6 ms·

i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each yea

i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each year for drunk driving[1] and you don't see liquor being pulled off the shelves. however i do see how people (including me) are sheep and can be manipulated into believing anything. taxis and trucker unions can use this an opportunity to condemn self driving vehicles. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

wpietri 9y ago
That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some Uber exec should perhaps be wearing an orange jumpsuit over this. I'm all for self-driving cars, as done right deaths will go down. But that means we shouldn't introduce them until they are well-made enough that deaths actually go down.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. It's likely that the accident still would have been fatal, or at least the pedestrian would have been seriously injured if the safety driver was driving. Based on the video there was only a second or two to react from the time the pedestrian stepped out of the shadows, and human reaction time varies from 0.7 to 3 seconds [1]. One study found the average driver's reaction time is 2.3 seconds. [1] http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    >It's likely that the accident still would have been fatal, or at least the pedestrian would have been seriously injured if the safety driver was driving. Based on the video there was only a second or two to react from the time the pedestrian stepped out of the shadows, and human reaction time varies from 0.7 to 3 seconds [1]. One study found the average driver's reaction time is 2.3 seconds. Yes, but it is difficult to state that it would have been "likely" fatal, and even sevral fractures are IMHO a big improvement over death, the whole point is not about the "average" braking time (BTW that same study gives 1.64 seconds average for "steering away" which is probably what most human drivers would have done in a similar situation, instead of braking or instead of only braking), it is the peaks that count. I mean, it is about the (rightful) expectation that an automated system is safer (faster, more reactive) than the best you can find (not the average, the best) "in nature" among a random set of drivers, just like the state codes (correctly) take the worse case in the sample or however incereases the recommendation to three seconds. If you play the game suggested on the same site you gave a link to and deliberately count up to three before clicking, you get: Reaction time: 2916.00ms Reaction speed age: 89 years old Playing fairly, you are likely to get values in the range 300-500 ms. Here is another paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233039156_Brake_Reaction_Times_and_Driver_Behavior_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233039156_Brake_Rea... that puts it back to around 1-1.5 seconds or however maximum at 1.8 seconds in the very worst cases.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    The video camera doesn't have the same vision as a human. A human would have seen something sooner and so would have had more reaction time. You also mis-cite your numbers. Reaction time to braking in that study was 2.2 seconds, but steering is 1.6 seconds, and beginning to slow is 1.0-1.3 s. Those numbers are also from a study environment; it's plausible to me that people would be more relaxed in a test than if they see a live human appear in front them.
- always_good 9y ago
  Well, they were still jaywalking in the middle of the night hoping oncoming cars would stop for them. It's not like the car hopped the curb.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    They were crossing a low speed, brightly lit street.
    - always_good 9y ago
      It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year. When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis. I'm taking issue with this: >that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready Well, no. They died because they lost their gamble on an unguided crossing where the oncoming car did not stop. We are now analyzing why the car didn't stop, but notice how no charges were pressed.
      - thrownaway954 9y ago
        i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always. i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?
      - wpietri 9y ago
        No charges were filed yet, but that's unlikely to happen until after the NTSB report. It's true that jaywalking is a gamble, but so is crossing a street with the light. Leaving the house is a gamble. That doesn't mean we can blame the victim of a collision for leaving the house. It can be simultaneously true that A) jaywalking is not always a great idea, and B) the Uber car should have avoided this collision.
    - 9y ago
- tintor 9y ago
  Should Uber Test Driver go to jail? She was on camera looking down at her phone at the moment of accident.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    She absolutely should, in my opinion.
    - thrownaway954 9y ago
      then it negates that whole idea of having a "self-driving" vehicle. the whole point is to let the vehicle drive itself while you can do whatever-it-is you want without paying attention, like sleeping or playing on your phone... you essentially are a passenger, not a driver.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        She wasn't in a self-driving car. She was testing a prototype self-driving car. She's absolutely culpable for her negligence. She had one job.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    I think expecting a backup driver to pay that kind of attention on a continuous basis is unrealistic on Uber's part. Are you familiar with Threat Image Projection? It's a system where baggage scanning machines put in images of fake threats into real baggage. Why is this necessary? It's because regular baggage doesn't have enough in the way of actual threats to keep operators alert. I think it's the same deal with being a backup driver for a robot car. Sure, they should be ready to take over when the car asks for help, and it's great if they notice a problem and stop the car. But I don't think expecting them to have this kind of reaction time is realistic. (That may not stop Uber from throwing the backup driver under the bus, though.)

wpietri 9y ago

That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some Uber exec should perhaps be wearing an orange jumpsuit over this. I'm all for self-driving cars, as done right deaths will go down. But that means we shouldn't introduce them until they are well-made enough that deaths actually go down.

