Uber self-driving vehicle kills pedestrian

[kamik86]

There are segments of the population where driverless cars could really be useful. Those with disabilities, the elderly who have vision impairment or simply no longer have the motor function skills to drive.

Although as discussed here its this segment of the population that shouldn't be using them for a long time. The tech does have to get MUCH MUCH more reliable before those that CANT take over the car should be using them alone.

I think it will continue like it has in that small functions will become done by an automated system more and more. More cars will get back up cameras, sensors that tell ou when you are too close to something, these safety features will start to become mandatory.

Then more optional but easier features will get more and more prevalent such as cars that parallel park on their own.

As more time is spent with driverless cars and the tech (and the code base just because we have the tech doesn't mean someone didn't screw up one of those conditionals to make for unsafe conditions too... then again we all know accidents because of defaulty cars happen now too)

 

[Klayfish]

Edited to add- I really love this discussion. You can tell I’m really interested and excited about the possibilities and don’t often get to geek out and discuss it this much!

Glad to hear you're interested. It's fun stuff...at least for me it is. Since cars are both my hobby and my living, I try to keep up with emerging technologies as much as I can. I utilize them now to help customers I work with get their cars repaired quicker and more efficiently. Tesla has been an interesting case study in my world. If you're really interested in autonomous vehicles, there's a bunch of stuff out there about it. For an in-depth look that doesn't get too technical, I'd strongly suggest finding a copy of the November 2017 issue of Car and Driver (I Googled it to make sure I had the right month). No, it's not where I get all of my info, like I said this is related to what I do for a living. But I think it was an extremely well laid out piece and was a very interesting read.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

Video here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/video-...-fatal-uber-self-driving-car-crash-1521673182

 

[mom2rtk]

Video here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/video-...-fatal-uber-self-driving-car-crash-1521673182

That's horrifying! Of course the person in the car was looking down. They aren't actively participating in the driving process. You'll never be able to hold their attention as long as there's a phone in the car.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

They aren't actively participating in the driving process. You'll never be able to hold their attention as long as there's a phone in the car.

Getting briefly distracted is a part of driving...sometimes we all glance away from the road in front of us for a few seconds. Adjusting the air conditioning, changing a radio station, or communicating with a child in the back seat are normal things we all do in a car. I don't see the driver as grossly recklessly or unreasonably distracted at first glance, but we don't have all the details.

Crossing a multi-lane road in the dark, between crosswalks and street lights is reckless and unreasonable behavior. The article says the speed limit in the area was either 35 or 45.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm afraid that the better the cars get, the lazier the human "back-up drivers" are going to get. If your car is 99.99% autonomous, you're really out of practice by the time that .01% when you're needed actually kicks in.

I think in order to have completely autonomous systems, they'd have to enclose the "roads" somehow - sort of travel tubes to eliminate all the weather and pedestrian related factors.

 

[mom2rtk]

Getting briefly distracted is a part of driving...sometimes we all glance away from the road in front of us for a few seconds. Adjusting the air conditioning, changing a radio station, or communicating with a child in the back seat are normal things we all do in a car. I don't see the driver as grossly recklessly or unreasonably distracted at first glance, but we don't have all the details.

Crossing a multi-lane road in the dark, between crosswalks and street lights is reckless and unreasonable behavior. The article says the speed limit in the area was either 35 or 45.

I saw it quite differently. I was shocked by how long that driver looked down. I just think that once someone is taken out of the mechanics of being involved in actively piloting the car, it will be far harder for them to stay focused.

That was more than a momentary adjustment of some knob. And I think you'd end up with people fully checked out for very long periods of time.

Fully agree that crossing a multi-lane road in the dark out of the crosswalk is crazy. No argument there. It's just a shame the driver of the car was looking down and not able to react at all really.

 

[Colleen27]

The airplane solved a problem. Long distance travel in very short amounts of time.

What problem are autonomous cars solving?

Autonomous cars only solve that problem if they are mandated by law. If not, the idiots are still going to be out there driving.

And in the process of "solving" that problem, they may very well be making others worse. The development of autonomous technology was used as a talking point against long-term mass transit investment in my area (who needs stinky buses or crowded trains when self-driving Uber rides are just around the corner?), and is frequently cited as a way of providing the convenience of single-vehicle travel without the costs of car ownership. If that ever does come to pass, what will the demand for that lower-cost convenience do to traffic volumes? Generally when something becomes cheaper and more convenient, we don't see LESS of it...

I saw it quite differently. I was shocked by how long that driver looked down. I just think that once someone is taken out of the mechanics of being involved in actively piloting the car, it will be far harder for them to stay focused.

That was more than a momentary adjustment of some knob. And I think you'd end up with people fully checked out for very long periods of time.

Yep. That is in line with everything we know about the human brain and attention systems.

And at least some advocates of autonomous tech are actively promoting that view, of a "driver" who doesn't have to be engaged in the driving process and is essentially just another passenger. They're talking about safe rides for drunks, improved mobility for those with handicaps that prohibit driving, and the car as a mobile living room... that isn't exactly sending a message of "Sure, the car is doing the work for you but you should be paying just as much attention as if you were in control." Which is why I think the tech for this just isn't quite ready for prime time, because the expectations and the reality remain pretty far apart.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

That's horrifying! Of course the person in the car was looking down. They aren't actively participating in the driving process. You'll never be able to hold their attention as long as there's a phone in the car.

I'm not going to get into where the fault is here, likely both people. But I don't personally understand the value added of this tech unless I can crawl into the back and take a nap. I realize not everyone is going to agree but as of now, it's a hard pass for me on autonomous cars.

 

[gotomu212]

The airplane solved a problem. Long distance travel in very short amounts of time.

What problem are autonomous cars solving?

Long range? Autonomous driving will result in driverless taxis and trucks, eliminating the largest cost for these industries (yes you have to offset any higher cost of the tech but the trucking industry is actually way out in front of this and expect massive savings).

The expectation is that we will evolve to the point where you are not expected to actively participate in the driving of these cars. Waymo is getting ready to test in AZ with passengers that sit in the back while no one is in the front and GM is working to get approval for cars without steering wheel or petals anticipating 2019 for testing of that). So at that point your drive time can be devoted to other activities. I wouldn’t have minded my hour commute both directions if it meant I started my working clock when I stepped into my car.

In addition these changes also make it much simpler and cheaper to ride share and ditch car ownership. Currently the cost, even though low, for services like uber make it hard for someone to g careless and only rely on ride sharing. Decreased cost and increased reliability takes care of that.

All that is before we get to safety and the ability for elderly/younger people/impaired/or disabilitied to gain access to transportation.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Go-to, IMO, those are all pretty minor. I mean I don't really care about the truck industry savings. I'll never ditch car ownership. And I seriously doubt that most people in the suburbs would ever ditch car ownership.

Airplane was a game changer. This just isn't.

 

[JaxDad]

I saw it quite differently. I was shocked by how long that driver looked down. I just think that once someone is taken out of the mechanics of being involved in actively piloting the car, it will be far harder for them to stay focused.

That was more than a momentary adjustment of some knob. And I think you'd end up with people fully checked out for very long periods of time.

Fully agree that crossing a multi-lane road in the dark out of the crosswalk is crazy. No argument there. It's just a shame the driver of the car was looking down and not able to react at all really.

I agree. It was not a glance away, but MANY LONG looks down. The poor person with the bike definitely has contributory negligence, but it may have all been avoided with even a reasonably attentive "safety" driver.

 

[kamik86]

I'm not going to get into where the fault is here, likely both people. But I don't personally understand the value added of this tech unless I can crawl into the back and take a nap. I realize not everyone is going to agree but as of now, it's a hard pass for me on autonomous cars.

That I do agree with. If the person has to always be paying attention and ready to take over the car there isn't really a point to the self driving. It wouldn't let disabled people have easier transport, it wouldn't even let able bodied that don't have easier transport. It doesn't save you time becuase you can do other things. It doesn't save companies money because they still have to pay a driver to sit there.

Go-to, IMO, those are all pretty minor. I mean I don't really care about the truck industry savings. I'll never ditch car ownership. And I seriously doubt that most people in the suburbs would ever ditch car ownership.

Airplane was a game changer. This just isn't.

That one I think you would care about. Really everyone would. It would mean everything you buy could be cheaper since everything you buy is shipped either to the store or your house.

 

[gotomu212]

Go-to, IMO, those are all pretty minor. I mean I don't really care about the truck industry savings. I'll never ditch car ownership. And I seriously doubt that most people in the suburbs would ever ditch car ownership.

Airplane was a game changer. This just isn't.

But you specifically said that you’d see value if you could crawl in the back and take a nap- that is the long term goal of autonomous driving. Take a nap, work on your computer, read a book, you are not expected to be alert in those models.

Check out GMs proposal for next year. There’s no pedal or steering wheel (there is an emergency stop button). https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/12/gm-...car-that-has-no-steering-wheel-or-pedals.html

I’m not disagreeing with you that some people will decide to continue to own and drive cars...my consistent theory is that it is going to cost you a lot more money to continue driving (all kinds of people decide to spend more on certain cars now so there’s definetely those that will continue to pay more).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So at that point your drive time can be devoted to other activities. I wouldn’t have minded my hour commute both directions if it meant I started my working clock when I stepped into my car.

We aren't nor will we be at the point in the near and probably not distant future to put ALL cars in control of ONLY a computer. You may carve out a segment of the population but even Tesla is careful about promoting awareness of your surroundings in their cars and that you should still have your hands on the steering wheel/near steering wheel. You would need to get to the point where the technology is proven in a controlled environment to be a stable and safe means in order to push out all human-driven cars.

