Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

bruto said:
<snip>

Can the system judge whether there's a crosswalk and where? Or what is customary in the area?

<snip>
Click to expand...


While it might be able to add useful data for the software, I'm not sure that it would be necessary, or maybe not even a good idea.

It should treat pedestrians entering the roadway the same whether there is a crosswalk or not.

The main purpose of crosswalks is to channel pedestrians into an area which is given extra signage and light control in order to alert the drivers that they should expect pedestrians there. In some ways it is as much for the benefit of the drivers as for the pedestrians. It gives the pedestrians (in many cases) right-of-way, but it also alerts the drivers to the fact that pedestrians in that restricted area may have right-of-way.

A properly operating autonomous system shouldn't need all that. For some reason, we seem to expect autonomous systems to treat all pedestrians as if they have right-of-way all the time. In essence, everywhere is to be treated as if it were a pedestrian crosswalk ... all the time.

Unlike what we expect from human drivers, it seems.
 
quadraginta said:
While it might be able to add useful data for the software, I'm not sure that it would be necessary, or maybe not even a good idea.

It should treat pedestrians entering the roadway the same whether there is a crosswalk or not.

The main purpose of crosswalks is to channel pedestrians into an area which is given extra signage and light control in order to alert the drivers that they should expect pedestrians there. In some ways it is as much for the benefit of the drivers as for the pedestrians. It gives the pedestrians (in many cases) right-of-way, but it also alerts the drivers to the fact that pedestrians in that restricted area may have right-of-way.

A properly operating autonomous system shouldn't need all that. For some reason, we seem to expect autonomous systems to treat all pedestrians as if they have right-of-way all the time. In essence, everywhere is to be treated as if it were a pedestrian crosswalk ... all the time.

Unlike what we expect from human drivers, it seems.
Click to expand...

I think a car should slow down when approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Then if a human is detected there is more time to react. It does not matter whether a human or computer is in charge.
 
rjh01 said:
I think a car should slow down when approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Then if a human is detected there is more time to react. It does not matter whether a human or computer is in charge.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree.

But I don't think that is a legal requirement of drivers in very many jurisdictions. And I don't think a lot of drivers are known for doing it just because they should. In fact, I think it is more likely that at many standard intersections with normally accoutered crosswalk equipment (which might even consist of little or none), the average driver is more likely to speed up a bit, so they can ... for example ... 'make the light'.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The legal responsibility is the only responsibility.
Click to expand...
Maybe so in your world, but not in others. There are, I believe, some responsibilities that are moral, personal and cultural, and some that are sufficiently vague and ambiguous that it would be a sorry mess if we considered them as legal, but a sorry world if we did not try to fulfill them as human beings. Of course you can always argue by redefinition, which would not be uncommon, but I would hate to be arrested and jailed for someone's estimation of whether I was an adequate human being. But I would also hate to live in a world where the sense of responsibility is considered unnecessary beyond the reach of the law.
 
rjh01 said:
I think a car should slow down when approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Then if a human is detected there is more time to react. It does not matter whether a human or computer is in charge.
Click to expand...
A car blew through the pedestrian crossing I was walking on yesterday.

Response to my rather mild verbal query of, "Really?" was, "**** Off" and a finger in the air from the passenger.

You put too much faith in drivers doing the right thing or even giving a **** when it comes to pedestrians and crossing.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The legal responsibility is the only responsibility.
Click to expand...


The legal profession, as it stuffs its pockets with lawsuit winnings, facetiously claiming they are protecting people by improving products by lawsuits, will drive tens of thousands into the grave by delaying the safer robot cars from implementation. Perhaps hundreds of thousands over several decades.


Yay.
 
Beerina said:
The legal profession, as it stuffs its pockets with lawsuit winnings, facetiously claiming they are protecting people by improving products by lawsuits, will drive tens of thousands into the grave by delaying the safer robot cars from implementation. Perhaps hundreds of thousands over several decades.


Yay.
Click to expand...

As opposed being slammed at high speed into whatever solid object by malfunctioning system? Or pedestrians being overran by crappy AVs? You call that improvement?

So far AVs don't have good record even in trivial environments...
 
EHocking said:
A car blew through the pedestrian crossing I was walking on yesterday.

Response to my rather mild verbal query of, "Really?" was, "**** Off" and a finger in the air from the passenger.

