11
64

[–] Kromulent 11 points 64 points (+75|-11) ago 

There was a human driver in the car as well.

It's entirely possible that this was the fault of both the software and the supervising human, or that it was entirely the fault of the pedestrian, or some combination of the two. If a person steps out in front of a rapidly moving car they are going to get hit, no matter how good the software or the driver.

The bottom line is that driverless cars do not have to be perfect. They only need to be better than human drivers.

[–] [deleted] 12 points 34 points (+46|-12) ago 

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Depends on how you define 'better'. One popular definition is "superior ability to detect potential collisions and avoid them."

However, they'll only be better than human drivers at tasks like delivering a passenger or pizza from point A to point B. Normal uses of a vehicle are beyond their abilities until mind reading comes along.

3
3

[–] timemage2 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

do you carry your cell phone in your car? if yes then whats the difference?

4
2

[–] glennvtx 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

They will be better than human drivers, it is only a matter if time and data collection.

1
1

[–] xberb 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Get the fuck outta here, no they're not

They're part of improving the quality of life and a natural progression forward. Humans suck at driving, look how many people die on the roads every year. Driverless cars can potentially cut that number in half, or more.

Get over yourself

2
18

[–] aileron_ron 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

I just posted this. Arizona: 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. The software was following the law

1
39

[–] hels 1 points 39 points (+40|-1) ago 

99% of pedestrians break this law.

I am not saying the driverless car is in the right/at fault but they need to be built for basic human activity. As well, many young children run onto the street.

1
22

[–] buncha_cunts 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's my opinion that if pedestrians are breaking the law, the car's main priority has to be maintaining its path and ensuring the safety of its passenger(s). If it's possible to swerve to avoid the pedestrian without causing another accident, it should. Otherwise, the pedestrian is the low man on the totem pole.

There are so many much more complicated versions of this though, that MIT created the "Moral Machine" (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) to learn what people would do in certain situations. The thing is, not even humans can make perfect decisions on stuff like this.

0
3

[–] nmgoh2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The Software may be following the law, but folks that may be purchasing Uber's self-driving cars, and voting on self-driving car laws will blame Uber anyway. It's in Uber's best interest to keep headlines like this at a minimum.

0
0

[–] AnarchicAlpaca 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Big deal. So in the event that the law is broken, as is so often the case, the AI must adapt... You know, like people do.

0
5

[–] MrAmerica 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well until we start implanting chips in our brain a human can't be hacked. EDIT: I meant in the sense that a hacker could make you randomly drive off the road in a "suicide attempt". I understand what brainwashing is, but I was referring to something more immediate.

1
11

[–] fusir 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Humans can't be hacked.

Most humans are hacked one way or another.

1
6

[–] KikeFree 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Look at Bradley Manning.

3
3

[–] UlyssesEMcGill 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

You've never heard of MKUltra?

"Catcher in the Rye made me kill John Lennon"?

They can "hack" our brains whenever they want

2
2

[–] Uncle_Tractor 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

a human can't be hacked

It's called "social engineering".

1
5

[–] LionElTrump 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

The bottom line is that driverless cars do not have to be perfect. They only need to be better than human drivers.

All Drivers Are Equal!

0
7

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

But some drivers are more equal than others!

0
20

[–] saltpricesplummet 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

This article doesn't give much information. But just from the way it explains it it sounds like the pedestrian was at fault.

2
9

[–] roznak 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Oh come on, these are miracle cars that can out-think the driver with all their sensors. It is clearly that the car decided to kill the pedestrian instead of the driver this time.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] 8thDeadlySin 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

That's how skynet will begin.

1
1

[–] speedisavirus 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Every other article I've seen suggests the pedestrian at fault and that they might have been a homeless junky.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Fun fact I used to work right next to the intersection this happened at. 10/10 bad homeless junky problem.

3
15

[–] weezkitty 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Yawn. And what about the thousands of human caused driver deaths that didn't make the news? This is unfortunate but sometimes shit happens

0
1

[–] SebuttYopick 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

0
13

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Who's legally liable when an autonomous vehicle kills one of your family members?

0
23

[–] Wulfgar 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It depends... how much money corporation will spend on law and justice system.

1
8

[–] LionElTrump 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Corporations have the money and legal tribe lawyers that will trounce just about any persons ability to aggressively pursue a claim worthy of a life if there is such a thing. They drain them of resources through trickery like delays and feet dragging; and when there is nothing left they settle for something minimal and written off in taxes anyway

1
16

[–] qotile 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

The car itself should be tried under the first law of robotics, or we're setting a dangerous precedent

0
0

[–] Hysteria 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Ooo... I like that

0
3

[–] buncha_cunts 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think if it's a mechanical failure not related to maintenance that caused it, then the car manufacturer. Like the Toyota accelerator issue years back. If it was an issue of the driver not taking control when prompted, then the driver.

