First driverless car pedestrian death

I was privy to a presentation by IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) not too long ago on the subject of autonomous vehicles. I was prepared to be bored stiff for 3 hours but instead was captivated. Some of the things mentioned:

1. It was a challenge to get the government on board with driverless vehicles. Now they're the biggest proponent.

2. It does/will save lives, and that's already happened thousands of times. Everyone is keenly aware that there will be accidents that may have been prevented if a human was behind the wheel, but those are greatly outweighed by the number of accidents prevented by a person not being in control. The computer can predict and react exponentially faster than a person.

3. As someone else said, there will be a time when we're older and less capable. This is an ideal solution.

4. Right now my wife, daughter and I each have our own vehicles. With autonomous vehicles we would really only need two. When one of us is not currently using a vehicle and another wants it we could just summon it.

5. This is a problem for the insurance, auto and collision repair industries that many companies aren't preparing for. And the changes are coming much faster than most are predicting. Right now insurers are insuring a lot of vehicles, collecting a lot of $ in premiums, and paying for a lot of repairs. In the very near future we'll be building, insuring and repairing WAY fewer vehicles. Currently 70% of the premium dollars collected by P&C insurers come from auto policies. When that number drops substantially it's going to have major effects.

I'm all for it and I'm sure there will be a time I'll own one. But don't get me wrong. I LIKE driving. And I like driving fast. I want the ability to occasionally zip through traffic, push the envelope on yellow lights, and do other stupid things behind the wheel.
 
I see some pluses to autonomous cars. Let's say we're sitting at a stop light in a line of 10-20 cars and the light turns green. Today, the first car goes, then the second begins to move, then the third and so and so on. This generally makes for large gaps in the line of traffic. With all of the vehicles being autonomous each car could begin moving sooner and accelerate at the same rate as the car in front of it keeping the traffic moving much better.

I do figure some of you already try to do that, but most folks don't work that way.
 
azure said:
This might be wishful thinking on my part, but my hope is that quite the opposite, the regulations will require a competent and sober driver to be in a position to take over the controls at any time.
Click to expand...

That's not at all the direction that the technology is taking at this point and I think is also an unrealistic expectation. Maybe it'll change, but I doubt it.

That's not to say that I don't see the benefits. I think there are situations where it's a benefit and I can see a lot of positive arguments for it. But I want to be able to still drive my vehicle and not be forced to let the technology do it for me. If the execution is like traction control (I can turn it off) then I'm mostly ok with it. But if it's like ABS (I can't turn it off) then I'm not.

My concern is that it will be option 2, or that the laws will end up forcing people to use the automation. I don't think you'll truly be able to get rid of traditional controls entirely. Just think about various off-road situations (construction sites for instance, or even my house). There are no roads to follow, not even a really good way to state where you're going or how to get there. How does the computer account for driving past brush that might hit the side of the truck? It's one thing if you're in a city or suburb, another thing in the country, construction, etc. which many vehicles of all types get used for.
 
EppyGA said:
I see some pluses to autonomous cars. Let's say we're sitting at a stop light in a line of 10-20 cars and the light turns green. Today, the first car goes, then the second begins to move, then the third and so and so on. This generally makes for large gaps in the line of traffic. With all of the vehicles being autonomous each car could begin moving sooner and accelerate at the same rate as the car in front of it keeping the traffic moving much better.

I do figure some of you already try to do that, but most folks don't work that way.
Click to expand...
Amen. Here in Vermont, I've figured about an average of about a 5 second delay between one car setting off and the next, which results in typically only 5 or 6 cars making it through a light in heavy traffic because of the way the lights are timed.

Personally, though, I'd rather see them work on better timing of lights to improve traffic flow, as was recently reported in one big city (Pittsburgh? not sure), before trying to take humans out of the equation completely.
 
azure said:
This might be wishful thinking on my part, but my hope is that quite the opposite, the regulations will require a competent and sober driver to be in a position to take over the controls at any time.
Click to expand...
“You have the car”. “I have the car”. “You have the car”.
 
FastEddieB said:
I suspect a lot of the pressure to switch will be economic.

