Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Initial police findings is that Uber automated vehicle crash that killed pedestrian was likely 'unavoidable' for any kind of driver "based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway"   (azcentral.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Phoenix, Arizona, self-driving uber, Maricopa County Attorney, Self-driving Uber vehicle, San Francisco-based Uber, tempe police, self-driving Uber SUV, Automobile  
•       •       •

3910 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2018 at 8:23 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Copy Link



189 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Erma Gerdd  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (8)  
2018-03-21 6:55:10 PM  
She was coming right for us?
 
Nadie_AZ  
Smartest (15)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 7:05:08 PM  
Oh it even had a driver inside and it was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Uber has probably invested heavily in Tempe. It'd be a real shame if that money were to stop.
 
2018-03-21 7:12:40 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Oh it even had a driver inside and it was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Uber has probably invested heavily in Tempe. It'd be a real shame if that money were to stop.


The Tempe police department released video today on their Twitter page, it shows the driver distracted looking down at something for a while.
Whose fault? Whynotboth.jpg or is it why not all three -  woman hit, driver, and car.
 
fusillade762  
Smartest (54)   Funniest (3)  
2018-03-21 7:28:58 PM  
The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said.

The speed limit in the area is 35 mph.


You'd think the one thing an autonomous car would do well is obey the speed limit.
 
BalugaJoe  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (5)  
2018-03-21 7:33:40 PM  
Put that car in jail.
 
Xai  
Smartest (44)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 7:47:34 PM  
Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?
 
gar1013  
Smartest (4)   Funniest (9)  
2018-03-21 8:25:31 PM  

BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.


Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
 
Trocadero  
Smartest (39)   Funniest (2)  
2018-03-21 8:25:38 PM  
Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.
 
gar1013  
Smartest (5)   Funniest (1)  
2018-03-21 8:26:14 PM  

Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?


The car has better tech than that.

And by better, I mean this woman should still be alive.
 
2018-03-21 8:28:07 PM  

Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?


Different set of limitations.  software has no reason to expect that someone is going to dart out into the middle of the road at a non-crosswalk even if it could see her when the driver couldn't.  Human driver might, based on her body language or whatever, but couldn't have seen her (according to the police report, anyway) even if they'd been paying attention.
 
brilett  
Smartest (13)   Funniest (1)  
2018-03-21 8:28:51 PM  
If they're using lidar and radar - why would shadows matter?
 
2018-03-21 8:28:57 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Oh it even had a driver inside and it was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Uber has probably invested heavily in Tempe. It'd be a real shame if that money were to stop.


That part of Tempe, right by ASU I don't recall as being darkly lit either. Streets are very wide with wide sidewalks too.
 
Mithiwithi [TotalFark] [OhFark]  
Smartest (15)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:29:37 PM  

Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?


The vehicle in question was equipped with both lidar and radar. (I haven't yet been able to find a definitive source on what wavelength(s) the lidar was using.) According to that algorithm, the problem could be better described as the the software failing to interpret the image as a potential pedestrian.
 
aungen [TotalFark] [OhFark]  
Smartest (27)   Funniest (5)  
2018-03-21 8:30:03 PM  
If we continue down this path, it will modify evolution in a way that favors people who don't assume cars will stop for them.

Bad or good?
 
brilett  
Smartest (6)   Funniest (5)  
2018-03-21 8:30:32 PM  

gar1013: BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.

Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.


Put the CEO in jail for putting this on the road.
 
2018-03-21 8:30:35 PM  
Link to video from Total Fark post, showing dashcam and interior view:
https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/watch-tempe-police-release-video-of-deadly-uber-crash?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

A dashcam in the dark doesn't necessarily show what a person would see.  Mine has a low-light mode that automatically increases its sensitivity and it shows things in the dark that I can't see.  But this one shows the woman walking her bike across the lane of traffic, coming from the center of the road, and she becomes visible far too late to stop or even slow the car significantly.

On the other hand, the interior view shows that the woman riding guard duty was not very alert.
 
stvdallas  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (1)  
2018-03-21 8:30:48 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

Different set of limitations.  software has no reason to expect that someone is going to dart out into the middle of the road at a non-crosswalk even if it could see her when the driver couldn't.  Human driver might, based on her body language or whatever, but couldn't have seen her (according to the police report, anyway) even if they'd been paying attention.


An autonomous car shouldn't have those limitations.  Hell, you can buy Audi's (perhaps other cars) with infrared as well which can help spot deer at night.  The technology is there, and if we have it...it should be used to make the cars have as much data as possible.  Taking the cheap way out is just going to cause problems like this in the future.
 
skozlaw [OhFark]  
Smartest (17)   Funniest (1)  
2018-03-21 8:30:58 PM  

gar1013: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

The car has better tech than that.

