Posted on 03/20/2018 10:51:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
John covered this story last night, but the death of a pedestrian struck by a self-driving Uber vehicle in Arizona should have ramifications for the entire idea of autonomous vehicles. (Something I’ve been concerned about for a couple of years now.) After covering the initial reports from the accident, John concluded with the following observations and questions.
There will be an investigation of this accident as well, but my first thought is to wonder why the human ‘backup driver’ didn’t stop the car and prevent this. Reliable self-driving cars and trucks may still be a couple years away but it’s worth pointing out that human drivers are responsible for tens of thousands of fatal accidents on the roads every year. In 2016, there were an estimated 40,200 fatal crashes. Ultimately, the question is whether the record of driverless cars turns out to be better or worse than the humans who would otherwise be at the wheel.
Before addressing those points, it’s worth noting that new information has been provided by authorities investigating the accident. While it will take a while to sort this all out, initial findings indicate that the car probably wasn’t at fault in this case and the test monitor probably wouldn’t have been able to prevent the accident even if they’d been in complete control. (Fortune)
“The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.”
According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless.
Since there’s dashcam video of the entire incident, the police should be able to sort this out without too many questions going unanswered. Going by their description, the possibly homeless and confused woman was pushing a bicycle in a median strip when she suddenly veered out into traffic directly in front of the Uber vehicle which was going nearly 40 mph. Assuming the next lane of traffic was blocked by another vehicle, the car would have had no other option than to possibly try to drive up onto the median. (It looks like it would have been physically impossible to stop the vehicle in that short span.) But the car’s programming clearly wasn’t anticipating a person diving out in front of it and a human being likely couldn’t crank the wheel over in a split second to avoid her either.
So Uber is off the hook and testing of autonomous vehicles can resume presently, right? I honestly hope not. The woman’s death is a tragedy, but this accident should also give us pause to ask whether any autonomous system will ever be able to replace a human being for such tasks. The woman appears to have done something completely unexpected which the navigation software had no reason to anticipate, but the fact is that irrational, unexpected things do happen in the real world all the time. And it’s in those razor-thin moments of doubt that a human being will always best a machine.
NASA regularly argues that manned space exploration will always be superior to drones and robots because human beings are more adaptable. We simply see the complexity of the world around us in a way that no set of logical rules coded into the most complex software will ever match. Humans are also able to imagine things in a way that computers can’t, including the most unexpected. Take the idea of color for example. A computer can analyze a video image and assign a value to a given color. But there’s a limit to the number of colors it can recognize and it has to force the object into one of those pigeonholes, even if they number in the thousands. In reality, there are an infinite number of colors, with each subtle shift in light frequency blending from one to the next. A system built on ones and zeros will never grasp that.
Returning to the auto accident scenario, the car was unable to anticipate a possibly homeless and confused woman suddenly lurching out in front of it. The car may have identified her as a pedestrian, but that’s not what pedestrians are “supposed to do.” But a human driver, under other circumstances, may have noticed things about her such as disheveled clothes or an unsteady rhythm to her gait. Seeing that, a human could have slowed down in advance, wondering if she was about to do something crazy. Do you honestly believe that an autonomous car is going to be capable of that sort of thought process? And none of this even begins to address the potential problems with hacking and terrorism.
Cars need drivers for precisely this reason. John was right to point out that we’re far from perfect and humans cause many, many accidents each year. With that in mind, some technology could likely improve our record. Perhaps some of those collision detection systems which are able to slam on the brakes when they locate an object we’re about to strike could be added to most vehicles. Sensors which detect a sleepy driver nodding off and sound an alarm to fully wake them might save many lives. But we should still keep a human being at the wheel as the primary operator. Autonomous driving software isn’t going to match the human mind.
See..you erred again.
You must be getting fluster defending your genius?
I think you meant made up facts get thrown out by the [educated]
I hope you are not a self driving car programmer.
You are prone to much human error.
BTW how and I able to communicate with you via a wire a battery and a half coconut shell?
You are making up facts to support your world view. This is a made up fact by you:
The reality is a majority of the population is uncomfortable or not interested in self driving cars.
Let’s just both agree you are delusional and leave it at that.
(+_+)
I am not the one posting absolute lies as fact.
Thank you Cronos. We’re all in this together.
This. There are instances where self-driving cars will be a benefit, albeit with human monitoring of some kind. But I think we're a long way off from having self-driving cars on a large scale.
Agreed...I think this entire concept is being rushed way beyond the technology.
I totally agree with you.
Where I live, a driverless car makes zero sense, because even cell phones don’t work here...lol Maybe in a downtown area where buses service, but still, I do not see driverless cars as the answer to transportation issues.
America is about the freedom to go where you want, when you want, and with your own transportation....to leave when you want. If you can afford it.... therefore, a good economy makes that possible.
Correct and this is seen increasingly in Japan where more traffic deaths are due to 65+ year olds than other age groups
2. If you live in a city or near a city and commute then AVs will be cost effective -- think about it, most of the time your car is parked (95% on average for most people) - now if you could get anothe means of transport quickly each time you needed it, it would make sense. AND the car would be 95% utilized (instead of sitting idle) so cost effective
BUT, if you live in the countryside or use your car for pleasure then it is something completely different
"Sure you can drive your car but gas/oil will be crazy expensive.The same way obozo told us we can keep our coal." - Not related to AVs, AVs can technically be ICEs or Electric or whatever
"I can foresee a time when car control, like gun control, will become an issue. Also,I seriously doubt there will NOT be heavy restrictions on manual driven cars." -- in the cities yes, just as you have one-way lanes, congestion charges, no traffic areas etc. Most likely also in expressways. But not in the countryside.
2. The vast majority do not reject AVs - they are wary and want safeguards but they do not reject them. you can say the vast majority don't see a need for them. But tha'ts true for mobile phones, iPads etc.
You want to stop the subsidies, ok, but then be prepared for the rest of the world to leap ahead in this technology
AV technology is not driven due to "left wing ideology" rather due to simple market economics -- if Uber creates robotaxis it reduces its expenses by 40% (cost of the driver) and makes a killing in the market. Also more and more people want cruise-control, self-parking etc. for their cars, that's the first step to AV.
Electric cars are increasingly popular over short distances as the cost of batteries fall.
Driverless cars are freedom for some folks. If you don't want them, don't buy them.
This video proves these things need to be taken off our public streets immediately. Uber will get sued big time and justifiably so.
Yes, they need to be sued. It will help the development of AV
I was making the point that the government will not directly prohibit manually operated cars.
Not openly anyhow.
They will do what they always do.
Heavily tax the gas and oil and make it cost prohibitive to operate them for.
You say “keep the government out”
You are kidding yourself if you think the government, particularly the social engineers,will not control whatever outcome THEY want.
Like the Global Warmers who would eliminate gas and oil entirely if they could.
If they do that and you use a hubrid or an electric or a hydrogen vehicle, then big deal
And how is that linked to AVs? AVs are a private affair
Come on, one can say even without AVs that the government could try to control you the way you state
In “the future” you will have the options to drive manual gas operated vehicles.
However,unless you are wealthy you are wealthy, you will not be able afford to drive them.
My overall point is..i am not interested in self driving cars.
Unless i am misreading various polls i have seen..neither is the majority of the population.
I don’t know how to post sites using my phone but gallop just did a poll.
Also,i Will miss hopping on my motorcycle and going anywhere i want ..anytime i want.
And yes even with, or without, AVs the government IS controlling us.
But the amount of control possible with self driving cars will be irresistible to the social engeneering control freaks.
Like i’ve said ..hope I am wrong.
neither is the majority of the population. - that is true NOW with the gallup poll at 62%. But this was the same with ICEs, trains, airplanes. The Public opinion changes.
I love my motorcycle too and I don't see that being banned
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
