he could have evaded or turned the crash into a livable one. Uber and the driver should both be held at fault. Uber because their software clearly sucks and for only having one 'safety' driver and the driver for not paying attention. The lady was an idiot for wearing black and not looking, but she already paid with her life.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:48PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:48PM (#656901)

              You are either an idiot or a person with no driving experience, or both.

              DO explain to us why you make such moronic comments, won't you, you useless disrespectful cock-gobbling piece of waste ?

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 23 2018, @01:28AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 23 2018, @01:28AM (#656965) Journal

              You will note that I did NOT defend Uber. I only commented that the law does require that pedestrians exercise due caution. Hitting a pedestrian who runs out into traffic isn't a crime, and it doesn't result in criminal charges.

              In THIS video, the driver isn't paying attention. That bit of data will weigh heavily in any court case. It's just obvious that he's not watching ahead.

            • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:30PM

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday March 23 2018, @01:30PM (#657109) Journal

              Most juridsictions, in fact, do state pedestrians are somewhat responsible for their behavior while not in a crosswalk (and in some states, even in a crosswalk if the lights are against them).

              That does not mean Uber is or is not at fault here, just that, "a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?" is patently incorrect.

              --
              This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:00PM

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday March 23 2018, @01:00PM (#657102) Journal

            Depends upon jurisdiction.

            In Arizona what you say was true when I lived there. Actually, in Arizona (when I lived there) nobody is ever GRANTED the right-of-way in Arizona law. There are only times when the right of way must be yielded, like for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Which is one of the reasons why the Tempe police chief might have ventured an opinion. (Actually, no, I don't understand why the police should have an opinion beyond what they write up in the accident report.)

            Actually, I used to work right at where the accident occurred, twenty-five years ago. Across from the theatre is a large amount of land that (AFAIK still belongs to) the Salt River Project. The facility I was based at in security was right there, and I routinely drove past the area of the accident on my patrol route. A lot about that area has changed (the Red Mountain Freeway wasn't there for starters, and I know the entrance to my facility moved to the S on Washington Street instead of the NW corner of Center and Priest), but that area is a gentle-ish hill and curve but it's visually deceptive how much the climb/drop is from Mill/Washington to Center/Priest and Priest/Washington. I didn't watch the video - not going to allow that page past No-Script. But I could see where it could be confusing for a computer to deal with it, at least in the era I worked there. But I digress.

            Teh Internets tell me mixed things about California. But this site [ncsl.org] shows that laws regarding pedestrians and crosswalks (and whether a crosswalk being marked is a factor) changes a little in every state. Most states respect marked crosswalks and what occurs outside them varies greatly. But what an auto and pedestrian must do is regulated as part of state law, and the ethics of that appear to change from place to place. But my personal feeling is that a driver should always behave as if a pedestrian will immediately act to get hit (suicide) and that a driver should always be responsibly prepared to make sure that cannot happen. The privilege to drive a powered vehicle should be to make sure it never hurts a pedestrian as much as possible. (Which doesn't say anything about the circumstances of your history Runaway...)

            --
            This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:35PM

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday March 23 2018, @01:35PM (#657112) Journal

            Addendum that I forgot... Arizona law also has a provision that the right of way shall be yielded at all times to avoid an accident. That general catch-all might still apply and IIRC it was a way a cop could decide whether he or she thought you were at fault or not, to either cite or not cite based on whether the cop thought you had tried to yield or not. I'm sure times have changed.

            --
            This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:05PM (5 children)

        by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:05PM (#656624)

        (3) not crossing at a crossing

        In many countries it is not illegal to cross the road when not at a crossing. Whether that is a smart to do is another question.

        Suppose you're a person of a certain age (or a playful child), needing to cross with no crossing in sight. It might take you some time to get to the other side of the road. In this case, the onus would be on the driver to slow down/stop and give way to the pedestrian.

        In fact, there are countries (in Europe for example) with laws in place that squarely put the blame on the "stronger traffic participant" (ie car/truck vs child/pedestrian/cyclist) until proven otherwise. They have these laws to protect the weaker traffic participants from the stronger participants (who are required to be more careful and observant).

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:39PM (3 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:39PM (#656816) Journal

          The notion of crossing at a "crossing" is incredibly urban. There are millions of miles of rural roads for which no crossings exist.