0
0

[–] Octoclops 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nobody. Isn't the future great?

3
12

[–] TurdLord5000 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago 

Every time, it's because a human did something stupid... this isn't the first death. There was a dude in a self-driving aTesla who was watching a Harry Potter film when he was supposed to have his eyes on the fucking road and hit a semi.

5
9

[–] kevdude 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

There was a dude in a self-driving aTesla who was watching a Harry Potter film when he was supposed to have his eyes on the fucking road and hit a semi.

Eco-car, self-driving, Harry Potter - If the semi-driver was fine then I honestly don't see the problem.

0
4

[–] buncha_cunts 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Darwin wins again.

0
7

[–] roznak 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

What is the point in having a self driving car if you have to keep your hands on the wheel?

2
7

[–] LionElTrump 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

tesla and others wouldn't sell as many(or worshiped as much) if they were truthful that you are their testing dummies for that kind of tech in the future; right now they can shill hands free, soy entertainment; then in the fine print shrug off responsibility as they develop the technology.

Promise a moon landing, get a Spielberg commercial with Michael Bay explosions and Tarantino gore instead

0
2

[–] CowWithBeef 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The headline flies around the world before anyone has an idea what happened. Uber has substantial evidence of what happened. I hope they make it public, but they probably will only use it in court.

1
0

[–] badruns 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Some or all of that story was fabricated. The person in the accident was supposedly the last remaining member of Seal Team 6, the fake team that carried out the fantasy raid of killing a "terrorist" who was already dead (bin laden). Either it was a murder (death by automobile is a common MO), or didn't happen at all to begin with.

1
11

[–] vitamint 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

These cars kind of suck I drive by them everyday. They are constantly trying to maintain the exact speed limit and brake randomly. Getting behind one can be a nightmare.

I'm kind of surprised they did kill someone because their code leans towards being safe, but they're not that great at self driving so I'm not that surprised.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] MoneyIsTiming 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I do this, buffer zone method. One time a lady got so upset got around cut me off, only to stop in front of me...we were in heavy traffic. Other people just tailgate me hardcore, then I brake check hardcore.

My first invention idea to prevent this is called the Tail-gator. It would be a steel framed croc head that is open and what you do is brake check very hard so the car behind touches the croc which triggers it to snap shut grabbing the front fascia, as you pull away it rips their bumper off and then you have a release lever to drop it causing then to run it over. It has a license plate holder which flips out of sight the moment the croc head closes.

I have been developing a new idea that can be explained away to a cop, which involves chemicals. One is installing a pressure pot filled with use motor oil, having misting nozzles out the back. Misting oil onto a windshield then turning on the wipers will not end well. Otherwise I was thinking about researching a way to deploy a very thick cloud of smoke and irritants, for the driver behind you to enjoy assuming they dont know what the recirc button does.

0
2

[–] GenghisSean 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yea, I don't get that either. People love tailgating, but I prefer driving a safe distance behind someone so if something bad happens I'll have time to react.

2
-1

[–] Heretohelpfats____ 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

If the person in front brakes hard then you ALSO have to break hard.

How do you go from spelling it correctly to fucking it up so bad in one sentence?

1
3

[–] Titus-of-Voat 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

and brake randomly

So they drive like women?

0
1

[–] UlyssesEMcGill 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Women keep their foot on the accelerator until the exact instant they need to brake, then switch over and mash. Gradual braking is foreign to them.

0
6

[–] ARsandOutdoors 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

She was on her bike outside the lane designated for bicycles on a road is the understanding as of now from Bloomberg News.

0
13

[–] saltpricesplummet 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

A bicyclist not using the designated bike lane? The hell you say.

0
4

[–] CannedShrooms 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

As an avid cyclist, cyclists like that drive me nuts. "We have as much right to the road as motorists!" Sure, great, but if my car only did 25 tops I'd sure as hell drive in the 25 MPH lane if there was one. Anyone who insists on holding up traffic with their bike is a belligerent idiot.

2
-1

[–] watitdew 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Vehicle was traveling north and she was going east/west in crosswalk and there was a bike involved.

I have a movie in my brain about what happened and the theme is why biking on the sidewalk is fucking stupid.

0
5

[–] NewAccountOldGoat 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

0
2

[–] absurdlyobfuscated 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Sounds like Uber isn't Three Laws SafeTM.

load more comments ▼ (37 remaining)