You put too much faith in drivers doing the right thing or even giving a **** when it comes to pedestrians and crossing.
Click to expand...

I do something even worse to such drivers. I make them feel bad. I do this by giving them a wave and smile. Generally I get one back. They know they have done the wrong thing, only now they cannot take it out on me like they did with you.
 
Klimax said:
As opposed being slammed at high speed into whatever solid object by malfunctioning system? Or pedestrians being overran by crappy AVs? You call that improvement?



So far AVs don't have good record even in trivial environments...
Click to expand...

How is the AV ratio of accidents per kilometres compared to human drivers? You can only claim that AVs don't have a good record if this ratio is better for humans.
 
steenkh said:
How is the AV ratio of accidents per kilometres compared to human drivers? You can only claim that AVs don't have a good record if this ratio is better for humans.
Click to expand...

We don't know, as there are no fully AVs on the road afaik. The supervised AVs have required many human interventions, so what would have happened without the human is hard to quantify. In addition, a lot of testing is performed on well-mapped routes and what might happen if these cars were 'in the wild' is also hard to measure.

Testing in California, December 2016 to November 2017:

"Waymo, for example, drove 352,545 miles in the state during the period with only 63 disengagements. Cruise vehicles drove about a third less, at 127,516 miles, and had 105 disengagements.

The third best performance came from Nissan Motor Co (7201.T), which drove 5,007 miles and had 24 disengagements, meaning that its vehicles had disengagements on average every 208 miles.

The numbers fall off sharply after Nissan, with Baidu Inc (BIDU.O) at an average rate of every 41 miles, chipmaker Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) at 4.6 miles on average, and Mercedes (DAIGn.DE), with disengagements every 1.3 miles on average. "
 
rjh01 said:
I think a car should slow down when approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Then if a human is detected there is more time to react. It does not matter whether a human or computer is in charge.
Click to expand...


I agree, but good luck getting most drivers to understand this.

My own wife thinks it's ridiculous that I "slow down for green lights." It does sound a bit odd when phrased that way. But green lights are almost invariably located at intersections. (We don't put them at intervals along highways just to encourage people to keep going, after all.) I slow down for the intersections, because they're dangerous. Green should mean "Caution, you're passing through an intersection!" but instead we teach "green means go" from pre-school onward.
 
Myriad said:
I agree, but good luck getting most drivers to understand this.

My own wife thinks it's ridiculous that I "slow down for green lights." It does sound a bit odd when phrased that way. But green lights are almost invariably located at intersections. (We don't put them at intervals along highways just to encourage people to keep going, after all.) I slow down for the intersections, because they're dangerous. Green should mean "Caution, you're passing through an intersection!" but instead we teach "green means go" from pre-school onward.
Click to expand...


And once driving school is in your rear-view mirror, green means "Hurry up, or you're gonna miss the light!". (For those who had driving school. Such a thing didn't even exist where I was when I got my license.)

Some years ago they passed a law here in NC making it a violation to not change to a far lane when possible to do so safely if there was a police car or some service vehicle of that sort stopped on the shoulder of a multi-lane highway. The law was a response to cops being hit by passing traffic when they pulled someone over. (Or stopped to render assistance. Ha, ha.)

To this day people who are busted for failing to do so claim they had no idea there was any such rule, even though it was widely disseminated for years after it was enacted.

I have always been a bit bemused by this, since I had made a habit of doing exactly that any time I saw any vehicle stopped on the roadside. It always seemed merely prudent. Much like the idea of slowing down a bit when you're in a neighborhood and see children playing next to the street.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
We don't know, as there are no fully AVs on the road afaik.
...
Click to expand...

With thoroughfare and highway speed vehicles that's likely true.

But there are several locals now with slow speed full AV shuttle buses (small ones that is), and it may not be going great for them either.

There was one (we had a short thread IIRC) that slow speed bonked into a truck backing out of a tight alley. Didn't seem to be any reason why it didn't stop, though the topic died and I haven't heard of an investigation results.

Vegas runs one now, might even be the one I'm recalling.

I'd ride one just because they only get up to about 15 MPH... but that's as far as I'm willing to trust them so far.

