patrick.net

Also, who do you sue when a self-driving car runs someone over or kills a little kid? The software?

The concept of "who to sue" was established by legalman long ago - you sue whoever is even remotely connected as long as they have money. In the case of an autodrive vehicle, you sue the owner, the software maker, the car manufacturer, and the dispatch system owner. Maybe even sue the city. Another sue target may be the entity that hacked into the car's computers and turned the car into a killing machine. And in that case, you can sue the manufacturer, city, or regulating agency for not preventing the hack.

Here Zir/Ze/Zis:

http://patrick.net/post/1314570/?c=1492328

Got your mother in our world,
She's not sure if your a boy or a girl.

Another uber convicted "second chance" Felon behind the wheel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5527575/Operator-self-driving-Uber-history-traffic-violations.html

Rafaela Vasquez was the 'safety driver' of the autonomous Uber that hit and killed Elaine Herzburg, 49, in Tempe, Arizona on Sunday
DailyMail.com can disclose Vasquez had been hit with a string of moving violations such as failing to stop at a red light and speeding, in recent years
She was cited for driving with a suspended license in 2008 and again in 2009
Uber applies same standard for self-driving car hires as for regular Uber drivers of no more than three minor moving driving offenses in last three years
Vasquez was also revealed to have had felony convictions for attempted armed robbery for which she served more than three years in prison in 2001
Uber had not disclosed her lengthy history of driving offenses in its public statements about the death
The company issued a statement referring to its hiring policy stating, 'Everyone deserves a fair chance'

She's doing a Fred Flintstone cosplay.

It looked like she was struggling to stay awake and totally not paying attention to the road.

Also the headlights were adjusted a degree too low. I don't understand why the other systems on the car didn't spot the obstacle.

It's one thing to have a sex change, but in this instance, is the grass really that much greener?

a real driver would have cranked the wheel hard right, went off the road and flipped and rolled the car and maybe died because of the stupid ass on the bike. The story said that the video was "heartbreaking" but somehow I don't feel that way. Anybody feel "heartbroken'?

Is this methhead the victim?

They released the video. What a stupid woman.

Sniper says

Strategist says

Sniper says

Self driving cars will NEVER be able to navigate all the crazy that takes place on the roadway every day. Cruising across empty highways in Wyoming, maybe, but NEVER in an urban environment..

Never underestimate technology.

Fine.

When do you predict self-driving cars will the mainstream in downtown LA?

Impossible to predict when self driving cars go mainstream. Many features of that technology is already available.
I test drove the Tesla 2 years ago, and it went on the bends of the freeway perfectly without me touching the steering wheel. One of my cars now breaks automatically if i get too close to the car in front.
Technology is awesome.

"It's not the Robot's fault; she walked into a doorknob"

Yeah, saw the screenshot, she was 2/3 of the way across the street. She didn't step off the pavement, she was walking from the other side of the road and was almost at the other side in 2XL's Lane when hit. Mr. Roboto killed somebody.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as human, Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles, tells The Associated Press.

"It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," Sam Ambuelsmaid, an analyst at Navigant Research who follows self-driving technology, tells the AP. "From what I can see in the video, it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian."

No, Muh Singularity, Muh Automation!

The dream:
https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/06/autonomous-cars-could-drive-auto-insurance-to-extinction/
"No more accidents, goodbye Auto Insurance."

The reality:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-accident-wont-stop-insurers-from-racing-to-develop-coverage-for-driverless-cars-1521624600

Auto Insurers will be writing coverage for the car component providers. That's you Tesla and Alphabet and subcontractors!

Looks like many, many years of development are ahead.

Loooong Way to go. Machine perception today is what 2XL was in 1980. 8-track and buttons, man.

RafiMaas says

Before seeing the clip I imagined she had just stepped off the curb coming from the right.

That's exactly what I thought, too, based on the earlier description.
R2D2 may fly the X-wing, but NVIDIA ain't driving the Uber.

How are these cars are suppose to handle the real world? What if the car travels through a bad neighborhood, I know in some areas I have been forced to go through I leave 10 feet between my car and the car in front of me at stops so I don’t get trapped in ghetto areas. What would stop a robber from just walking in front of the car and making it stop with a car that was 100% autonomous. Twice I have had crazy people jump in front of my car once on the freeway, no way would an autonomous car have avoided person. I guess at least with the autonomous car there should be multiple cameras always running to prove fault but not sure how well that’s going to work in court all of the time.

Saw the video. Why the fuck the car didn't have high beams on?

