Yes. Autonomous controls and the laws and rules that will be implemented to govern their use. I think cases like this can have a potentially disproportionate and distorting influence on those laws and how quickly people accept this kind of technology on the roads where they travel. I think makes this tragedy more interesting that similar tragedies that also occur regularly with human piloted automobiles.Hillhater wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018 6:56 pmWorkers being injured and killed by industrial/manufacturing equipment, is common and as old as industry.
Pedestrians and drivers being injured and killed incar accidents also has been happening since vehicles first moved.
So whats new ?.....autonamous controls !
isnt the human brain (driver) supposed to be so much safer than a computer ,...but human driven cars still kill pedestrians ?
Perhaps. Or perhaps the unfortunate woman was crossing illegally and not paying attention to oncoming traffic when she decided to cross the street. I'm continually amazed at the people who will step into crosswalks without even looking to see if cars are approaching. She, apparently, was not in a crosswalk. Though I wouldn't trust any of the reported details or lack of them at this early stage.
I recall reading of a similar case in London where the cyclist was riding a fixed gear bicycle that was not equipped with a legally mandated brake system. As I recall, the cyclist claimed that the accident was the woman's fault because he yelled out for her to get out of the way but she failed to react. I guess he somehow didn't seem to think he also had a responsibility be operating a bicycle with brakes so that he could make a reasonable attempt to stop - even for someone crossing the street and not paying attention. The cyclist was apparently ignorant of "the doctrine of last clear chance" ... even though it appears to have originated in England.
Most people I've discussed this with tend to agree. The problem is that sensationalized events can distort perceptions. Also, we still want to promote the idea of automated cars that do a better/safer job than the typical driver. I can imagine how eventually sophisticated vehicles might be able to travel at slower typical speeds while enjoying similar, the same or even faster average speeds if the smart cars can also communicate back and forth with smart traffic control devices.dustNbone wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018 11:07 pm
So the way I see it, we either need to accept that autonomous vehicles are unavoidably going to kill some of the people they share space with (albeit far less than human piloted ones will), or make them go much slower than we are used to having vehicles travel at present, so they can respond to unpredictable (sometimes stupid) human behavior.
I can only imagine slower typical speeds with autonomous vehicles down the road when they become overwhelmingly dominant. So probably not in my lifetime.amberwolf wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018 11:16 pmAnd as soon as you slow down the autonomous vehicles, the rest of the traffic on the road is going to cause collisions with them (or each other) in their impatience to get around them (just like they do bicycles and other slow traffic).
It'll happen less the larger the AV is, but it'd still happen. (just like how my SB Cruiser trike makes more people go around it passing farther away from it than with normal-bicycle-sized bikes, simply because it's large enough it might actually hurt their car if they did hit it).
If it were possible, I'd prefer to live in a city that followed the rules Chalo listed above, but I can't imagine that happening.
I wonder how police will ticket them like they do drivers that are "impeding traffic" under such conditions?
It'll be like a camera ticket and whomever is responsible for the vehicle when it's on the road will get a citation in the mail.
I find that unbelievable !amberwolf wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2018 1:22 amI wonder how police will ticket them like they do drivers that are "impeding traffic" under such conditions?
(when the rest of traffic is significantly over the speed limit, it's common enough around here for those maintaining that limit to be stopped and ticketed, which seems really stupid to me--they *should* be enforcing the speed limit instead. But I guess it's easier to punish the law-abiding citizens instead).
Around here, there's often nowhere to pull over. (unless you're on a freeway/highway, which has shoulders) You can pull to the right, but that lane doesn't have enough space for two cars (not even a car and my trike in some places).
I would expect the cars to use an algorithm that considers the speed of nearby cars, the speed limit, and the custom of allowing cars to exceed the speed limit by up to 10 mph in most (not school zones) areas. I would not expect the cars to slavishly abide by posted speed limits.
My wife was pulled over by an indian reservation cop for going slightly below the speed limit during rush hour. But he did not cite her, he just warned her.
The Uber had a forward-facing video recorder, which showed the woman was walking a bike at about 10 p.m. and moved into traffic from a dark center median. "It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode,” Sylvia Moir, police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," Moir said, referring to the backup driver who was behind the wheel but not operating the vehicle. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."