:D
 
With regard to red lights and such, in addition to the prudence of slowing, at least when you can't see what traffic might be coming, is the idea of what the defensive driving instructors used, at least, to call "stale lights." Many people don't take into account how long a light has been green, and sail at top speed right into it as it changes, often going too fast to stop even when it finishes turning red. If you see a green light ahead, take into account how long it's been that way, and how long until you get there.

Also if you're behind a big truck remember that the light might turn red while the truck is hiding it.
 
In my state and most others there is technically a crosswalk whenever any two seats meet at a right angle. This is from avvo.com from 2010:

Only a small percentage of crosswalks are explicitly marked. In every state in the country, a crosswalk is said to exist at every intersection at which streets meet at right angles, in addition to those that are visibly painted or otherwise indicated in the middle of the block. These so-called "implicit" crosswalks at intersections require drivers to exercise the same caution and to yield to all pedestrians traversing the road. In other words, a crosswalk exists at every intersection, and drivers must always yield to pedestrians.
Click to expand...

That means there's a crosswalk every block in a grid system, which can mean 12 or more per mile. Something to be aware of. I'm not sure about the last clause, and drivers must always yield to pedestrians. Given the sentence it's in, it probably refers to implicit crosswalks. But I do know areas where "always" really means always, and I'd be surprised if AVs are not programmed to this rule.
 
Minoosh said:
...
I'm not sure about the last clause, and drivers must always yield to pedestrians. Given the sentence it's in, it probably refers to implicit crosswalks. But I do know areas where "always" really means always, and I'd be surprised if AVs are not programmed to this rule.
Click to expand...


I think it means... no matter how dumbass the dumbass crossing in front of you is being, you're not allowed to nudge them out of the way.
:D
 
I may be wrong about the difference here but it's my understanding that a pedestrian always has the right of way in the sense that you must stop if one is in front of you, and cannot nudge or harass them. What's different is that that at a legal crosswalk, at least in Vermont, you must not only yield to a pedestrian but must stop to let him or her pass if they step off the curb. At a marked crosswalk, a pedestrian stepping onto the highway is equivalent to a red light.

That may bring a difference in liability if you hit one. A pedestrian stepping out into traffic outside a crosswalk runs some risk of failure to see them, or perhaps of a car not judging clearance correctly, and some excuse might prevail for the driver. But on a marked crosswalk, a pedestrian is expected to be able to step out and cross without having to dodge traffic, and a driver is expected to keep an eye out for anyone stepping off the curb at either side. Prudent pedestrians still take some care, of course, as some drivers are...well, you know, like the wrong end of the horse...but a commanding and imperious attitude is entirely acceptable when you motion them to stop or yell nasty things when they don't.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
I do something even worse to such drivers. I make them feel bad. I do this by giving them a wave and smile. Generally I get one back. They know they have done the wrong thing, only now they cannot take it out on me like they did with you.
Click to expand...
Nope not these two bogans.
Mum was the passenger that gave me the finger.

Most people here get driving lessons from their parents, so attitude like this taught as “normal”. It will only get worse, what with the self-centred “me generation” having hit breeding age.
 
rjh01 said:
I think a car should slow down when approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Then if a human is detected there is more time to react. It does not matter whether a human or computer is in charge.
Click to expand...

No way. Almost every intersection in a city has a crosswalk, that would be incredibly annoying. Reminds me of those drivers that slow down for a green light just in case it changes. No thanks.

What would be good is if pedestrians, most of which are travelling on a sidewalk and much much slower than a car, watch where they are going. It's a lot easier for a pedestrian to see an approaching car rather than the opposite.

Carjackings and robberies would be so easy. Simply walk in front of the car and stand there (wearing a mask) and have your buddy grab the car as it sits still.

Come to think of it, without manual control options you could be stuck in a dangerous situation where your car refuses to move, or doesn't know how to handle it, or doesn't realize there is a problem at all.
 
bruto said:
I may be wrong about the difference here but it's my understanding that a pedestrian always has the right of way in the sense that you must stop if one is in front of you, and cannot nudge or harass them. What's different is that that at a legal crosswalk, at least in Vermont, you must not only yield to a pedestrian but must stop to let him or her pass if they step off the curb. At a marked crosswalk, a pedestrian stepping onto the highway is equivalent to a red light.