For example, pay $108/yr for liability insurance for an autonomous vehicle, vs $978 for the privilege of driving oneself.
Click to expand...
Also known as ‘coercion’.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's not at all the direction that the technology is taking at this point and I think is also an unrealistic expectation. Maybe it'll change, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
That may be, but I don't think the technology is anywhere near mature enough at this point to completely automate driving in a way that is even reasonably safe, not to mention that will satisfy the public's desire to be absolutely 100% safe (except when they themselves are at the controls, of course), and I don't see that happening even during my lifetime. Others have already pointed out the potential problems, from systems failures to hacking to who is held responsible for the way a machine resolves what to us humans is a moral dilemma. At least I hope this technology isn't rushed into the mainstream before it's truly ready.
 
azure said:
That may be, but I don't think the technology is anywhere near mature enough at this point to completely automate driving in a way that is even reasonably safe, not to mention that will satisfy the public's desire to be absolutely 100% safe (except when they themselves are at the controls, of course), and I don't see that happening even during my lifetime. Others have already pointed out the potential problems, from systems failures to hacking to who is held responsible for the way a machine resolves what to us humans is a moral dilemma. At least I hope this technology isn't rushed into the mainstream before it's truly ready.
Click to expand...

Given the economic motivators (stop paying for drivers - humans cost money) it'll get rushed to market as fast as the government will allow it to be.
 
Will autonomous cars adhere rigidly to the speed limit? I hope so. So then you'll have them platooning along in the right or middle lane at 65 mph, while the rest of us "free will" cars can blast along at our highly illegal (and de facto) freeway cruising speeds of 75-80 mph. When I'm 90, I'll happily be part of the platoon; I'll be stoked to be above ground and going anywhere so the rate of travel is of much less importance. But for now, I paid for my 335 bhp and want to use all of it...every once in a while, y'know. :)

Granted, SoCal freeways don't always allow for such a rapid pace, but when they do, we have a word for cars doing 65 mph...pylons!

Great thread here, BTW. A very interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
There are too many variables for a machine to assess in the time it would have to do so.

I put a car in a ditch about 20 years ago to avoid killing two kids on a sled. I did a quick assessment of the situation and decided in a gloriously analog way that the snow that had been plowed into the ditch would absorb most of the force; so although I might total the car, I'd almost certainly walk away from it. How does one program a computer to make those kind of decisions that don't boil down to ones and zeroes?

Rich
Click to expand...
In some ways, the computer MIGHT make a better decision.

Driving is an analog process, it isn't all ones and zeros. As human drivers, we constantly scan and notice traffic, kids, and obstacles. We adjust based on those observations: That guy pulling out in front it me, do I have to slow down or do I judge that he'll accelerate and our gap will be OK if I continue at my current speed? The computer will be doing that, too. But it might also be doing calculations all the time ( similar to my primary CFI asking, "if the engine quit NOW, where would you land?) The car could be programmed to calculate emergency "outs" many times a second. As humans, we normally rely on our own reaction time and training to make that split second decision.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
How does the computer account for driving past brush that might hit the side of the truck?
Click to expand...
Or how about the Volkswagen sized tumbleweeds that come out of nowhere and blow across the many rural roads around here. How does a driverless car account for something that you normally just plow into and explode it into a pile of stems. A driverless car would have your head through the windshield every 2 minutes trying to decide if what's coming is friend or foe. I won't even get into all the mud, grit, and grime that would foul up all the sensors on one of those cars after a good rain/snow storm.

Me thinks the self driving technology is best left to the tractors and combines that have made so many farmers lazier and able to text and watch TV while plowing or harvesting their fields. :cool:
 
Cars will be able to hand tumbleweeds around the time the ED209 figures out stairs:

 
rpadula said:
The computer won't be programmed with that knowledge. It'll learn by itself about that scenario. Just like you did.
Click to expand...

I hope they learn fast. For the past seven years (that I know of -- it could be longer), Google Maps has been routing traffic over this lovely "road" as one leg of the best route to my home from points southeast:

tom1.jpg


tom2.jpg


Garmin and TomTom used to, as well; but they had the good sense to make some sort of notation in their basemaps to avoid this "road" after enough people complained about it. So did Open Street Maps. All it took was those two pictures, and they made the change. Google, not so much. As recently as this past weekend, Google was still routing traffic over it.

Rich
 
azblackbird said:
Or how about the Volkswagen sized tumbleweeds that come out of nowhere and blow across the many rural roads around here. How does a driverless car account for something that you normally just plow into and explode it into a pile of stems. A driverless car would have your head through the windshield every 2 minutes trying to decide if what's coming is friend or foe. I won't even get into all the mud, grit, and grime that would foul up all the sensors on one of those cars after a good rain/snow storm.

Me thinks the self driving technology is best left to the tractors and combines that have made so many farmers lazier and able to text and watch TV while plowing or harvesting their fields. :cool:
Click to expand...

I think snow will give them fits, as well.