          • (Score: 2) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM

            by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM (#656825)

            That's probably why it's not illegal to cross when not at a crossing in so many countries. Imagine having to walk all those millions of miles. Just to obey the law!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:04PM (#656891)

            Jaywalking is very popular in certain urban areas, despite many clearly defined crosswalks.

            • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Friday March 23 2018, @02:23AM

              by toddestan (4982) on Friday March 23 2018, @02:23AM (#656983)

              Jaywalking is really an American thing - a lot of other countries are either much less restrictive on where pedestrians can be on the road, and some countries have no laws against it at all. There may still be crosswalks, but there's no law that the pedestrians have to use them, and a driver can and will still be found at fault for hitting a pedestrian outside of one.

        • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday March 23 2018, @05:00PM

          by theluggage (1797) on Friday March 23 2018, @05:00PM (#657169)

          In many countries it is not illegal to cross the road when not at a crossing. Whether that is a smart to do is another question.

          That's not the point.

          In virtually all countries, running people over with cars is frowned upon, even if the pedestrian was partly at fault. Even if the driver is not legally liable, it is not a Good Thing to have happen and taking steps to avoid it is highly recommended.

          As others have commented - if that video was an honest representation of the visibility from the car, the car was driving too fast towards a dark void it couldn't see. If it wasn't, there's nothing blocking the line of sight between the car and the pedestrian so the car should have detected her in time to stop or swerve. In fact, it looks as if the car just totally ignored the pedestrian, even after she appeared on the dashcam. It doesn't really matter whether the "obstacle" was a careless pedestrian, an animal, a fallen tree, or pile of bricks fallen off the back of a truck, the car should have reacted. If the pedestrian was crossing in a dark patch without looking then they are at fault as well not instead -

          Its also the sort of thing that self-driving vehicles should be good at - "what to do if an obstacle is detected in the next 3 seconds - is there a car behind, is the opposite lane ahead clear, what's the stopping distance?" should be a sub-process ticking away in the background, just like the mythical text-book-perfect human driver.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:37PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:37PM (#656639) Journal

        Ya know - I had to read your post twice to get your meaning. The human sitting at a lower level? Yeah. What you're saying is, light striking the road is reflected back at the camera. The human is getting less of that direct reflection from the road surface, and the painted lines, so he retains some "night vision", and can see further down the road. Got it.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)

        by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:57PM (#656687)

        However, as a pedestrian and cyclist, never a car driver

        Your nick makes me suspicious of that statement.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 23 2018, @11:34AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday March 23 2018, @11:34AM (#657089) Homepage
          Were I to add "motorcyclist" to the positive side of the list, would that help sway things?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:18PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:18PM (#656870)

        (2) no reflectors on clothes (which should be totally subsidised, IMHO, as they make the streets safer for everyone);

        Yep, scraping blood and guts out of the front grille is a lot of work, and let's not even get started about the legal paperwork involved.

        "if you can't see it, then be prepared to stop for it", and if the car couldn't have seen, it should have been more cautious. So some blame seems irremovable.

        Not too long ago I heard a quote from Google that self-driving cars can be made to work up to about 30mph, but beyond that they're just not good enough yet.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 23 2018, @11:40AM (1 child)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday March 23 2018, @11:40AM (#657091) Homepage
          > 30mph

          Very interesting. That's good enough for most (as measured by time) urban use, which is the most complex. Of course, AI is advancing at incredible paces currently, and I can't see that staying true for very long. However, the Big-Oh of the complexity of the problem is probably quite harsh. If you have speed x, you can reach an area of size x^2, and therefore the number of mobile entities will be x^2, and therefore the number of possible interactions between entities will be x^4. OK, it's probably not that Big-Oh at all, but it does show that with simple assumptions one can come up with a scary growth rate.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @07:52PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday March 23 2018, @07:52PM (#657238)

            The big Oh in speed is that double the speed makes 4x (s^2) the stopping distance, in addition to 2x the reaction time distance (which I'm assuming is lower for a digital driver), and visual acuity at that increased distance is d^-1, so you need something on the order of speed^2 arc-second resolution, which I think means that your image processing demands increase at speed^4?

            Let's try: 500x100 resolution to move safely at 25kph with a stopping distance of 5m. Increase speed to 50kph, stopping distance is now 20m, image resolution needs to increase to 2000x400 to see a pedestrian with the same resolution at 20m as before at 5m, so we've gone from 50,000 pixels to 800,000 pixels, or speed^4 - as long as your image processing demands only increase with N of the number of pixels being processed.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:32AM (#657058)

        However, as a pedestrian and cyclist, never a car driver, my conclusion just from the vid is that the distribution of blame is mostly upon the pedestrian

        As someone who owns a car - and usually drives over the speed limit - what that video shows is not just speeding, it's reckless driving. The lights on the car is barely low beams (low beams adjusted too low or daytime running lights), and at the speed the car was driving, high beams are needed.

