Uber self-driving car kills Arizona woman

[guacamole]

Robots have their first human kill - it will only get worse from here...

The uprising has begun. It was never the beta males that we had to fear.

[Mountain Man]

How many pedestrians have been hit and killed by human drivers in the time since this incident I wonder?

Which is why I said, "For some irrational reason, it seems worse when a self-driving car kills someone than when the car is being operated by another human. Maybe it's because there is no one who can be held directly accountable."

[Mountain Man]

The uprising has begun. It was never the beta males that we had to fear.

Proof that AI doesn't have to be smart to take over the world.

[Sparko]

The way I figure it, it is the geeks and nerds who are programming these things, so I think the jocks and cheerleader types are the ones who need to be careful on the streets.

[Zymologist]

Proof that AI doesn't have to be smart to take over the world.

Have you ever seen a documentary called Idiocracy?

[Cow Poke]

Have you ever seen a documentary called Idiocracy?

I grew up with 5 younger sisters - I LIVED that!

[Starlight]

Of course the legal framework is going to be one of the biggest issues with driverless cars.

I agree that who is legally liable for those accidents that do occur will be a big and interesting issue.

Who would want to drive a car knowing that your car would put other people's lives above it's own passengers for instance?

An altruistic person?

I genuinely struggle to take you seriously with regard to your claim that the question of who to kill will be some sort of big dilemma. The programming can be very simple:
IF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT DETECTED:
APPLY MAXIMUM BREAKING; DEPLOY AIRBAGS.

Zero "moral decisions" need be made.

And if a car does kill someone, who gets the blame? The car manufacturer? The programmer? The owner of the car? Nobody?

That is a more interesting legal issue.

You watch, this issue will be the most important going forward.

No, it won't. I predict it will be virtually never mentioned.

[EvoUK]

It’ll be very interesting. I predict when driverless cars become a thing, it’ll be very hard to find someone to blame and prosecute. Same as the Grenfell Tower fire last year- there will be enough different companies involved, and little political willpower to do anything, which will leave victims helpless with regards to any sort of justice. The laws will be deliberately vague in that respect.

With regards to the impossible situations brought up earlier, Starlight’s answer above is the most likely answer- brake hard & hope for the best. Same as any of us would do if presented with a similar situation I imagine.

[Terraceth]

I genuinely struggle to take you seriously with regard to your claim that the question of who to kill will be some sort of big dilemma. The programming can be very simple:
IF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT DETECTED:
APPLY MAXIMUM BREAKING; DEPLOY AIRBAGS.

Zero "moral decisions" need be made.

What about the situation that was posited, when there wasn't enough time to slow down to avoid the crash, so the only way to avoid it would be to swerve into something else and cause a collision with likely fatal results?

Granted, I don't think such events are particularly likely to occur, but it's something worth considering.

No, it won't. I predict it will be virtually never mentioned.

I've seen other people mention this before when discussing self-driving cars, actually. It's not likely to occur, but it is something that has to be programmed into the car.

[guacamole]

Proof that AI doesn't have to be smart to take over the world.

If we could really get at the information, I think we'd be astonished at the extent to which algorithms already quietly dominate certain aspects of our lives.

[Sparko]

I agree that who is legally liable for those accidents that do occur will be a big and interesting issue.

An altruistic person?

I genuinely struggle to take you seriously with regard to your claim that the question of who to kill will be some sort of big dilemma. The programming can be very simple:
IF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT DETECTED:
APPLY MAXIMUM BREAKING; DEPLOY AIRBAGS.

Zero "moral decisions" need be made.

That is a more interesting legal issue.

No, it won't. I predict it will be virtually never mentioned.

I work at a law firm and can tell you this is a big deal in the legal world. And technology that is autonomous? Definitely a big deal. The legal ramifications of potentially deadly technology always is and our law firm actually has a group dedicated just to this technology and its legality. The actual programming code might not be a big deal, but WHAT to program, the moral decision tree, will be. Eventually the governments of the world will have to make the decisions and laws and make the manufacturers program that into the vehicles.

[Mountain Man]

It seems the car may not have been at fault. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the woman abruptly jay-walked across a darkened roadway.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php

[Cow Poke]

It seems the car may not have been at fault. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the woman abruptly jay-walked across a darkened roadway.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php

If that's the case, even a human driver would be cut some slack - probably not even cited.

[Teallaura]

Uber self-driving car kills Arizona woman

Self driving vehicles - what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Watch for litigation city.

SAN FRANCISCO — An Uber self-driving car hit and killed a woman in Tempe, Ariz., Sunday night, according to media reports.

The Uber car was in self-driving mode when the accident occurred, but had a safety driver at the wheel as is the norm when testing autonomous vehicles.

The woman, who has not been named, was crossing outside the designated crosswalk at about 10 p.m. when she was hit, police said.

Sgt. Ronald Elcock, a Tempe police spokesman, confirmed to the USA TODAY Network that the car was in autonomous mode with a driver behind the wheel when it hit the pedestrian. There were no passengers in the car at the time.

Uber issued a statement saying that it was "fully cooperating with local authorities." The ride-hailing company has temporarily halted its self-driving tests in wake of the incident in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto, as is its policy following any accident.

I'm not a big fan of the self driving car idea but I don't get the issue here - it states that there was a driver at the wheel - why didn't the driver stop the car? Sounds like other factors may be in play.

[Teallaura]

It seems the car may not have been at fault. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the woman abruptly jay-walked across a darkened roadway.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php

No fair - answering before I can even read the whole thread....