Rich
 
Ted DuPuis said:
But I want to be able to still drive my vehicle and not be forced to let the technology do it for me. If the execution is like traction control (I can turn it off) then I'm mostly ok with it.
Click to expand...

Suppose that's the case. How long until the first lawsuit where it's pointed out that the defendant *deliberately* disengaged the autonomous features, knowing full well that the accident rate with him behind the wheel was 10x that of when he let the car drive itself? Would that be reckless endangerment?

Autonomous cars are pretty exciting tech, but I find the potential implications troubling.
 
EppyGA said:
Today, the first car goes, then the second begins to move, then the third and so and so on.
Click to expand...

I think you mean: The left turn arrow turns green. The first car finally looks up from their cellphone and goes, the second car stares at the back of the first car until they are all the way through the intersection and half a block down the next street then slowly creeps through the intersection as the light turns yellow. I finally make it to the front with a red light and am stuck along with 5 other cars for another cycle.
 
F01LA said:
Suppose that's the case. How long until the first lawsuit where it's pointed out that the defendant *deliberately* disengaged the autonomous features, knowing full well that the accident rate with him behind the wheel was 10x that of when he let the car drive itself? Would that be reckless endangerment?

Autonomous cars are pretty exciting tech, but I find the potential implications troubling.
Click to expand...

That’s why I said “mostly ok”. I have the same concerns.

With that said, I’ve not heard of much where people have gotten in trouble for a Crash with traction control off or the like.
 
For those thinking driverless cars are where all these companies are headed... nah... that's not where the real money is...
https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-self-driving-trucks-in-arizona-autonomous-vehicles-move-freight/

Haven't seen any announcements from Uber to pause THAT program while the car program is paused.

Toyota strangely announced they're pausing their self-driving tests because of the Uber event, also... the Uber car wasn't a Toyota, was it?
Signs that Toyota is behind and this is a convenient excuse for later when they're further behind? Just a guess...
 
Palmpilot said:
The point of my post is that maybe we should wait for AI to prove itself in non safety-critical applications before we trust people's lives to it.
Click to expand...
It's not on size fits all. Just because an AI scheme is trustworthy in one application does not mean it is even viable for another. Similarly, just because one scheme validated to one standard has issues does not mean all schemes have similar issues.

Nauga,
standardized
 
Gerhardt said:
I was privy to a presentation by IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) not too long ago on the subject of autonomous vehicles. I was prepared to be bored stiff for 3 hours but instead was captivated. Some of the things mentioned:

1. It was a challenge to get the government on board with driverless vehicles. Now they're the biggest proponent.

2. It does/will save lives, and that's already happened thousands of times. Everyone is keenly aware that there will be accidents that may have been prevented if a human was behind the wheel, but those are greatly outweighed by the number of accidents prevented by a person not being in control. The computer can predict and react exponentially faster than a person.

3. As someone else said, there will be a time when we're older and less capable. This is an ideal solution.

4. Right now my wife, daughter and I each have our own vehicles. With autonomous vehicles we would really only need two. When one of us is not currently using a vehicle and another wants it we could just summon it.

5. This is a problem for the insurance, auto and collision repair industries that many companies aren't preparing for. And the changes are coming much faster than most are predicting. Right now insurers are insuring a lot of vehicles, collecting a lot of $ in premiums, and paying for a lot of repairs. In the very near future we'll be building, insuring and repairing WAY fewer vehicles. Currently 70% of the premium dollars collected by P&C insurers come from auto policies. When that number drops substantially it's going to have major effects.

I'm all for it and I'm sure there will be a time I'll own one. But don't get me wrong. I LIKE driving. And I like driving fast. I want the ability to occasionally zip through traffic, push the envelope on yellow lights, and do other stupid things behind the wheel.
Click to expand...
1. If the government is "for" something that tells me to give it the hairy eyeball. Note: it's not "safety" any more than speed limits.
 
chartbundle said:
I think you mean: The left turn arrow turns green. The first car finally looks up from their cellphone and goes, the second car stares at the back of the first car until they are all the way through the intersection and half a block down the next street then slowly creeps through the intersection as the light turns yellow. I finally make it to the front with a red light and am stuck along with 5 other cars for another cycle.
Click to expand...
With no one on the crossing road...
 
Gerhardt said:
4. Right now my wife, daughter and I each have our own vehicles. With autonomous vehicles we would really only need two. When one of us is not currently using a vehicle and another wants it we could just summon it.
Click to expand...

This is my idealized travel - 2 self driving cars, one SR22.

