log in
register

Uber robot kills cyclist

Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 56 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Replies
  • March 22, 2018 at 7:50 am #915087
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Here’s an examination of the

    Here’s an examination of the incident and the use (or not) of LIDAR:

    http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber

     

    March 22, 2018 at 4:47 am #915085
    0
    yourealwaysbe

    VeloUSA wrote:

    VeloUSA wrote:

    Police determined it would be impossible for a human to see cyclist emerge from shadows to brake in time.

    I’m very skeptical of this. The road was lined with street lights and Herzberg had already crossed the distance of a lane or so before she’s visible on camera. She’d been in the road for some time.

    Cameras exaggerate shadows because they don’t have the dynamic range of the human eye. The video does not prove it would have been impossible to see her, just that the camera was not able to pick things up outside of the bright beam of the headlights. If visibility was truly as shown in the video, the car should have been going much slower. I suspect visibility is more accurately shown in the image from the sf chronicle article above.

    This case is likely to set a precedent, i hope it will be investigated seriously.

    March 21, 2018 at 7:14 pm #915083
    0
    Anonymous
    wellsprop wrote:
    A self driving car runs over and kills a pedestrian and makes news all around the world.

    Meanwhile, humans driving cars kill loads of people due to rubbish driving and no-one blinks.

    man robot bites dog

    March 21, 2018 at 5:55 pm #915081
    0
    Canyon48

    A self driving car runs over

    A self driving car runs over and kills a pedestrian and makes news all around the world.

    Meanwhile, humans driving cars kill loads of people due to rubbish driving and no-one blinks.

    March 21, 2018 at 11:38 am #915079
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Boatsie wrote:

    Boatsie wrote:
    I read not long ago that in not so long they’ll have driverless cars capable of navigation in India; what road rules. Read was about throwing everything out the window with learning capable algorithms to copy cat the locals.

    Indian roads would be an easy environment to code for.

        if vehicle.size() <= obstruction.size() :

            avoid()

    March 21, 2018 at 11:12 am #915077
    0
    Boatsie

    I read not long ago that in
    I read not long ago that in not so long they’ll have driverless cars capable of navigation in India; what road rules. Read was about throwing everything out the window with learning capable algorithms to copy cat the locals.

    March 21, 2018 at 11:02 am #915075
    0
    Grahamd
    brooksby wrote:
    hirsute wrote:
    Bluebug wrote:
    Just heard the Uber car was speeding, and the  human safety driver had a criminal record.

    Was that down the pub?

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php

    Clearly the vehicle programmers for Uber consider speeding acceptable. 

     

    March 21, 2018 at 10:03 am #915073
    0
    Hirsute

    nniff wrote:

    nniff wrote:
    No such thing as a software failure – it’s always a design failure.  In this case, the design clearly fails to resolve an appropriate solution to the problem presented.
    It is impressive that you have written millions of lines of code without a single error.

    Are you an AI machine?

    March 21, 2018 at 10:02 am #915071
    0
    brooksby
    hirsute wrote:
    Bluebug wrote:
    Just heard the Uber car was speeding, and the  human safety driver had a criminal record.

    Was that down the pub?

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php

    March 21, 2018 at 10:01 am #915069
    0
    Hirsute
    Bluebug wrote:
    Just heard the Uber car was speeding, and the  human safety driver had a criminal record.

    Was that down the pub?

    March 21, 2018 at 10:00 am #915067
    0
    missionsystem
    nniff wrote:
    No such thing as a software failure – it’s always a design failure.

    This isn’t true at all. What if the software is not in accordance with the design?

    March 21, 2018 at 9:59 am #915065
    0
    CXR94Di2

    Bear in mind 40,000 people

    Bear in mind 40,000 people were killed in the USA in 2016 in vehicle related incidents.  This is a sad event, but given enough tech the death rates will plummet for both drivers and cyclists/pedestrians.   

     

    Uber seem to be pushing ahead with driverless tech, whilst Google have taken much more time to gather data.  Yes someone wil pipe up bout Google car having an accident, it was slow speed incident involving a impatient bus driver eating a sandwich.

    I seem to recollect  that a former Google employee moved to Uber and all of a sudden Uber were releasing driverless tech.  Maybe he missed a few pages of data.  Google Sued, Uber paid out

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/google-sues-uber-over-self-driving-car-secrets/

    March 21, 2018 at 9:44 am #915063
    0
    Bluebug

    Just heard the Uber car was

    Just heard the Uber car was speeding, and the  human safety driver had a criminal record.

    March 21, 2018 at 9:17 am #915061
    0
    Anonymous
    Leviathan wrote:
    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

    Just a little reminder. And eventually a robot decided it was up to him to protect humanity from itself.

    Open the  child-proof doors, Hal.

     

    March 21, 2018 at 8:56 am #915059
    0
    hawkinspeter

    Just seen this article on

    Just seen this article on this Uber incident from Charles Stross (author of The Laundry series amongst others):

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/03/test-case.html

    Charles Stross wrote:
    Firstly, it’s apparent that the current legal framework privileges corporations over individuals with respect to moral hazard. So I’m going to stick my neck out and predict that there’s going to be a lot of lobbying money spent to ensure that this situation continues … and that in the radiant Randian libertarian future, all self-driving cars will be owned by limited liability shell companies. Their “owners” will merely lease their services, and thus evade liability for any crash when they’re not directly operating the controls. Indeed, the cars will probably sue any puny meatsack who has the temerity to vandalize their paint job with a gout of arterial blood, or traumatize their customers by screaming and crunching under their wheels.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 56 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.