        Now, some people believe that the video was intentionally made darker to make Uber look better. If this is the case, I wonder what they are hiding, if making it look like reckless driving is making them look better. Maybe the street lights did light up the road, and there was enough light to see her hundreds of yards away, and the car just kept driving. Except even then, making it look like the "AI" can't even tell that it's driving blind should be worse than admitting that it overlooked a person. Detecting a person is hard, detecting that you are driving blind should be much easier.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:52PM (8 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:52PM (#656645) Journal

      Meanwhile, we've got billions of people with decades of expectations (explicit and implicit) about how cars should behave, and they're going to behave differently when driven by machines.

      The expectations about automobile behavior vary.

      In 1987-1993 I went to MacWorld trade shows in Boston and San Francisco. (ah, those days were fun, back when Apple was a great company)

      In San Francisco, if you looked like you might potentially cross, drivers would be careful and might even stop. Crosswalk or no. They would actually try not to hit you. At least back then.

      The company mentioned this at the end of a briefing, in Boston even if you step off the curb and into the crosswalk, do not expect traffic to stop unless there is a red light. Maybe not even then. Then there are Boston taxis. On my first MacWorld1 in Boston, the cab from airport to hotel was in an accident (minor fender bender). Because cab driver and other driver both thought they should have the right of way. Wow. Welcome to Boston. It really was as awful as the company said. But before the big dig.

      Don't even get me started about how BMWs always have the right of way. Even other BMW drivers (and emergency vehicles) must yield to a BMW driver.

      Q. What's the shortest interval of time known to man?
      A. The Planck time
      Wrong: the interval between the light turning green and the Boston cab driver behind you honking the horn.

      1http://32by32.com/macworld-expo-1987-boston [32by32.com]

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by redneckmother on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:29PM (1 child)

        by redneckmother (3597) on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:29PM (#656668)

        Don't even get me started about how BMWs always have the right of way. Even other BMW drivers (and emergency vehicles) must yield to a BMW driver.

        Obligatory quote:

        What's the difference between a BMW and a porcupine?
        The pricks are on the outside of a porcupine.

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:50PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:50PM (#656680) Journal

          It is illegal in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts to scare a pigeon.1 [boston.com]

          But judge! I can't help how my face looks!

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:48PM

        by captain normal (2205) on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:48PM (#656732)

        In California the pedestrian always has the right of way. They are however forbidden on freeways.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:52PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:52PM (#656738)

        in Boston even if you step off the curb and into the crosswalk, do not expect traffic to stop unless there is a red light. Maybe not even then.

        Of course not, the vehicles are going at about 3mph, and you'll be walking around them without paying much mind, in the huge sea of pedestrians and cars known as the streets of Boston. When you've got crosswalks running diagonally through intersections, it's about time to give up on the idea of getting anywhere fast in a car.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:30PM (#656767)

          Diagonal crosswalks actually make sense. All cars get red lights, all pedestrians cross in desired direction. Then cars get their respective lights. It seems to me that this could be faster for both pedestrians and car drivers all around.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:41PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:41PM (#656818) Journal

        I lived in Vermont for a short time. Heard this: What do you call a MA driver? Masshole.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:39PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:39PM (#656879)

        What's the difference between a Porsche and a Porcupine?

        Porsche has the prick inside.

        BMW substitutes perfectly for Porsche in that observation.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 23 2018, @01:22PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 23 2018, @01:22PM (#657106) Journal

          Worker: I'm here answering the ad to paint your porch for $50.

          Homeowner: Okay, the paint and the porch is around back. Get started and let me know when you're done.

          (minutes later)

          Worker: I'm done. I'd like my $50 please.

          Homeowner: How could you possibly be done so soon?

          Worker: It didn't take very long. I even put on two coats. Oh, and it wasn't a porch it was a ferrari.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:45PM (#656728)

      Even if you have a 12 megapixel 15 degree FOV camera focused ahead, how much compute power does it take to process those images well enough

      You've got at least two, making the computation cheap, and you have enough compute power to identify an obstacle within a few milliseconds. Or: you don't have a safe autonomous vehicle. If the latter, the regulators that signed off on it are under-qualified. FOV and resolution are a lot less important than having redundancy and doing correlation.