Let’s say a trip from Seattle to San Francisco. Fill up one of your cars with luggage and send it down the night before. Next day the second car drops you off at the airport and returns home after. You fly down with the Cirrus and meet the car with luggage at the airport there and use it. Week later you reverse the process.

For bonus point, add a self-driving RV to the mix and skip the Hotel.

I feel we’re 20 years away from that. 15 years for the technology to get there, 5 years after for the regulation to catch up. But maybe not. My wife’s car is theoretically capable of Full Self Driving with a software only upgrade. So who knows.
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
I hope they learn fast. For the past seven years (that I know of -- it could be longer), Google Maps has been routing traffic over this lovely "road" as one leg of the best route to my home from points southeast:

tom1.jpg


tom2.jpg


Garmin and TomTom used to, as well; but they had the good sense to make some sort of notation in their basemaps to avoid this "road" after enough people complained about it. So did Open Street Maps. All it took was those two pictures, and they made the change. Google, not so much. As recently as this past weekend, Google was still routing traffic over it.

Rich
Click to expand...

If you zoom into that pic...

nintchdbpict000300121572-e1493304909374.jpg


famous-bigfoot.jpg
 
Last edited:
paflyer said:
1. If the government is "for" something that tells me to give it the hairy eyeball. Note: it's not "safety" any more than speed limits.
Click to expand...

That's actually how I felt when the push was on to replace the old "lever-type" voting machines with electronic voting; and my feelings are even stronger today, when FedGov is pushing to replace the new electronic voting machines with even newer electronic voting machines in the wake of the Russian scanning of voting machines in 21 states in the 2016 elections.

The old voting machines were non-hackable because they had no network connections. Many didn't even require electricity except for the overhead lights. They created a paper trail to make recounts easier and help insure integrity. On the extremely rare occasions when they malfunctioned, the votes already cast were not affected. I saw no reason to replace them, and the government's push to do so made me suspicious. Why replace a tried-and-true machine that could not be hacked with an untested one that could?

Now we know that the machines in 21 states were "scanned" by the Russians; and it's possible (although not proven) that votes could have been changed. That would have been impossible with the old machines. But we can't switch back to them because not only have they been retired, but they've been thrown overboard in the Atlantic to create artificial reefs.

Why? What was the hurry to get rid of them other than to force municipalities to use the new, network-capable (and hackable) machines?

To me, common sense says that if you believe that voting machines were hacked over a network, the easiest solution is to get them off the network. There's absolutely no reason why they need to be networked. We managed to vote for well over 200 years without that technology. So why does FedGov insist on it today and want to impose it on all the states? It makes no sense. I can't think of a non-nefarious reason to prefer a hackable system over a non-hackable one.

So when I hear that the government prefers self-driving cars, that just adds to all the other reasons I don't like the idea. I can think of a lot more bad reasons why the government would like them than good ones.

Rich
 
I saw a cartoon in Germany (strip, not animation) - A cement mixer is tail-gating a sedan at high speed; a beach ball bounds out in front of the sedan (equipped with "automatic" braking); brakes engage, sedan is crushed from behind.

Also, if it's my life or taking a chance on whacking three drunks who run onto the freeway naked - bring a mop and some body bags. I don't buy into "saving the most lives" as the most important metric. Stupid, reckless, impaired, incapacity, carelessness, neglect; all should have consequences.
 
RJM62 said:
That's actually how I felt when the push was on to replace the old "lever-type" voting machines with electronic voting; and my feelings are even stronger today, when FedGov is pushing to replace the new electronic voting machines with even newer electronic voting machines in the wake of the Russian scanning of voting machines in 21 states in the 2016 elections.

The old voting machines were non-hackable because they had no network connections. Many didn't even require electricity except for the overhead lights. They created a paper trail to make recounts easier and help insure integrity. On the extremely rare occasions when they malfunctioned, the votes already cast were not affected. I saw no reason to replace them, and the government's push to do so made me suspicious. Why replace a tried-and-true machine that could not be hacked with an untested one that could?

Now we know that the machines in 21 states were "scanned" by the Russians; and it's possible (although not proven) that votes could have been changed. That would have been impossible with the old machines. But we can't switch back to them because not only have they been retired, but they've been thrown overboard in the Atlantic to create artificial reefs.

Why? What was the hurry to get rid of them other than to force municipalities to use the new, network-capable (and hackable) machines?

To me, common sense says that if you believe that voting machines were hacked over a network, the easiest solution is to get them off the network. There's absolutely no reason why they need to be networked. We managed to vote for well over 200 years without that technology. So why does FedGov insist on it today and want to impose it on all the states? It makes no sense. I can't think of a non-nefarious reason to prefer a hackable system over a non-hackable one.

