Uber Self-Driving Test Car Kills Pedestrian In Arizona

djmia wrote:

Uber uses forced arbitration. If this pedestrian had download the Uber app, or clicked through the Uber terms of service, it’s an open question whether Uber could force her or her family into forced arbitration to resolve “any claim” including one for injury or death. Uber uses a very expansive reach of forced arbitration.

While this is admittedly an open question, the answer depends on how Uber drafted their arbitration clause. Companies shouldn’t be able to avoid accountability so easily.

When no one is accountable, no one is safe.

I doubt very much that "the answer depends on how Uber drafted their arbitration clause." Family members of a pedestrian struck by an Uber vehicle are not going to be barred from pursuing a tort action for wrongful death merely because she once downloaded the Uber app or clicked through Uber's terms of service.

Makes sense to me.

SCOTUS refused to hear the case, so AZ is forced to give driver's licenses to DACA illegals.

So why not allow self-drivers to do whatever they want?

now police are saying the car likely wasn't at fault. the person stepped out of the shadows in the center lane of a dark highway (not a crosswalk) Person riding in the car didn't see or hear alarm, all they heard was the impact because it happened so fast. probably won't be at fault.

seems weird someone walking their bike with groceries at night wouldn't see the headlights of a car or hear it.

use crosswalks or look both ways people.

now police are saying the car likely wasn't at fault.

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

G-Uber wrote:

seems weird someone walking their bike with groceries at night wouldn't see the headlights of a car or hear it.

Some cars are quite quiet.

Maybe the lights were not on. wrote:

G-Uber wrote:

seems weird someone walking their bike with groceries at night wouldn't see the headlights of a car or hear it.

Some cars are quite quiet.

Most cars are fairly quiet. But tire/pavement is loud (compare tyre/snow).

Given that the American legal system is insane, I can now see Americans jumping in front of Uber cars in order to get a big settlement.

Thus killing the self driving car in the bud in the US.

It may be a possibility elsewhere in the world however.

Ssdddddd wrote:

Given that the American legal system is insane, I can now see Americans jumping in front of Uber cars in order to get a big settlement.

UK TV series Hustle had this as a scam in one episode IIRC.

The robots are pure evil. They will kill us all by the year 3000.

Pure Evil Robots wrote:

The robots are pure evil. They will kill us all by the year 3000.

I think we'll all be dead by the year 3000 anyway.

Human error is to blame. Whether it was the person not looking wear they were going. Was she walking while texting? Or, bad programming of the Uber vehicle not stopping quick enough for idiots. More reliance on machines means less reliance on personal responsibility. Less freedom either way. Join the Neo-Luddite revolution and put a monkey wrench in the loom.

M.A.G.A.

blame the programmers for failing to consider the eventuality.

human drivers kill just 1.16 people for every 100 million miles driven. Waymo and Uber and all the rest combined are nowhere near covering that kind of distance, and they’ve already killed one.

Can your AI do better? wrote:

This is a full HD 1080p video of me going crazy in Mafia 2 trying to hit as many people as possible with the fastest car in game from the Joe's Adventures DLC. After I kill lots of people driving, I get out and shoot up everybody. Change my shirt, and it's as if nothing

Who cares what pigs say? wrote:

now police are saying the car likely wasn't at fault.

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Cars don't kill people. People kill driverless cars.

The future is here : people defending a flawed algorithm for killing a human.

This incident shows that there are big limits in what driverless cars can currently do. Humans can see someone walking along not paying attention and anticipate that they may cross into traffic. Humans will slow down or take evasive action to avoid interaction with the inattentive pedestrian. The driverless car cannot do that. The driverless car will only take action if a pedestrian enters the roadway. It cannot tell from body language what a pedestrian may do and can only react when it is too late. Driverless cars have tons of other limitations. They are not very good at driving in the rain, fog, snow and ice. The real efficiency and safety of driverless cars is the ability to communicate with each other and drive cooperatively to minimize traffic delays and maximize fuel efficiency. That system is really just in development and has major cyber security issues.

Driverless cars are really just in their infancy. There are a lot of people in the auto biz talking up a storm about how close the technology is, but it really isn't. And this incident is going to raise a big issue: should driverless cars be allowed to do public road testing without any regulatory oversight? Auto manufacturers use closed courses to test new vehicles before road testing them in the public. Should regulators require driverless cars to pass some sort of test before allowing them to be tested on public roadways?

Self driving cars are a bad idea. How many times does your computer freeze up in a given year? Now what happens when it freezes up while it is driving? The current sensors cannot recognize facial expressions or intent of pedestrians, other drivers, etc. There is no judgement based upon other observable factors. Not to mention that a self-driving Uber could be used as a smart bomb by any terrorist, representing a legitimate national security concern.