That may bring a difference in liability if you hit one. A pedestrian stepping out into traffic outside a crosswalk runs some risk of failure to see them, or perhaps of a car not judging clearance correctly, and some excuse might prevail for the driver. But on a marked crosswalk, a pedestrian is expected to be able to step out and cross without having to dodge traffic, and a driver is expected to keep an eye out for anyone stepping off the curb at either side. Prudent pedestrians still take some care, of course, as some drivers are...well, you know, like the wrong end of the horse...but a commanding and imperious attitude is entirely acceptable when you motion them to stop or yell nasty things when they don't.
Click to expand...

Crosswalk laws and customs are very different in different parts of the US.

I was greatly surprised when I moved to California and cars would stop if I was standing at a crosswalk. In my Midwest home, pedestrians had the right of way, but you wouldn't actually see cars stopping for a person who had not yet entered the street. In California, they did.

I'm afraid I made myself unpopular both as a driver and a pedestrian, as I failed to follow local customs that I was not used to.
 
Jim_MDP said:
There was one (we had a short thread IIRC) that slow speed bonked into a truck backing out of a tight alley. Didn't seem to be any reason why it didn't stop, though the topic died and I haven't heard of an investigation results.

Vegas runs one now, might even be the one I'm recalling.
Click to expand...

Yes - that was Vegas. Kind of a nitpick, but the bus did stop. It just sat there while the truck verrrrrry slowly backed in to it, even though there was plenty of room for the bus to back up, and no traffic behind it. I don't remember if the bus honked or not. I think it was the bus's first day in operation, even.

I have not yet heard the results of any investigation about it, though.
 
Meadmaker said:
Crosswalk laws and customs are very different in different parts of the US.

I was greatly surprised when I moved to California and cars would stop if I was standing at a crosswalk. In my Midwest home, pedestrians had the right of way, but you wouldn't actually see cars stopping for a person who had not yet entered the street. In California, they did.

I'm afraid I made myself unpopular both as a driver and a pedestrian, as I failed to follow local customs that I was not used to.
Click to expand...

People are idiots here, don't worry, it isn't you. [explanation deleted]
 
crescent said:
Yes - that was Vegas. Kind of a nitpick, but the bus did stop. It just sat there while the truck verrrrrry slowly backed in to it, even though there was plenty of room for the bus to back up, and no traffic behind it. I don't remember if the bus honked or not. I think it was the bus's first day in operation, even.

I have not yet heard the results of any investigation about it, though.
Click to expand...
That's right, thanks for the correction.

My bad (#seniormoment) ;)
 
Meadmaker said:
Crosswalk laws and customs are very different in different parts of the US.

I was greatly surprised when I moved to California and cars would stop if I was standing at a crosswalk. In my Midwest home, pedestrians had the right of way, but you wouldn't actually see cars stopping for a person who had not yet entered the street. In California, they did.

I'm afraid I made myself unpopular both as a driver and a pedestrian, as I failed to follow local customs that I was not used to.
Click to expand...

I think that is the law in a lot of states at crosswalks without traffic lights. You are supposed to stop and allow pedestrians who are waiting, to cross.

Not that many drivers stop, though.

Here in NC the law varies depending on the type of crosswalk. There are also city ordinances.

I also find it quite dangerous if there is more than one lane for vehicles because you often see one lane/vehicle stop, but others do not, creating a very dangerous situation for the pedestrian.

Sometimes the vehicle nearest the curb stops, which may or may not inhibit the view for drivers in the next lane, but sometimes they don't stop. At any rate, you end up with peds walking out from "behind" the car that has stopped, possibly into traffic.
 
mgidm86 said:
Carjackings and robberies would be so easy. Simply walk in front of the car and stand there (wearing a mask) and have your buddy grab the car as it sits still.
Click to expand...
And go where? Even assuming you overrode the car's systems, you'd probably be instantly under surveillance. Most of us are now anyway.

mgidm86 said:
Come to think of it, without manual control options you could be stuck in a dangerous situation where your car refuses to move, or doesn't know how to handle it, or doesn't realize there is a problem at all.
Click to expand...
Without manual controls the carjacker wouldn't be able to take it, either.