And by better, I mean this woman should still be alive.


Better means nothing in the context you used it here.

Post an actual analysis of the data you have at your disposal or stop posting garbage.

/ but, either way, stop smarting your own posts
 
2018-03-21 8:31:17 PM  

Trocadero: Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.


Look up from your phone once in a while and don't become another statistic on distracted walking.
 
gar1013  
Smartest (8)   Funniest (9)  
2018-03-21 8:31:38 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

Different set of limitations.  software has no reason to expect that someone is going to dart out into the middle of the road at a non-crosswalk even if it could see her when the driver couldn't.  Human driver might, based on her body language or whatever, but couldn't have seen her (according to the police report, anyway) even if they'd been paying attention.


Software has plenty of reason to expect that, if it is designed correctly.

This woman is dead, because someone took a shortcut in the design of this vehicle.
 
way south  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:31:51 PM  

Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?


My understanding is they have LIDAR, which is probably easier for the computer to interpret.
So the question is if the car sensor saw this person and if it realized she was an object encroaching onto the road.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/withholding judgment on the driver since we don't know what she was looking at.
/also for the victim since we don't know why she was walking across an unlit road with visible traffic.
 
2018-03-21 8:32:04 PM  

fusillade762: The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said.

The speed limit in the area is 35 mph.

You'd think the one thing an autonomous car would do well is obey the speed limit.


Google street view says 45mph
 
gar1013  
Smartest (3)   Funniest (3)  
2018-03-21 8:32:40 PM  

brilett: gar1013: BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.

Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

Put the CEO in jail for putting this on the road.


I'm fine with that.
 
2018-03-21 8:33:04 PM  

way south: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

My understanding is they have LIDAR, which is probably easier for the computer to interpret.
So the question is if the car sensor saw this person and if it realized she was an object encroaching onto the road.

[img.fark.net image 850x480]

/withholding judgment on the driver since we don't know what she was looking at.
/also for the victim since we don't know why she was walking across an unlit road with visible traffic.


In the video the victim was strangely not looking at the car.
 
2018-03-21 8:33:15 PM  

gar1013: BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.

Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.


A clever ploy to avoid jury duty, bro .
 
gar1013  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (7)  
2018-03-21 8:35:40 PM  

skozlaw: gar1013: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

The car has better tech than that.

And by better, I mean this woman should still be alive.

Better means nothing in the context you used it here.

Post an actual analysis of the data you have at your disposal or stop posting garbage.

/ but, either way, stop smarting your own posts


They car has radar and LIDAR. Volvo cars also come equipped with CitySafety technology, which detects other cars, pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Volvo tech does a really good job, but it was probably disabled so as not to interfere with the other tech.

But go on pretending like no crime was committed.
 
tyyreaunn  
Smartest (15)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:35:42 PM  

fusillade762: The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said.

The speed limit in the area is 35 mph.

You'd think the one thing an autonomous car would do well is obey the speed limit.


Didn't Google find that having their cars follow all the driving laws was actually more dangerous for everyone involved?  Like, when they drove the speed limit and left the legally required amount of space between themselves and the car in front, they were getting passed or cut off on a regular basis - effectively, they made themselves a moving road hazard.  They had to adjust to drive more like normal drivers (e.g., bending a lot of laws) to better fit the flow of traffic.
 
2018-03-21 8:35:54 PM  
Nothing new under the sun...
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-21 8:36:18 PM  

Trocadero: Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.


Exactly.  What we're really seeing here is mostly just the classic humans being afraid of change/progress and making up rationalizations to hide this truth.  Yet in the end, resisting change is the most futile of all human endeavors - always has been, always will be.

The reality is that computer cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans.  Drop that yearly vehicular death toll down from 30-40K per to a mere 20K per year and it's still a huge win.
 
tlchwi02  
Smartest (8)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:36:53 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Trocadero: Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.

Look up from your phone once in a while and don't become another statistic on distracted walking.


that always blows my mind when i see people just step off the curb without looking in either direction because they glanced up from their phone and saw a 'walk' light. i'm sure the fact that you had the right of way will be a great comfort to your family at your funeral
 
2018-03-21 8:37:50 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


I'm just saying, maybe don't step onto the road with Skynet.
 
DrEMHmrk2 [TotalFark] [OhFark]  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (5)  
2018-03-21 8:38:53 PM  

aungen: If we continue down this path, it will modify evolution in a way that favors people who don't assume cars will stop for them.

Bad or good?


Or people will evolve hardened exoskeletons to protect them.
 
NevynFox  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:41:19 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Nadie_AZ: Oh it even had a driver inside and it was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Uber has probably invested heavily in Tempe. It'd be a real shame if that money were to stop.