      It doesn't matter how great people are, machines have to match and surpass it if we're going to have safer driving conditions with self-driving cars. Pedestrians may find a new optimally-safe behavior, but the we could provoke the same phenomenon by removing all driver liability (without introducing self-driving cars) so that is a useless end in and of itself. Or we could ensure that safety increases across the board, which is well within our power.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:05PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:05PM (#656574)

    Of course it isn't. That would be anthropomorphizing the car.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:15PM (#656576)

      Correct. Programmers and managers are at fault.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:27PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:27PM (#656581) Journal

      Wouln't hurt some years behind bars for manslaughter, the fellow convicts would love to have an SUV to drive. Oh, wait...

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:52PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:52PM (#656682) Journal

      Cars hate it when you anthropomorphize them. Really, they do.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:19PM (26 children)

    by lgsoynews (1235) on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:19PM (#656578)

    Am I the only one who feels that the public release of this video is -at the minimum- in bad taste? (I've watched it to be sure of the content)

    If you were from the family, would you like to see the death of a family member all over the news?
    In the video comment, it is written that the footage was released by the police, they don't say if the family agreed. Still, even if they did, I question that move, why should the police release that footage? How does it serve the public good?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:37PM (13 children)

      by lentilla (1770) on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:37PM (#656586)

      It serves the public good because it removes a large amount of speculation about what actually happened.

      Your average driver now thinks: "I could see how that could happen", rather than "self-driving cars are mowing people down left-and-right".

      And no, I haven't seen the footage - perhaps I would feel it in bad taste to watch it myself. I; however; believe it better serves society that uniformed speculation does not run rampant. For better or for worse this is is a defining moment in human history. I am glad it was not me, nor a member of my family. It was; however; something that was going to happen. By the numbers alone, getting rid of human drivers will remove a great deal of sorrow from society, and I would hate that to be set back by knee-jerk reactions and conspiracy theories.

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:19PM (9 children)

        by Gaaark (41) on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:19PM (#656598) Journal

        When the first car(s) hit the road, they made someone walk in front of it carrying a flag.

        First pedestrian death was due to a woman walking in front of a car (coincidence? Ironic coincidence? The word I can't think of?)
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_traffic_collisions [wikipedia.org]

        They should make self driving vehicles have the passenger walk in front carrying a flag.

        Errrr.....yeah....

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:28PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:28PM (#656604)

          The early regulations on cars were a lot smarter than most folks living now give them credit for. They didn't really know how cars would interact because they didn't have cars to interact with horses and mules. They were also smart enough to realize that cars were likely to go faster as time went by, hence some of those goofy early days regulations.

          What this current incident demonstrates is that we really can't trust these tech companies to behave any more responsibly on the roads than they do on the internet. This death shouldn't have happened because the lidar should have noticed that there was somebody in the vicinity and slowed down. The vehicle also shouldn't have been driving so fast. It appears from the video that the engineer probably wouldn't have been able to apply the brakes in time anyways due to the headlights not illuminating enough of the road ahead.

          Really, I think we ought to put Uber in prison for a few years for manslaughter so that these companies realize that there are consequences to recklessness.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:45PM (#656611)

            Really, I think we ought to put Uber in prison for a few years for manslaughter so that these companies realize that there are consequences to recklessness.

            Unfortunately, drivers very rarely face any meaningful consequences for killing people, even when the driver is a negligent professional and clearly at fault [streetsblog.org] and even when the driver is drunk and flees the scene [streetsblog.org].

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:45PM (5 children)

            by Gaaark (41) on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:45PM (#656612) Journal

            Yup, and not just an 'engineer': make it the CEO (Kirk is responsible for the actions of his crew). Put him in REAL prison (not the fancy executive prison), charged with manslaughter.

            You'd see some changes then, boyo.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by number11 on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:21PM (4 children)

              by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:21PM (#656663)

              Yup, and not just an 'engineer': make it the CEO (Kirk is responsible for the actions of his crew). Put him in REAL prison (not the fancy executive prison), charged with manslaughter.