We can dream up a lot of scenarios but the most danger any of us are ever in is probably being on the road with other human-guided 65 mph-projectiles in the first place.
 
smartcooky said:
Yep. A few weeks ago I was driving out to a town near where I live, on a 100km/h open road. As I approached an intersection, a car pulled up at a stop sign on the left (we drive on the left here and our cars are RHD). I realised that I hadn't seen his face in the driver's window, and just knew that he hadn't looked and was going to pull out in front of me; I started to brake just before he shot out onto the road. If I hadn't anticipated his actions, it would likely have been very nasty.
Click to expand...
If the other car had a robot driving it then it would have checked to see if a car was coming before proceeding.
 
Minoosh said:
We can dream up a lot of scenarios but the most danger any of us are ever in is probably being on the road with other human-guided 65 mph-projectiles in the first place.
Click to expand...
This is certainly not true per unit time, or per instance of performing the activity.
 
Minoosh said:
And go where? Even assuming you overrode the car's systems, you'd probably be instantly under surveillance. Most of us are now anyway.

Without manual controls the carjacker wouldn't be able to take it, either.

We can dream up a lot of scenarios but the most danger any of us are ever in is probably being on the road with other human-guided 65 mph-projectiles in the first place.
Click to expand...

For me, I'd need to grab control to actually go where I need. Between state of automation, navigation (especially maps) and roads it will be around 2999 when AV will get me where needed... (after full AI is created)
 
Klimax said:
Would you kindly point out where did I make that mistake? I can't find it and you haven't quoted any post.
Click to expand...

The post above his:

Klimax said:
There is massive difference between somebody, walking out suddenly form between cars and pedestrian being visible for more then 5 seconds who moves quite slowly across lane to the left of your own lane! (about 300 meters)
Click to expand...
 
shuttlt said:
Or you could have a human driven car, with AI safety features. Easier to build, and safer than either.
Click to expand...

We're pretty close to that. Some car makers already have active safety systems, using cameras and radar, that can brake for you if you're not paying attention for instance. Mercedes Benz usually leads the pack in developing this technology, which they then make available for free for other companies.
 
Minoosh said:
And go where? Even assuming you overrode the car's systems, you'd probably be instantly under surveillance. Most of us are now anyway.

Without manual controls the carjacker wouldn't be able to take it, either.

We can dream up a lot of scenarios but the most danger any of us are ever in is probably being on the road with other human-guided 65 mph-projectiles in the first place.
Click to expand...

Carjackings and robberies then ;) I should have deleted the first one.
 
I would not be comfortable with a car that I could not manually override. There are too many components that can fail and too many scenarios where it wouldn't be practical.

- there's an accident or other emergency ahead and police are directing cars into an oncoming lane to avoid the crash but your car won't cross the double-yellow line because it's illegal.
- car parks too far from curb because sensor isn't working correctly.
- car won't move when light turns green causing a traffic jam.
- a traffic light is stuck on red out in the middle of nowhere (RTA: or in the city) and car will not move. Happened to me several times and I ended up going through the red light every time, eventually.

I'm sure I can think of dozens of better ones. It will be a long time before a car can handle every such situation.

On the other hand there will probably be some interesting hacks available on the black market.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
I would not be comfortable with a car that I could not manually override. There are too many components that can fail and too many scenarios where it wouldn't be practical.

- there's an accident or other emergency ahead and police are directing cars into an oncoming lane to avoid the crash but your car won't cross the double-yellow line because it's illegal.
- car parks too far from curb because sensor isn't working correctly.
- car won't move when light turns green causing a traffic jam.
- a traffic light is stuck on red out in the middle of nowhere (RTA: or in the city) and car will not move. Happened to me several times and I ended up going through the red light every time, eventually.

I'm sure I can think of dozens of better ones. It will be a long time before a car can handle every such situation.

On the other hand there will probably be some interesting hacks available on the black market.
Click to expand...

One to add that is pretty common near where I live is railroad crossing lights on when there's no train. If a robocar obeys railroad crossing lights, as it damned well better, but does not know when to get out and look down the tracks, one could be stuck for a very long time. Like hours unless we update the infrastructure with money nobody has to bring the standard to one that nobody now needs.

I've also been stuck behind broken traffic lights, though not recently.

I'm imagining a perfect post-driverless era crime in which a person gets a couple of flashing light barriers and puts them in the road. Stop all traffic, and rob houses between barriers at leisure.
 
Commercial air transport already relies on auto pilot. Airlines have policies that mandate using it.
A lot of the issues that have been raised about driverless cars have already been dealt with. Flying has never been safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom