|
Jose Valasquez posted:If the person was outside of a crosswalk they didn't have the right of way and may be legally to blame for the accident. quote:Arizona law also requires drivers of motor vehicles to pay attention and to drive "reasonably" for all traffic conditions. "All traffic conditions" includes the existence of pedestrians in or near the roadways. autonomous cars are vastly more capable with regards to reaction time than humans, so the car should have been able to avoid the accident under p much any scenario
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:PEOPLE RUN OVER PEOPLE ALL THE TIME Oh good, we've already reached stage 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:autonomous cars are vastly more capable with regards to reaction time than humans, so the car should have been able to avoid the accident under p much any scenario Why? it's still a physical car that can only move or stop so fast and is still constrained by other cars on the road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:autonomous cars are vastly more capable with regards to reaction time than humans, so the car should have been able to avoid the accident under p much any scenario I'm as cynical about self-driving cars, but id a person steps out in front of a car without warning, any car is going to hit them if there isn't enough time ro lay on the brakes. Without knowing the actual circumstances, it is impossible to say who's at fault, so we'll just have a cool internet circle jerk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm as cynical about self-driving cars, but id a person steps out in front of a car without warning, any car is going to hit them if there isn't enough time ro lay on the brakes. Without knowing the actual circumstances, it is impossible to say who's at fault, so we'll just have a cool internet circle jerk. yeah. the technology "should be safer" because it's technology, and not an irrational human. but reaction time aside, if the system wasn't or isn't capable of flagging a pedestrian who suddenly pops out from behind a tree into the roadway at night then that pedestrian is in trouble no matter who or what is behind the wheel. this isn't necessarily an indictment of self driving cars but perhaps a warning that we can only make them so much safer relative to an experienced human driver, simply because the concept of using cars themselves is inherently dangerous
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm as cynical about self-driving cars, but id a person steps out in front of a car without warning, any car is going to hit them if there isn't enough time ro lay on the brakes. Without knowing the actual circumstances, it is impossible to say who's at fault, so we'll just have a cool internet circle jerk. there's a huge amount more time to lay on the brakes for an autonomous vehicle than a human controlled one. it's hard to imagine any scenario where she could step in front of one, it detect her, and fail to brake in time, barring her suicidally stepping right into it as it passes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why? it's still a physical car that can only move or stop so fast and is still constrained by other cars on the road. stopping in order to avoid hitting a pedestrian is not constrained by other cars on the road as for stop time, if it were going 50mph, it would need 5 seconds to make a complete stop, but it would need less than 2 seconds to slow down to the point where it was traveling at a little less than fatal crash speed for hitting a human Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's a huge amount more time to lay on the brakes for an autonomous vehicle than a human controlled one. it's hard to imagine any scenario where she could step in front of one, it detect her, and fail to brake in time, barring her suicidally stepping right into it as it passes. it's pretty easy to imagine this scenario actually, pedestrians get hit and killed all the time for many reasons. one of the new big causes of pedestrian death is people playing with their smartphones while walking and they walk right in front of a car. also a third of pedestrians killed by cars in 2016 were legally drunk https://www.npr.org/2017/03/30/522085503/2016-saw-a-record-increase-in-pedestrian-deaths
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
At 40mph it takes 76ft to stop a car even with 0 reaction time. It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone could be distracted and step out in front of a car that physically can not stop before hitting them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's a huge amount more time to lay on the brakes for an autonomous vehicle than a human controlled one. it's hard to imagine any scenario where she could step in front of one, it detect her, and fail to brake in time, barring her suicidally stepping right into it as it passes. The last thing in the world that I want to do is defend Uber, but this kind of poo poo actually does happen and it's not always because the person in question is suicidal. Sometimes pedestrians don't see cars and step into the road at a point where it's outside of the physical ability of the car to stop, even with perfect reaction time. I know someone who killed a teenager about fifteen years ago this way. She was never even charged with anything since several witnesses made it clear that there was absolutely no way she could have stopped the car in time. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but even 100% perfect autonomous cars are going to sometimes run people over because a car can only stop so fast and sensors can't magically see through solid objects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The last thing in the world that I want to do is defend Uber, but this kind of poo poo actually does happen and it's not always because the person in question is suicidal. Sometimes pedestrians don't see cars and step into the road at a point where it's outside of the physical ability of the car to stop, even with perfect reaction time. I know someone who killed a teenager about fifteen years ago this way. She was never even charged with anything since several witnesses made it clear that there was absolutely no way she could have stopped the car in time. your friend doesn't have anywhere close to perfect reaction time so i'm not sure why you think the anecdote is particularly applicable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:your friend doesn't have anywhere close to perfect reaction time so i'm not sure why you think the anecdote is particularly applicable. You keep ignoring the fact that reaction time is only part of the equation. Cars don't magically stop the second someone/something hits the brakes
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:your friend doesn't have anywhere close to perfect reaction time so i'm not sure why you think the anecdote is particularly applicable. It's applicable because you didn't understand my anecdote. With perfect reaction time she still would have hit that girl. In that particular case there was a large bush that made it both impossible for the pedestrian to see that a car was coming and for the driver to see that a pedestrian was about to step out into the street. She stepped into the road maybe 20 feet in front of a car moving over 40mph. It had nothing to do with reaction time. Cars don't magically stop. Cars with perfect reaction times are going to hit pedestrians occasionally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Also there was a human sitting behind the wheel and I guess that didn't help much anyways? So why bother arguing about the sensors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:your friend doesn't have anywhere close to perfect reaction time so i'm not sure why you think the anecdote is particularly applicable. Page 3 of this document: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf 30ft braking distance at 25mph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:You keep ignoring the fact that reaction time is only part of the equation. Cars don't magically stop the second someone/something hits the brakes they don't have to magically stop to avoid killing someone, they just have to decelerate enough to avoid doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they don't have to magically stop to avoid killing someone, they just have to decelerate enough to avoid doing so. Cars can't magically do this either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Cars can't magically do this either. no, but it's a much lower threshold than you guys have been proposing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Cars can't magically do this either. This is obviously an area ready for disruption then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, but it's a much lower threshold than you guys have been proposing. Condiv posted:autonomous cars are vastly more capable with regards to reaction time than humans, so the car should have been able to avoid the accident under p much any scenario