That part of Tempe, right by ASU I don't recall as being darkly lit either. Streets are very wide with wide sidewalks too.


I spent years working in a building right by the ASU football field. For the time I did have to work nights, one thing I found was that there were a lot of dark spots between lights, and had several instances of people darting out into the street while I was trying to get away from the downtown area back to the freeway.

Hell, during the day people just Christopher Walken'd right into traffic, expecting everyone to stop.
 
AstroJesus  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (25)  
2018-03-21 8:41:53 PM  
Fact is, the autonomous vehicles have now tasted blood. And they like it. They've "learned" that human blood is "delicious" and they'll stop at nothing to get more. A fleet of these vampire ubers are set to descend upon this nation, and many pregnant nuns in crosswalks will not survive.
 
Arkanaut  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:42:01 PM  
*gasp* the Shadow!?
 
2018-03-21 8:42:35 PM  

gar1013: skozlaw: gar1013: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

The car has better tech than that.

And by better, I mean this woman should still be alive.

Better means nothing in the context you used it here.

Post an actual analysis of the data you have at your disposal or stop posting garbage.

/ but, either way, stop smarting your own posts

They car has radar and LIDAR. Volvo cars also come equipped with CitySafety technology, which detects other cars, pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Volvo tech does a really good job, but it was probably disabled so as not to interfere with the other tech.

But go on pretending like no crime was committed.


Yep.  The crime was jaywalking.
 
2018-03-21 8:42:49 PM  
How many pedestrian lives is going to take to get this right (it will never happen)  Drop some large pillows off an overpass and immediate traffic snarl.....lets rob some drivers....throw some big pillows in front of car, smash window, rob "driver".  Maybe they can have the self driving cars on Mars, after humans make it livable.
 
OkieDookie  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (3)  
2018-03-21 8:42:59 PM  
If she had been an illegal alien, the Border Patrol would have made the car an agent on the spot.
 
2018-03-21 8:43:42 PM  

gar1013: LowbrowDeluxe: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

Different set of limitations.  software has no reason to expect that someone is going to dart out into the middle of the road at a non-crosswalk even if it could see her when the driver couldn't.  Human driver might, based on her body language or whatever, but couldn't have seen her (according to the police report, anyway) even if they'd been paying attention.

Software has plenty of reason to expect that, if it is designed correctly.

This woman is dead, because someone took a shortcut in the design of this vehicle.


Woa now, let's not go absolving the woman of all responsibility. If she hadn't blindly walked out into traffic she would still be alive right now.
 
tyyreaunn  
Smartest (16)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:44:28 PM  

gar1013: BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.

Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.


notsureifserious.jpg

Watching the exterior camera video, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to stop in time, given how the victim walks out of the darkness 50 feet in front of the car.  The stopping distance at 40mph is 80 feet - she was getting hit no matter what.

No, that doesn't explain why LIDAR or other data didn't pick the victim up, but I'm pretty sure the driver wouldn't have been able to do anything under the best of circumstances.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that drivers who hit jaywalkers are rarely if ever charged, unless they were blatantly violating some other laws (drunk driving, excessive speeding, etc.).  You jaywalk, you take your chances.
 
way south  
Smartest (5)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:45:11 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: way south: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

My understanding is they have LIDAR, which is probably easier for the computer to interpret.
So the question is if the car sensor saw this person and if it realized she was an object encroaching onto the road.

[img.fark.net image 850x480]

/withholding judgment on the driver since we don't know what she was looking at.
/also for the victim since we don't know why she was walking across an unlit road with visible traffic.

In the video the victim was strangely not looking at the car.


Yes, and that doesn't sit well with me.   Regardless the cars sensor should have been able to see her in the dark even if she was trying to get hit. Especially if she was trying to get hit.
Missing this isn't that odd for the driver (I can't say I'd have seen her any sooner myself) but it seems like a questionable response from the cars computer.
 
Bugerz  
Smartest (13)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:45:51 PM  

sardonicobserver: Link to video from Total Fark post, showing dashcam and interior view:
https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/watch-tempe-police-release-video-of-deadly-uber-crash?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

A dashcam in the dark doesn't necessarily show what a person would see.  Mine has a low-light mode that automatically increases its sensitivity and it shows things in the dark that I can't see.  But this one shows the woman walking her bike across the lane of traffic, coming from the center of the road, and she becomes visible far too late to stop or even slow the car significantly.

On the other hand, the interior view shows that the woman riding guard duty was not very alert.


Yea, she came out of the shadows way too fast. Any person driving would have plastered her as well.
 
2018-03-21 8:46:40 PM  

NevynFox: fanbladesaresharp: Nadie_AZ: Oh it even had a driver inside and it was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Uber has probably invested heavily in Tempe. It'd be a real shame if that money were to stop.

