Not only is the problem of cars killing pedestrians not going away, but the annual death toll over the last decade has actually increased by 35%. The proliferation of cars with automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems that detect pedestrians is therefore a good thing, right?
According to a study by the American Automobile Association, maybe we shouldn't count on AEB. The association has just tested the pedestrian-detection behavior of four popular mid-sized model-year 2019 sedans—a Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Tesla Model 3, and Toyota Camry—in a variety of different scenarios. Unfortunately, the results are not promising, particularly when it comes to anything but the least challenging scenarios.
[...] The testing was all carried out on dry asphalt in a testing area marked out as a four-lane highway with a solid white line dividing the two middle lanes. For one other test, one of the speedway's surface streets was appropriated: a right turn with a 57-foot (17.3m)-radius curve. Different tests involved adult or child pedestrian targets moving at 3.1mph (5km/h), from left to right across the path of the test vehicle. For each test, the longitudinal distance and the time-to-collision was recorded when each vehicle gave a visual alert that a collision was imminent, as well as once the vehicle began to automatically brake. Impact speed or separation distance were recorded, depending upon the outcome of the test.
Unfortunately, the results of the tests were very much a mixed bag.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09 2019, @11:54PM (9 children)
Didn't they use homeless people with dark skin to train these systems? The AAA's pedestrian targets may have been of European descent so the cars were confused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:37AM (4 children)
Not sure about that, but I heard that more people are killed by cars than are killed by guns. We should just get all the cars, and lock them up. We could put a concentration camp for them on the Mexican border.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:48AM (3 children)
Wheee, false equivalences are fun!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:02AM (2 children)
Guns and cars both kill people when used inconsiderately. So do knives, forks and other sharp objects, yet there is a strange focus on one of them.
This is where Azumi breaks down and unable to reconcile their doublethink but instead projects it onto their opponent. Good job GP.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:32AM
The difference is that guns are made specifically to injure the person or to damage the object on the business end. You'll also note that vehicles and knives designed to do the same are also heavily regulated.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:26PM
Quite the contrary; this is a very simple and very commonplace utility calculation. You ask yourself one easy question: "How many uses does this object have, how much improvement to quality of life is made with them, and of those uses, how many of them are detrimental and to what degree and in what scope?"
- Sharp edges have myriad uses, and notably, they are also very difficult to injure or kill someone else with at any considerable distance, with the possible exceptions of throwing knives, shuriken, and so forth. You could even argue that including these in the same noetic space as a utility knife or chainsaw is intellectually dishonest.
- Cars and other vehicles, as much damage as they do, have been a large net positive, or at least have insinuated themselves so deeply into society that simple removing them at one fell swoop would cause incalculable damage.
- I work in a pharmacy; literally everything we sell is poisonous at the wrong doses, and some of the meds have such narrow therapeutic ranges that there is very little distance between healing and killing.
Whereas guns...are meant to kill. They can be used for other things, like intimidation or defense by threat of deadly force, but they have few uses and almost all of them are related to causing death, usually at a distance and with no real defense against them. There are far, far fewer uses for firearms in daily life compared to, for example, the humble kitchen cleaver or the common or garden 4WD pickup truck.
You actually think you're fucking clever with that, don't you? You seriously think you caught me in some kind of internal logical contradiction. What a child you are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:44AM
That was Google, although it doesn't say exactly what it was for:
https://www.cbs46.com/news/google-accused-of-exploiting-atlanta-homeless-for-facial-recognition-tech/article_7e7d908c-e949-11e9-b380-f39795d823f8.html [cbs46.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:35AM
While the data set may have something to do with it, I believe that the real issue is false alarms. It's just not acceptable for the car to screech to a halt the first time a plastic grocery bag blows off the curb (because it looks like a little kid?) Thus the decision to slam on the brakes is only made when there is the highest probability that a person is about to be hit. A lot of, "Maybe we should brake?" events are ignored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:31AM (1 child)
Does it work on charging winos?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:31PM
Only the endangered white wino
(Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:04AM (4 children)
Look both ways before crossing the street. Not only will that protect you from the evil, noisy ICE cars, but it will also protect you from those eco-friendly, quiet electric cars.
Damn, my bad. That implies that not only do you need to left your head from your phone, but you take a little bit of responsibility for your own safety. That kind of groupthink doesn't work in this day and age.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:07AM
Will no help even a bit for cars coming from the right of my phone.