So when I hear that the government prefers self-driving cars, that just adds to all the other reasons I don't like the idea. I can think of a lot more bad reasons why the government would like them than good ones.

Rich
Click to expand...
Having been employed by local gov't during a cutover to electronic voting, I can tell you the average village idiot coud defeat the security measures as implemented and monitored. Gov't at just about every level really isn't competent to handle important data safely, with a very few exceptions. There just aren't any real consequences to screwing the pooch. I think OPM or VA fired somebody or other, but basically, no consequences beyond those scapegoats

I think self-driving will safe lives, improve traffic. It'll just save the a lot of the wrong lives. Hopefully, they'll still require the human to have a driver's license, and hold the "PIC" accountable for failing to intervene when the AI effs up.
 
deonb said:
Let’s say a trip from Seattle to San Francisco. Fill up one of your cars with luggage and send it down the night before. Next day the second car drops you off at the airport and returns home after. You fly down with the Cirrus and meet the car with luggage at the airport there and use it. Week later you reverse the process.
Click to expand...

Except for the luggage bit I think the people who are really interested in fully autonomous cars are the ones crammed like sardines into cities. You won't even need to own a car. You click a button, walk outside your sardine tin, get in the car that showed up, use it for a while, get back home and send it on its way. No parking worries or anything and they can cram even more people into the cities. Just big industrial parking lots somewhere cheap where the cars hang out while they're not needed.

Could do the same when you get to podunk field, just call a local car from the fleet, probably the same company that provides your car at home.
 
RJM62 said:
That's actually how I felt when the push was on to replace the old "lever-type" voting machines with electronic voting; and my feelings are even stronger today, when FedGov is pushing to replace the new electronic voting machines with even newer electronic voting machines in the wake of the Russian scanning of voting machines in 21 states in the 2016 elections.
Click to expand...

Just do what Washington state did and get rid of the voting machines altogether.
 
Sundancer said:
Having been employed by local gov't during a cutover to electronic voting, I can tell you the average village idiot coud defeat the security measures as implemented and monitored. Gov't at just about every level really isn't competent to handle important data safely, with a very few exceptions. There just aren't any real consequences to screwing the pooch. I think OPM or VA fired somebody or other, but basically, no consequences beyond those scapegoats

I think self-driving will safe lives, improve traffic. It'll just save the a lot of the wrong lives. Hopefully, they'll still require the human to have a driver's license, and hold the "PIC" accountable for failing to intervene when the AI effs up.
Click to expand...

The old machines were pretty secure, at least in New York City. They were transported under guard accompanied by escorts from both parties, tagged, sealed, and locked -- and no one at the polling place had the keys until the polls were closed. If they malfunctioned, a crew was sent over and the work was performed in the presence of witnesses from both parties. Most of them tabulated the votes, but the paper record was there if there was any doubt about the tabulation. I felt pretty secure voting that way.

That's not to say there wasn't fraud. Plenty of dead people voted religiously. But that was the doing of the political machine, not the mechanical one.

Rich
 
F01LA said:
Suppose that's the case. How long until the first lawsuit where it's pointed out that the defendant *deliberately* disengaged the autonomous features, knowing full well that the accident rate with him behind the wheel was 10x that of when he let the car drive itself? Would that be reckless endangerment?

Autonomous cars are pretty exciting tech, but I find the potential implications troubling.
Click to expand...
I'll be really surprised if the accident rate for self-driving cars is anything like ten times better than human driven ones during my lifetime.
 
EppyGA said:
I see some pluses to autonomous cars. Let's say we're sitting at a stop light in a line of 10-20 cars and the light turns green. Today, the first car goes, then the second begins to move, then the third and so and so on. This generally makes for large gaps in the line of traffic. With all of the vehicles being autonomous each car could begin moving sooner and accelerate at the same rate as the car in front of it keeping the traffic moving much better.

I do figure some of you already try to do that, but most folks don't work that way.
Click to expand...
Where I drive, most people don't leave gaps that big when a line of cars starts up.
 
rpadula said:
The computer won't be programmed with that knowledge. It'll learn by itself about that scenario. Just like you did.
Click to expand...
I find myself wondering how long it will take for self-driving cars to learn the necessary skills. Will we see vehicles with "student self-driving car" signs on them, and will there be a "driving test" to determine when the car has learned enough to drive safely on its own?
 
FlySince9 said:
So you'd be okay with autonomous hearses?
Click to expand...

After I am gone, I really don’t care what they d with me, cuz that that point it’s their problem not mine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top