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
trucutru posted:This is obviously an area ready for disruption then! If the brakes had blockchains this would never have happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:You were proposing that there was no threshold there really isn't. I checked the speedlimit of that street and it's 40mph. that's less than 4 seconds to reach full stop. and the car doesn't have to reach full stop for the accident to not be lethal Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Well given that there are absolutely no details on what exactly happened, clearly we should keep arguing until there are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
divabot posted:oh god it's loving calacanis The Jason Calacanis? Oh, he was a major e-hole during the dot-com era. I was around for the battle-royal between him and the 'Netslaves' people. "During the dot-com boom, Calacanis was active in New York's Silicon Alley community, and in 1996 began producing the Silicon Alley Reporter." Here's a mention from Netslaves in 2000 quote:I want VC. I want to live high on the hog and - Robin 'roblimo' Miller
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Imagine being such a fan of robots that you immediately start victim blaming a dead human when they are killed by a robot. Without having any additional information about the details of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Imagine being such a fan of robots that you immediately start victim blaming a dead human when they are killed by a robot. Without having any additional information about the details of the situation. I'm not a fan of robots but I do hate humans
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Imagine being such a fan of robots that you immediately start victim blaming a dead human when they are killed by a robot. Without having any additional information about the details of the situation. otoh it's fairly well known in traffic engineering that pedestrians are like squirrels and can and will get themselves killed without hard barriers and separation between the road and the sidewalk, sufficient and clearly marked crosswalks, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they don't have to magically stop to avoid killing someone, they just have to decelerate enough to avoid doing so. Very low speed car-pedestrian accidents can be fatal. People die from head injuries all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there really isn't. I checked the speedlimit of that street and it's 40mph. that's less than 4 seconds to reach full stop. and the car doesn't have to reach full stop for the accident to not be lethal It's a probability distribution that any given collision with a pedestrian will result in a fatality. It's less likely that you're going to be killed in a low speed accident, but it happens all the time. The only way to prevent all fatal pedestrian/vehicle collisions is to build magical cars that defy the laws of physics and stop instantly (presumably killing their occupants). Seriously, you're making such a ridiculous claim that you've got a thread full of people who generally hate Uber actually defending them. Without details it's impossible to know what actually happened, but it's also not at all outside of the realm of possibility that a pedestrian stepped into the road in such a way that the car physically could not stop in time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Without details it's impossible to know what actually happened, but it's also not at all outside of the realm of possibility that a pedestrian stepped into the road in such a way that the car physically could not stop in time. this is actually the more probable scenario imo. people in general are surprisingly bad at not getting hit by cars
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there really isn't. I checked the speedlimit of that street and it's 40mph. that's less than 4 seconds to reach full stop. and the car doesn't have to reach full stop for the accident to not be lethal What speed do you think you can harmlessly get hit by a car? Your posts are making it seem like you have never even seen a car before?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What speed do you think you can harmlessly get hit by a car? hmm, i don't think i said anything about being hit by a car is harmless Paradoxish posted:It's a probability distribution that any given collision with a pedestrian will result in a fatality. It's less likely that you're going to be killed in a low speed accident, but it happens all the time. The only way to prevent all fatal pedestrian/vehicle collisions is to build magical cars that defy the laws of physics and stop instantly (presumably killing their occupants). i dunno, published AI researchers seem to think the car was at fault https://twitter.com/filippie509/status/975805568756494336 but i guess we just have to assume the woman darted in front of the car and that's why uber has shut down their self-driving car program
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i dunno, published AI researchers seem to think the car was at fault i like the use of researchers to puff up your quote of a single guy making an educated guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm, i don't think i said anything about being hit by a car is harmless Okay, can you list the speed you think a car can hit you where you are remotely safe from death?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Even if Uber is at fault (which wouldn't be terribly surprising) making sweeping claims that autonomous vehicles are 10x more dangerous than cars based on a single data point is dumb. That guy is just trying to get publicity for his blog
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
“ok everyone listen to my extremely hot take: self driving cars will eventually be good, but are currently not yet good, and it will probably take several years of engineering to make them good. you may bring out torches and pitchforks now..”
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:30
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Even if Uber is at fault (which wouldn't be terribly surprising) making sweeping claims that autonomous vehicles are 10x more dangerous than cars based on a single data point is dumb. That guy is just trying to get publicity for his blog what do you mean single data point? he has numerous sources edit: ah, you're quibbling over what he measures, despite it being one of very few public measures of autonomous car safety available. ok Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what do you mean single data point? he has numerous sources One death
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:edit: ah, you're quibbling over what he measures, despite it being one of very few public measures of autonomous car safety available. ok there is no good data on self driving car kdr yet because there isn’t a large enough dataset of different self droving cars killing or not killing people
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:One death he didn't base that 10x figure off this one death, he already came to it from other data suck my woke dick posted:there is no good data on self driving car kdr yet because there isn’t a large enough dataset of different self droving cars killing or not killing people which is why he discussed what we do have info on, disengagement data
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 22:37
|
|