That part of Tempe, right by ASU I don't recall as being darkly lit either. Streets are very wide with wide sidewalks too.

I spent years working in a building right by the ASU football field. For the time I did have to work nights, one thing I found was that there were a lot of dark spots between lights, and had several instances of people darting out into the street while I was trying to get away from the downtown area back to the freeway.

Hell, during the day people just Christopher Walken'd right into traffic, expecting everyone to stop.


I had to find the actual intersection on Goigle Earth as it seemed familiar. And Ill be damned I used to live about 1/2 from where she was hit. Its darker, near parks north of the college across the "lake", but not unlit. I seem to remember Curry Rd being a racetrack too. I don't think anyone drives  the speed limit on it.
 
Hyjamon  
Smartest (4)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:51:23 PM  

tlchwi02: fanbladesaresharp: Trocadero: Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.

Look up from your phone once in a while and don't become another statistic on distracted walking.

that always blows my mind when i see people just step off the curb without looking in either direction because they glanced up from their phone and saw a 'walk' light. i'm sure the fact that you had the right of way will be a great comfort to your family at your funeral


you must have never lived in CA.  even before cell phones being ubiquitous, the concept of "pedestrians have the right of way" seems to make people think a car will stop for them or magically be able to stop in time when they just blatantly cross the street in front of a car moving at a good pace.

yes, the pedestrian does have the right of way and would win in a court of law; the laws of physics will not bend to your smugness though.  You have to survive the encounter to sue later on.
 
tokinGLX  
Smartest (9)   Funniest (0)  
2018-03-21 8:54:39 PM  
last thoughts from the pedestrian might have been something like this:

what is that one saying about looking both ways before crossing something?  i cant remember what the "something" is... look both ways before crossing the ice cream, maybe?  no no no, thats not it.  hmmm.  oh hey, is it before crossing the grocery store!?  because you definitely want to look around before walking out of the store, who wants to go back in right as you are getting into the car to go home just because you forgot the toilet paper?  so yep, that must be how it goes.  obviously when walking out into traffic you dont actually have to look around because humans ALWAYS have the right of way and there is no way in hell that thousands of pounds of metal wrapped in plastic can harm a tiny little ball of flesh and omg tim flores just texted me!  i havent heard from him since high school, i wonder what he has been up to?

/am i an asshole for expecting people to have a single shred of common sense?  possibly, but im ok with that.  i know im not perfect, im working on it.
 
2018-03-21 8:57:41 PM  
Hey, I was jerking off to porn, damn pedestrian
 
2018-03-21 8:58:00 PM  

brilett: If they're using lidar and radar - why would shadows matter?


Question, after you have several thousand cars zipping around using the same lidar/radar signals,  wouldn't you start getting a bunch of false feedback?
 
2018-03-21 8:59:49 PM  

gar1013: BalugaJoe: Put that car in jail.

Put the driver in jail. She's clearly not paying attention in the video, and is probably using a cellphone.

I would vote to find her guilty of vehicular manslaughter.


I saw the video and I probably would have hit her as well.
 
scanman61  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (1)  
2018-03-21 9:00:36 PM  

gar1013: LowbrowDeluxe: Xai: Why are autonomous cars not fitted with infra-red cameras? why have the same limitations we have?

Different set of limitations.  software has no reason to expect that someone is going to dart out into the middle of the road at a non-crosswalk even if it could see her when the driver couldn't.  Human driver might, based on her body language or whatever, but couldn't have seen her (according to the police report, anyway) even if they'd been paying attention.

Software has plenty of reason to expect that, if it is designed correctly.

This woman is dead, because someone took a shortcut in the design of this vehicle.


You mean besides the IP theft from Google?
 
2018-03-21 9:01:53 PM  

NephilimNexus: Trocadero: Well, guess the rest of us meat drivers will just have to keep killing 6,000 pedestrians a year, so nobody should be scared anymore.

Exactly.  What we're really seeing here is mostly just the classic humans being afraid of change/progress and making up rationalizations to hide this truth.  Yet in the end, resisting change is the most futile of all human endeavors - always has been, always will be.

The reality is that computer cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans.  Drop that yearly vehicular death toll down from 30-40K per to a mere 20K per year and it's still a huge win.


It's a real-world occurrence of the "trolley problem." We can pull that lever and kill fewer people overall. But they're largely going to be *different* people because, as mentioned earlier, the self-driving car has different limitations (and the limitations of a driver as back-up system differ from those of an ordinary driver).

/it's also going to be a lot harder to hold anyone responsible for robot killings; vehicular homicide will send you to prison but corporate vehicular homicide will not
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.