RC2006 says

What if the car travels through a bad neighborhood, I know in some areas I have been forced to go through I leave 10 feet between my car and the car in front of me at stops so I don’t get trapped in ghetto areas.

If Uber/Alphabet/Telsa/whomever programmed cars to do that, and it leaked out ....

"These Companies are Ray Cyst! Must be programmed to drive no differently than in suburban neighborhoods! And disable the racist human's controls, too so they can't be racist in "Traditionally Oppressed Minority Zones", either."

Uber strikes gold with methhead-B-gone. Cities overwhelm company with orders.

This incident really upsets me. A few days ago when it happened, all the news articles said that the police chief concluded that the driver / car was not at fault because the pedestrian stepped off of the median / shadow right into the vehicles path, and not even a human could have avoided it. When I read that, I immediately agreed, because nobody, man or machine, can avoid someone standing still then suddenly moving into the path at the last moment.

But, the video shows that this is most certainly not what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=RASBcc4yOOo

I imagine that "not at fault" lie was made with the hopes that the video would not be released. They were probably pressured by Uber and other interested companies to err on the side of caution so as not to cause public adoption fear of the delicate new technology. They probably appealed to the police chief's sense of greater good with something like "self driving cars will save more lives than they take, so you should lie here to help accelerate their adoption" - sordid, but compelling.

This was a very normal pedestrian crossing. The lady was probably in the street on the same trajectory for a good 5-10 seconds judging by her speed. While I can't say for certain in this case, I know that most humans can see a pedestrian walking in the street at night, quite well. I think the darkness of the video is just the typical struggle that video usually has with nighttime recording when contrast is involved - my point is that the human driver probably had decent visibility of the pedestrian, had she been paying attention instead of playing on her smartphone.

It's very disappointing that the machine didn't detect her. This was a very non-chaotic scenario and it had plenty of time to establish a pattern of a moving object, and perfect line of sight. Failure in such a simple scenario makes me really doubt ubers tech. This is exactly the type of scenario where the machine should surpass the human by orders of magnitude.

CapraHircus says

It's very disappointing that the machine didn't detect her. This was a very non-chaotic scenario and it had plenty of time to establish a pattern of a moving object, and perfect line of sight. Failure in such a simple scenario makes me really doubt ubers tech. This is exactly the type of scenario where the machine should surpass the human by orders of magnitude.

A stupid woman does not bother to look at cars coming towards her at night, and it's the car's fault? LOL.
The cops have determined it was the stupid woman who was at fault.
Lets agree it's the professionals who know better than us, and let them decide. If the car is at fault, lets compensate the family to the maximum, and lets improve the technology.

RafiMaas says

Strategist says

A stupid woman does not bother to look at cars coming towards her at night, and it's the car's fault?

What if it was a stupid kid chasing a ball into the street from behind a car?

That's an accident.

Strategist says

What if it was a stupid kid chasing a ball into the street from behind a car?

That's an accident.

Hey, I have an idea. Lets invent a device that prevents kids from running in front of moving cars. And no, I don't mean a leash. An electronic device that detects the movement of the kid and cars, and warns the car to take preventive action. The device could work on stupid adults too. It could be imbedded in a human, dogs or animals.

Strategist says

A stupid woman does not bother to look at cars coming towards her at night, and it's the car's fault? LOL.

Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't assign "fault", although like in most accidents, both parties contribute.

Would you say the same if a child slowly walked across the street and an inattentive driver splattered him? The driver coulda (and should have) prevented it, but hey, dumb kid's fault, right?

Pedestrians have the right of way, and it's the duty of all drivers to not hit them, when possible / reasonable. One of the most core principles of driving is to not hit obstacles, unexpected or otherwise.

CapraHircus says

Would you say the same if a child slowly walked across the street and an inattentive driver splattered him? The driver coulda (and should have) prevented it, but hey, dumb kid's fault, right?

Actually, in MA, during snowstorms, the driver is typically not at fault for those kinds of things.

The “pedestrian” was a criminal. Crossing the street not at a designated crosswalk is a crime called Jaywalking, and she paid with her life, like all criminals should

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

These cars should not be allowed out without a squeegee detection device and squeegee guy bumper bar.

They should not be allowed without an M314 mounted on the roof rapid-firing its way free and clear.

Uber's software detected woman, classified her as false positive, kept on going.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/report-software-bug-led-to-death-in-ubers-self-driving-crash/

How come it's not like Grand Theft Auto, where you get extra points for running down nuns?