Johnny555 9y ago
Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. It's likely that the accident still would have been fatal, or at least the pedestrian would have been seriously injured if the safety driver was driving. Based on the video there was only a second or two to react from the time the pedestrian stepped out of the shadows, and human reaction time varies from 0.7 to 3 seconds [1]. One study found the average driver's reaction time is 2.3 seconds. [1] http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >It's likely that the accident still would have been fatal, or at least the pedestrian would have been seriously injured if the safety driver was driving. Based on the video there was only a second or two to react from the time the pedestrian stepped out of the shadows, and human reaction time varies from 0.7 to 3 seconds [1]. One study found the average driver's reaction time is 2.3 seconds. Yes, but it is difficult to state that it would have been "likely" fatal, and even sevral fractures are IMHO a big improvement over death, the whole point is not about the "average" braking time (BTW that same study gives 1.64 seconds average for "steering away" which is probably what most human drivers would have done in a similar situation, instead of braking or instead of only braking), it is the peaks that count. I mean, it is about the (rightful) expectation that an automated system is safer (faster, more reactive) than the best you can find (not the average, the best) "in nature" among a random set of drivers, just like the state codes (correctly) take the worse case in the sample or however incereases the recommendation to three seconds. If you play the game suggested on the same site you gave a link to and deliberately count up to three before clicking, you get: Reaction time: 2916.00ms Reaction speed age: 89 years old Playing fairly, you are likely to get values in the range 300-500 ms. Here is another paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233039156_Brake_Reaction_Times_and_Driver_Behavior_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233039156_Brake_Rea... that puts it back to around 1-1.5 seconds or however maximum at 1.8 seconds in the very worst cases.
- wpietri 9y ago
  The video camera doesn't have the same vision as a human. A human would have seen something sooner and so would have had more reaction time. You also mis-cite your numbers. Reaction time to braking in that study was 2.2 seconds, but steering is 1.6 seconds, and beginning to slow is 1.0-1.3 s. Those numbers are also from a study environment; it's plausible to me that people would be more relaxed in a test than if they see a live human appear in front them.
always_good 9y ago
Well, they were still jaywalking in the middle of the night hoping oncoming cars would stop for them. It's not like the car hopped the curb.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  They were crossing a low speed, brightly lit street.
  - always_good 9y ago
    It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year. When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis. I'm taking issue with this: >that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready Well, no. They died because they lost their gamble on an unguided crossing where the oncoming car did not stop. We are now analyzing why the car didn't stop, but notice how no charges were pressed.
    - thrownaway954 9y ago
      i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always. i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?
    - wpietri 9y ago
      No charges were filed yet, but that's unlikely to happen until after the NTSB report. It's true that jaywalking is a gamble, but so is crossing a street with the light. Leaving the house is a gamble. That doesn't mean we can blame the victim of a collision for leaving the house. It can be simultaneously true that A) jaywalking is not always a great idea, and B) the Uber car should have avoided this collision.
  - 9y ago
tintor 9y ago
Should Uber Test Driver go to jail? She was on camera looking down at her phone at the moment of accident.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  She absolutely should, in my opinion.
  - thrownaway954 9y ago
    then it negates that whole idea of having a "self-driving" vehicle. the whole point is to let the vehicle drive itself while you can do whatever-it-is you want without paying attention, like sleeping or playing on your phone... you essentially are a passenger, not a driver.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      She wasn't in a self-driving car. She was testing a prototype self-driving car. She's absolutely culpable for her negligence. She had one job.
- wpietri 9y ago
  I think expecting a backup driver to pay that kind of attention on a continuous basis is unrealistic on Uber's part. Are you familiar with Threat Image Projection? It's a system where baggage scanning machines put in images of fake threats into real baggage. Why is this necessary? It's because regular baggage doesn't have enough in the way of actual threats to keep operators alert. I think it's the same deal with being a backup driver for a robot car. Sure, they should be ready to take over when the car asks for help, and it's great if they notice a problem and stop the car. But I don't think expecting them to have this kind of reaction time is realistic. (That may not stop Uber from throwing the backup driver under the bus, though.)