UBER Driver in deadly crash texting?? but the woman killed was on a bicycle in the dark.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Did all that in half a second? That's pretty impressive. Boasting a reaction time most of us can only dream of.

You don't know if the car was abandoned? Was the driver hurt? You did stop, right?

Well I don't know what to say besides it was f'in close. OI'm surprised my mirror didn't clip the car.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Your Spidie senses were all on alert anyway so quick reactions were second nature.This woman was alone in an empty car at night outside of a well lit area just going for a ride back to wherever.

Drivers fault depends on if she was texting. They prove she was texting then yup if she was just hanging out then suicide by UBER.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Good thing you were able to zip past that stranded car at 75 on a wet, poorly lit motorway.

You could have been hurt! I mean, someone may have died that day and we'll never know, but at least you were a safe and responsible driver.

Phew!

This driver could learn a thing or two from you, eh?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

No one in the car was driving.

very first sentence from the article.

Dashcam video was released Wednesday night showing the dramatic and deadly crash of a self-driving Uber SUV in Arizona — as the woman operating the vehicle had her head down.

WOMAN OPERATING THE VEHICLE.. She was the backup driver, in case the car was about to do something, like run over a pedestrian.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I don't think you understood my post.
I've had a somewhat similar situation where a nutter (probably on drugs) leapt onto the road right in front of me at night leaving me no room for braking but I was in a small hatchback with excellent handling and simply steered around him. That was at a speed a bit slower than what I see in the video though and If I'd tried to brake in panic he would have been dead.

Let's assume the UBER car was travelling at 40mph and the AI had a super fast reaction time of 100mSec: in 100mSec from the first sign of the pedestrian and bike in the video, the car would travel at least 6' before any action like braking or commencing steering took place. The AI would be analysing things like is it safe to swerve into the adjacent lane, checking the protocol for taking the risk of sacrificing itself to avoid the pedestrian by swerving and losing control etc etc. That pedestrian was doomed because even a human driver paying attention with F1 reflexes would take longer than 100mSec to react so the only solution is to have better spatial awareness than the video we see so there's adequate warning to find a solution that saves the car and the pedestrian. IE things like radar, IR vision or ultrasonics.

originally posted by: mikell
Watched it some more and have to go with suicide and UBER just happened to be tool. Never looked as she was about to get whacked.

Suicide? Do you actually believe that? Are you part of the Clinton Cabal?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

And I'm taking my bike with me!

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

If she wasn't stoned then why did she try to cross in front of a car at night?

a reply to: mikell

This was entirely the lady's fault. How does someone not see a car approaching at night with its lights on? She clearly just walked out into the street without looking.

I always take the position that getting hit by a car is the pedestrians fault. When choosing between the laws if man and the laws of physics, physics will win everyone.

Liveleak is full of videos where people just randomly jaywalk into traffic texting or just being plain stupid.

Anyone who has hit a deer knows you can t react fast enough to avoid this type of situation in most cases.

a reply to: mikell

No way - fk that pedestrian. No cross walk..no identifying lights or clothing..She was J walking basically.

Pushing the bike? She was a junkie I promise you.

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

No one in the car was driving.

very first sentence from the article.

Dashcam video was released Wednesday night showing the dramatic and deadly crash of a self-driving Uber SUV in Arizona — as the woman operating the vehicle had her head down.

WOMAN OPERATING THE VEHICLE.. She was the backup driver, in case the car was about to do something, like run over a pedestrian.

She was not by or approaching a cross walk. There is zero reason to suspect a moron crossing the road PUSHING A BIKE is going to pop out on the street. I would hardly think the same if someone were to jump out on what appears to be at least a 40 mph street..at night.

a reply to: mikell

i think the driver was reading texts or a screen... but its not their fault.
I think the AI in the car didn't see the victim until the final instance.. no car driven automatically or by a human could have reacted quick enough to avoid hitting the person..

Its the victims fault for crossing late at night and not looking.. i mean - who doesn't see headlights at night?

Its not the fault of the autonomous vehicle.. but its a warning and a sign

They must have data for the time between recognition of hazard and impact. There is lots of data to go over I really think there's more on the side of where she came from that we're not seeing. Was the car on a curve and that a blind spot or did she come from behind a dumpster or something. The headlights on new cars really suck

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: mikell

i think the driver was reading texts or a screen... but its not their fault.
I think the AI in the car didn't see the victim until the final instance.. no car driven automatically or by a human could have reacted quick enough to avoid hitting the person..

Its the victims fault for crossing late at night and not looking.. i mean - who doesn't see headlights at night?

Its not the fault of the autonomous vehicle.. but its a warning and a sign

The problem with these autonomous vehicles is that they can't be programmed to account for the stupidity of man. They might be able to at some point in the future, but I don't think we are anywhere near that capability.

AI cannot process all the things that humans might do like a person can when driving. When I am driving I can tell by subtle movements and environment if some other driver may do something and to be ready. For example, if there is a line of cars stopped in the left lane and I am in the right lane... I know from experience that some impatient driver might attempt to jump out of their lane so they don't have to wait. I can tell when I am behind someone if they are texting or looking at their phone from their subtle head movements and inability to hold a consistent speed. I can pick up on blind spots where a car or pedestrian might step out so I know to slow down or be cautious. If I see a ball rolling into a street, I know there is a high likelihood of a child running behind it.

I love to drive. My car has ACC (automatic cruise control) and I love it on road trips. The radar / camera will set a distance to a car in front of me and hold speed (increasing and decreasing and braking) as necessary. It is brilliant. However, I still need to be in control of the car and be paying attention.

Personally, I think a big problem with cars these days is that there are too many distractions. I 'm really starting to dislike the large screens. Car makers are putting all the buttons on the screens which are far harder to use when driving versus the old tactile knobs you could adjust without looking. Analog cars without all the screens are far safer imho in terms of drivers paying attention.

Fox reported that the occupants in these vehicles have to enter information into some sort of onboard computer at times during the drive, so it's possible that's what the person was doing. It may not have been their phone. That's part of the investigation, they'll figure out what she was looking it. Either way, I don't think there's anything they could have done. I know all the expert drivers here think they could have avoided her but it was a very short distance between when the pedestrian became visible and when the car struck her. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No. If anything, if it was a human driver they likely would have been speeding and had even less time to react. The self-driving cars, for the most part, obey the posted limit, while most human drivers don't.

Wow, so driver-less cars are a bad idea...

Uber should be held accountable for their automated car. I assume the driver was a moron who didn't fully understand what their job was, they shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of anything other than a bumper car ever again.

How stupid can people be to actually trust a car to drive itself?

That safety driver is a woman?!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Someone call Arnold. From the second movie of course. I was kind of wondering how that worked. What's the point of driverless cars that need a driver?

a reply to: mikell

I will tell you right now that bicyclists do some down right dangerous crap. The pedestrian mentality of having the right of way doesnt carry over to a bike.

When on a road with cars, you need to follow the rules of the road.

Its sad for sure, but this is not worse of a problem nationally thanks to fast acting drivers.

I have never seen a vehicle in the ER, let them go and stay out of their way I say.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Wow, so driver-less cars are a bad idea...

Uber should be held accountable for their automated car. I assume the driver was a moron who didn't fully understand what their job was, they shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of anything other than a bumper car ever again.

How stupid can people be to actually trust a car to drive itself?

Read the post above yours.

I'm not sold on the driverless cars either, but this case is not one where the driver would've made a difference. The driverless car didn't kill her, she basically killed herself.