              I dunno, HE wasn't personally responsible, and to a corporation any one human is expendable. I would suggest just a short sentence. For the company. Freeze their bank accounts, send the marshals around to padlock their offices. 90 days oughta do it. If they get evicted for nonpayment of rent, or their colo pulls the plug because it didn't get paid, or they get sued by drivers who didn't get paid, that's a shame, but nobody gives a crap if things like that happen to the thief in the next cell. If corporations want to be considered people, they should get the bad along with the good.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:47PM (2 children)

                by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:47PM (#656824) Journal

                Imagine some [insert racial caricature of your choice] kid hopped up on [insert drug you despise] ran the lady over because he didn't see her. The CEO should get the same treatment under the law.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:10PM (#656866)

                  Imagine some [insert racial caricature of your choice] kid hopped up on [insert drug you despise] ran the lady over because he didn't see her. The CEO should get the same treatment under the law.

                  The evidence suggests that "I didn't see her" is likely to be a very successful defense for such a kid who kills someone with a motor vehicle.

                  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday March 23 2018, @12:37AM

                    by Gaaark (41) on Friday March 23 2018, @12:37AM (#656941) Journal

                    But not if you have super vision (LIDAR) and should have been able to brake in time (unless the CEO told you to ignore what your super vision told you inorder to 'make it work...just do it or you're fired".

                    --
                    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @07:45AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @07:45AM (#657047)

                I dunno, HE wasn't personally responsible, and to a corporation any one human is expendable.

                Expendable? Then why do so few CEOs end up in jail for the crimes their corporations commit? Why not just sacrifice the expendable CEO?

                The real reason is the CEOs really don't want to go to jail. It would actually be a deterrent.

                Think about it, you're a sociopathic CEO and your corporation is criminally negligent or commits a serious crime. What would you fear more:

                1) Your corporation paying hefty fines
                2) Your corporation getting shutdown while you keep your bonuses etc.
                3) You going to prison for 5 years.

        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:11PM

          by Whoever (4524) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:11PM (#656795) Journal

          When the first car(s) hit the road, they made someone walk in front of it carrying a flag.

          Which really only shows how established companies (buggy whip manufacturers, etc.) were able to warp the law for their own protectionist purposes, and little else. They knew at the time that cars presented no great additional danger.

      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:02PM

        by slinches (5049) on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:02PM (#656833)

        That video does help me understand why the safety driver didn't react, but it does the opposite for the object detection and collision avoidance systems. There's very little margin for error for humans when driving at night. All it takes is a slight lapse of attention (or just a quick check of the speedometer) at the wrong time to be enough delay to make it impossible to react in time. Those things shouldn't be an issue for a computer. The sensors are always looking and lidar and radar systems don't rely on visible light, so why did they not detect and identify the pedestrian? It certainly had time to do so. She came out of the median, crossed a full lane and a half before being visually illuminated in the headlights. The vehicle was in the right hand lane and the impact occurred on its right (passenger) side, which means that she almost cleared the lane before impact. If the car had applied the brakes at all, even relatively late, the severity of the injury could have been much lower or the collision avoided entirely.

        It looks to me like there was a significant failure of the autonomous systems and Uber has a lot of explaining to do.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:42PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:42PM (#656881) Homepage

        It serves the public good because it removes a large amount of speculation about what actually happened.

        On the contrary, I think in this case it merely serves to stoke speculation, because now all the armchair experts think they've got solid evidence of "what actually happened."

        It was; however; something that was going to happen.

        Well, quite. Think of all the thousands of people killed by cars every day who don't make it to the news because... well, because they're not news.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:51AM (#657066)

        Your average driver now thinks: "I could see how that could happen"

        And your above average (apparently) driver now thinks "holy crap, anyone driving that fast without turning on the high beams should have their drivers license taken away for good", along with anyone who doesn't realize that what the video shows is reckless driving.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:40PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:40PM (#656610)

      We need the video because it's the only way for the public to really understand how reckless these companies are being with these tests.

      If the car braked at all, it was so close to the point where the woman was hit as to make negligible difference. They sell these cars as having better than human sensors, but it appears that in their arrogance, they neglected to realize that the engineer still needs to be able to see enough of the road to react. And probably more road than what a normal driver would need. The reaction time here appears to be similar to somebody that's drunk.

      I do believe that the future is AI cars for most things, but we shouldn't be doing this until we have the other things like automatic braking solved. And that doesn't require AI cars, we already have that in regular cars, when those figure out how to deal with these sorts of situations reliably, then and only then should we allow these companies to proceed to handle driving down the highway in a single lane. When that's figure out reliably, then is the time to start adding other features.