 

[gotomu212]

We aren't nor will we be at the point in the near and probably not distant future to put ALL cars in control of ONLY a computer. You may carve out a segment of the population but even Tesla is careful about promoting awareness of your surroundings in their cars and that you should still have your hands on the steering wheel/near steering wheel. You would need to get to the point where the technology is proven in a controlled environment to be a stable and safe means in order to push out all human-driven cars.

I don’t disagree. Tesla’s biggest problem is that their cars are operating in states that have not approved autonomous cars so they have to make very clear they are aiding drivers only.

So much of the timeline depends on these early pilots continuing to show the same progress and lawmakers continuing their support for the industry (the house passed a law late last year that was seen as pretty supportive, the Senates bill stalled but both sought to set a federal regulation in lieu of multiple state regulations and that will allow things to progress much quicker. We’ll have to see what congress does with it this year but honestly there’s a TON of money behind this among several lobbying industries so I’d be shocked if they pump the breaks on it).

I’m going to owe a lot of people on this thread drinks in 10 years if I’m right (and 10 years is my guess when we’ll see large scale adoption) hopefully everyone will be living in a state where the robot bartenders can deliver (or in a state supporting drone deliveries)

 

[Pacolovestacos]

That one I think you would care about. Really everyone would. It would mean everything you buy could be cheaper since everything you buy is shipped either to the store or your house.

Only in theory. I don't actually believe that savings would get passed down to customers.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

But you specifically said that you’d see value if you could crawl in the back and take a nap- that is the long term goal of autonomous driving. Take a nap, work on your computer, read a book, you are not expected to be alert in those models.

Check out GMs proposal for next year. There’s no pedal or steering wheel (there is an emergency stop button). https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/12/gm-...car-that-has-no-steering-wheel-or-pedals.html

I’m not disagreeing with you that some people will decide to continue to own and drive cars...my consistent theory is that it is going to cost you a lot more money to continue driving (all kinds of people decide to spend more on certain cars now so there’s definetely those that will continue to pay more).

I only see a little value in that though, not enough to actually buy an autonomous car. I still don't see that as a problem that needed solving.

 

[Klayfish]

I don’t disagree. Tesla’s biggest problem is that their cars are operating in states that have not approved autonomous cars so they have to make very clear they are aiding drivers only.

So much of the timeline depends on these early pilots continuing to show the same progress and lawmakers continuing their support for the industry (the house passed a law late last year that was seen as pretty supportive, the Senates bill stalled but both sought to set a federal regulation in lieu of multiple state regulations and that will allow things to progress much quicker. We’ll have to see what congress does with it this year but honestly there’s a TON of money behind this among several lobbying industries so I’d be shocked if they pump the breaks on it).

I’m going to owe a lot of people on this thread drinks in 10 years if I’m right (and 10 years is my guess when we’ll see large scale adoption) hopefully everyone will be living in a state where the robot bartenders can deliver (or in a state supporting drone deliveries)

That's not Tesla's issue at all. The Model S is not a fully autonomous vehicle. There are different levels of autonomous control, from 0 to 5. 0 being cars most of us drive, and Tesla's Autopilot is level 2. There are no publically available Level 3, 4 or 5 in the US...that's still technology under development (Audi has Level 3 capable cars, but not clear if they'll be offered here). Tesla's Autopilot is meant to be an aid and NOT something where the driver can start browsing their phone or working on their laptop. As I've said before, infrastructure technology is a huge reason why...Autopilot is easily confused by poor lane markings or objects it can't quickly identify. However, people leap to the conclusion that it can drive itself. It can't, it can only do limited things, with the driver ready to take over at a moments' notice. As a side note, Tesla is running on hype...don't be surprised if they crash and burn (figuratively) at some point. Their automotive business is far from profitable. They're pioneers for sure, and I love the Model S (hate the X...ugh) and the Roadster that came before it, but they're not on solid footing by any stretch.

Oh, and I don't drink alcohol, so I'll take a caffeine free diet Coke in 10 years. Thanks!!

 

[Klayfish]

That I do agree with. If the person has to always be paying attention and ready to take over the car there isn't really a point to the self driving. It wouldn't let disabled people have easier transport, it wouldn't even let able bodied that don't have easier transport. It doesn't save you time becuase you can do other things. It doesn't save companies money because they still have to pay a driver to sit there.



That one I think you would care about. Really everyone would. It would mean everything you buy could be cheaper since everything you buy is shipped either to the store or your house.

The liability aspect of this stuff is absolutely fascinating and something I'm keeping super close eye on...especially because I work in the commercial insurance world. It's a whole new world and it's going to get ugly before it gets pretty from the liability perspective. This will have a major impact on trucking.