I'd need to right my head too, but lefting and righting my head in the same time is unpossible. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:59AM
Those pedestrians just need an app that lets them know they're about to flail.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:31PM
It's definitely the pedestrian's fault, if they're stepping right in front of an oncoming vehicle. Beyond that, the Pedestrian has the right of way. Autonomous vehicles aren't ready for prime time, if they can't detect a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Or any other place the pedestrian might be crossing. Like a busy highway. Sure, it's dumb, but drivers will try to not hit the idiot in the middle of the road. Drivers have direct incentive to not hit a pedestrian. An algorithm has no such compunctions. It will just as gladly send you veering off over a cliff or plow through a line of school children. "Autopilot" self-driving cars rely on algorithms (math), data, and faulty human programmers. It's great that Teslas can drive themselves, even when the passenger falls asleep. Instead of having them plow into oncoming traffic, veering off into your lane, or ending your nap time by plowing you into a tree. That's really cool and a great feature, but fully autonomous driving is Rocket Science hard. Except the failure mode of an autonomous car is more likely to cause an impact on a crosswalk full of school children, than a SpaceX rocket would.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics_(Civ4) [fandom.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 12 2019, @06:42AM
"Not only is the problem of cars killing pedestrians not going away, but the annual death toll over the last decade has actually increased by 35%."
"but it will also protect you from those eco-friendly, quiet electric cars."
It would be interesting to know if cars are getting quieter and if so does that contributes to this increased pedestrian death toll. Are quieter cars, ie: Electric vehicles, more likely to contribute to these pedestrian deaths. If so if we exclude quieter vehicles from the statistics is the adjusted death toll similar to what they were prior to the increase in the amount of quieter vehicles?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:09AM (3 children)
The concept of responsibility? Your job? Bottom line, no matter what, when, how, or why, if your vehicle injures or kills someone, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! Hang up the phone, and drive.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:46AM
Do you mean that the right to free speech over the phone is curtailed while I'm driving? Constitution, amendment, blah, blah...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:03PM (1 child)
My money is on runaway hearing some rant about millenials driving while using their phones during his morning brainwa-- talk radio session. He likes to parrot the outrage-of-the-day. Irony, not just for hipsters!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:07PM
Irony? Explain . . .
This should be good. Another dummy tries to explain that listening to the radio is just as hazardous as texting on the cell phone?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Snotnose on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:29AM (19 children)
If you are a pedestrian, and you get hit by a car, the fault is 100% yours. Especially in low light situations. It is a hell of a lot easier for a pedestrian to see a car than for a driver to see a pedestrian.
I'll cut some slack for those who can't cross a street fairly quickly. With my knees odds are good that within 10 years I'll be in that boat. But for damned sure I will be looking at oncoming traffic and waving my arms, or whatever, to ensure drivers see me. I will not be hunched over my walker focused on the curb.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:45AM (8 children)
Do the courts see it this way?
I am of the belief that if my front bumper is involved, I have some serious ' splainin to do.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:54AM (5 children)
In low light situations? I reckon it depends on how low the light, but there's always a level low enough that nobody can see anything, much less the courts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:03AM (4 children)
I think I'd favor a law requiring pedestrians to wear reflective bands around their lower legs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:09AM (3 children)
So, mister Anderson, what use is a reflective band if there's no light to reflect?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:25AM (2 children)
Then if you're driving a vehicle you're doing things wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
What am I missing here? As a pedestrian, I'm not driving by definition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @06:56AM
Headlights. If you are driving a car, and there is no light reflecting off the pedestrian's material, then you obviously have your headlights off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:19PM
Drivers very rarely face any meaningful consequences for hitting and killing people, even when the driver is a negligent professional clearly at fault [streetsblog.org] and even when the driver is drunk and flees the scene [streetsblog.org].
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:26PM
Yes, until the cars are truly self-driving, and legally recognized as such, the human driver is still responsible for driving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:51AM
The answer? Firearms - the great equalizer.
If the drivers don't shows signs they see me, I'll be in self-defense and make easier for them to perceive my presence by shooting at them. (large grin)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:57AM (3 children)
With great power comes great responsibility.
I'm sure some tens of horse-power moving hundred of kilos at high speed is considered great enough power to put the great responsibility on the driver and not on the pedestrian.
After all, the driver has the choice of not driving if s/he unable to see pedestrians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:13AM (2 children)
> I'm sure some tens of horse-power moving hundred of kilos at high speed is considered great enough power to put the great responsibility on the driver and not on the pedestrian.
I'm not sure why you take that stance- seems illogical. Like others here, when I'm pedestrian, I take responsibility for my own safety. I'm much more motivated to look, think, act carefully, etc. A driver might make a mistake. Sure, crucify the driver, but it doesn't fix the problem.
My mom always taught me to watch out for cars, that they might not see me.
My biggest problem: insanely overly bright headlights blazing into my eyes. I don't have a problem with more conventional headlights. Sometimes in a town that has sodium vapor streetlights with no shade and fairly low, so more blindness.