      The problem is that the companies doing this don't really care about human lives as they're under the delusion that because they're saving lives, that it's OK. Well, it's not OK. When humans mess up, there's a human that winds up in jail or paying the damages. When an AI car messes up, it's unclear who precisely is accountable.

      It takes a lot of driving under a lot of different conditions in order to determine whether or not a design is safe and doing so much at once makes it very hard to determine which part of the system isn't working as designed or even know how it really functions in the real world.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:04PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:04PM (#656623)

        When an AI car messes up, it's unclear who precisely is accountable.

        I hear this said all the time but it doesn't make any sense. Liability is easy. All you have to do is pick someone. The most obvious choice is the vehicle's owner.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:59PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:59PM (#656647) Journal

          All you have to do is pick someone. The most obvious choice is the vehicle's owner.

          Most people looking for money would pick whoever has the deepest pockets. Probably the company who manufactured the car. Whoever sold it. Whoever owns the death machine. And whoever was in the car at the time. In that order.

          We can't trust Big Tech with our personal information. But we can trust them with our lives in cars.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:18PM (#656707)

            Most people looking for money would pick whoever has the deepest pockets. Probably the company who manufactured the car. Whoever sold it. Whoever owns the death machine. And whoever was in the car at the time. In that order.

            This is very easily solved by statute.

            We already require vehicle owners and operators to carry liability insurance in most cases to ensure that the money is available when needed.

            Very little has to change to adapt the current system to include autonomous vehicles.

            • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:49PM

              by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:49PM (#656827) Journal

              I'm sure they had insurance, but to use the having of insurance as a license to kill? Are you fucking high?

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:12PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:12PM (#656704)

      Please! I wish you people would just stop with all this mamby-pamby 'thoughts and prayers' 'respect for the family' bullshit. Fucking whiny SJW democrat snowflakes! The video is evidence. We have a right to see it.

      • (Score: 2) by lgsoynews on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:58PM (4 children)

        by lgsoynews (1235) on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:58PM (#656743)

        You're an IDIOT, and a serious asshole.

        I'm not religious, so I don't have any prayers, but I think about others' feelings, unlike you obviously. And I sure would NOT like to see plastered over the news the death of a relative!

        Also, you have ZERO "right" to see this video, this is total B.S.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:16PM (#656753)

          Well screw you! I have every right see it, for whatever reason I want! You simply have NO right to deny me! You're just another snowflake who thinks you have a right to tell others what they can see and hear. Well you don't! You're just one of those weirdo 'concern' trolls. The B.S. is coming from you. This is why we need to make censorship as difficult as possible, hopefully completely impossible, precisely to stop little fascists like you who think they know what's best. We need an indelible internet. Then you can go cry in your little corner about your feelings! *sheesh!*

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @01:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @01:43AM (#656969)

            lgsoynews was right about you being an asshole, but you're right about the matters of censorship, information control, and feeeeeeelings.

            I'll pal around with the AC before I will with lgsoynanny.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:51PM (1 child)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:51PM (#656829) Journal

          When the video shows clearly she didn't jump out of nowhere but was in a street calmly and evenly crossing and that any tech beyond human visible light would have picked her up and responded -- if I was the family I'd want everyone to see it. Increases the risk of prosecution and monetary damages. Hiding it only protects the guilty.

          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday March 23 2018, @09:19AM

            by deimtee (3272) on Friday March 23 2018, @09:19AM (#657071) Journal

            If you go through the video backwards you can clearly see where she obscured a distant light a few seconds before she crossed in front of the car. Turn up the brightness and you can just follow her hair in the dark. Just after obscuring the light, she appears to walk forward at the exact speed required to keep her in the same position in the video. I wonder if the computer mapped her into the distant image, because she didn't appear to be moving relative to the horizon.

            I once came close to a pedestrian who did that to me. Wearing dark clothes, and she walked out of shadows and onto a crosswalk at the exact speed required to keep the front right pillar of my car between her and my eyes.

            Also, I agree with earlier posters who said that video was tampered with. It is way to dark and lossy. It is like someone turned the contrast way up to lose detail, then turned it back down to give a 'normal' appearance that doesn't show her.

            --
            If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:53PM (#656903)

      "Am I the only one who feels that the public release of this video is -at the minimum- in bad taste? "

      Ohh, poor delicate snowflake, your feelings were hurt.

      Welcome to the real world.

      New Flash : the world is not going to conform to your preferences, and the world is a tough nasty place sometimes.

(1) 2