I guess I'm too sane and logical for this screwed up country.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:35AM (1 child)
Because of disparity of the damage. Your human frame vs a vehicle frame will always be predictable in term of the outcome.
I never said that the pedestrian is free of responsibility, have I?
I only said that the assigning the responsibility must take into consideration the "balance of power" between the two - in response (and in contrast) to the OP's position of "If you, the pedestrian, suffer damage, it's entirely your fault".
'Cause going down this path, the next step is "I'm driving this tank and if you end squished under my tracks, it's entirely your fault; see, I have only those small slit windows, I can't notice everybody".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:39AM
That last part reminded me of this classic Simpsons bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZSoJDUD_bU [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:59AM (2 children)
Great. I'll be sure not to walk anywhere, since the fault is, apparently, all mine. When you are driving and crossing a crosswalk, if you don't look out for pedestrians that could be crossing, then you are negligent, period. Sure, other person can be more negligent than you, but you are still negligent. But if I'm at a crosswalk, it gives me the all clear sound, no obvious cars coming my way, and my animal gives me the signal, then I'm going; and its now your problem if you don't see our reflective clothing going across the marked intersection.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:22AM (1 child)
If people are already in the crosswalk, of course a driver must pay attention and is responsible to avoid hitting the pedestrians. One big problem is that some pedestrians forget physics- mass, momentum, braking times, human reaction times, etc., and step out in front of cars expecting them to stop instantly.
BTW, good on you if you wear reflectors. Almost nobody does.
And in my area, many walk on the wrong side, wearing dark clothing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:35AM
To be fair, I've only been told they are high visibility and they could be jet black, I've no way to tell myself! But yes every little bit helps. As for the side of the street, I do that too, but it does feel a bit weird to walk on the opposite side of the street. It also, understandably, makes my dog a bit skittish, as people tend to pass closer and faster when oncoming and when they think you see them, as opposed to the contrary situations. Of course, that depends on if they see you in the first place. I think if the law wasn't automatically against the driver in most situations, people might be more careful or, at least, less drivers would be ruined by something not their fault.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:18AM
Damn, how much stock do you have in the automobile industry?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:42AM
Attorneys already know a pedestrian has the right of way no matter if they're looking or not, drunk, stupid, or otherwise. The blame is legally 100% on the driver unless it's proved that the pedestrian purposely jumped in front of a car for insurance scams.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:42AM (4 children)
Society should take pedestrian traffic more seriously. The big reason to have an at grade crossing is lack of money for a tunnel or bridge. Could build a nice network of trails for a fraction of the cost of our highway network. A footbridge over a large creek is way less expensive than an automobile bridge. And if money is especially tight, could make a creek crossing out of stepping stones, a sort of constructed ford.
Cities ought to be designed with at least 2 levels, one for pedestrians, and one for cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:50AM (1 child)
So... There should be a tunnel leading from each parking space at the mall to the front door? Across every street corner? Damn... Our city just put ADA compliant ramps at every corner for the 0.00000000000000001% of the population that uses them once a decade, including at the top of a steep hill on a dead end street.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:36AM
This actually only requires one bridge per line of cars. Foot traffic before the bridge goes between the 2 parking spaces which are separated by bollards. Bridges everywhere takes it to silliness, but some simple design tweaks are doable and much safer. I'd wager top 3 causes for the increase are pedestrians texting, drivers texting, and larger vehicles thanks to the rise of SUVs.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:51AM (1 child)
Perfect suggestion for pedestrian crossing - stepping stones across the street. Just make them large enough for the case an idiot driver would try to bump them away. (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:51AM
That would look ugly. I then propose we get some running water between those stones, and some lily pads. Maybe some frogs for the ambience.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:34PM (2 children)
Anyone thinks they are shedding tears for any pedestrians who will be harmed has not been paying attention.
The people who made the pinto fuel tank calculations are running things now, this is an insurance and legal bribery question for these people not a technical or ethic one.
ITA they are literally testing skynet's desire to preserve humans and determining it is not so good.
Surprise, surprise.
thesesystemsarefailing.net
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:38PM (1 child)
You're giving the system too much credit. In no way is it anything like how "skynet" is purported in the stories. Self-driving tech is a mishmash of cobbled together code, data, and prototype sensors. I no way, should you rely on the current iteration of "self-driving" cars to not plow into a line of school children, or veer your into a stationary cement block. It could make your next long distance drive a bit easier, though.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:38PM
This. They should get down controlled access roadways first, then move on to rural roads, and then do city streets. There are less variables, more consistency, and longer sights that way. But, from what I've seen, they still don't have down highways and empty roads taken care of 100%.