How Safe Are Self-Driving Cars After the First Fatal Accident?

[Spinnor]

Do you think that a vehicle that is going significantly slower than the rest of the traffic

Someone passed me while I was carrying a large trailer load of tile and I was going quite significantly slower then the rest of traffic. Some guy behind me was in such a hurry to pass me, 4 lane road, he caused an accident. People need to slow down.

 

[russ_watters]

No. But this is new tech. Why the hell is it going over the speed limit? Guilty. Pay up Uber.

I'm with Borg on this one: I'd rather the automated car mach the low-end of the flow of traffic. Excessively/unusually low speed is itself a hazard.

Someone passed me while I was carrying a large trailer load of tile and I was going quite significantly slower then the rest of traffic. Some guy behind me was in such a hurry to pass me, 4 lane road, he caused an accident. People need to slow down.

You're arguing against your point.

 

[Spinnor]

driving 3 mph over the speed limit is the last thing that I think that anyone would be alarmed over.

It is breaking the law!

 

[Spinnor]

You're arguing against your point.

People are idiots, if the guy delayed his trip by less then a minute he could have safely passed me, people are idiots.

 

[Borg]

Someone passed me while I was carrying a large trailer load of tile and I was going quite significantly slower then the rest of traffic. Some guy behind me was in such a hurry to pass me, 4 lane road, he caused an accident. People need to slow down.

You're making my point. However, you expect that everyone else should match your speed on a road that has a marked speed limit. Most roads (escpecially freeways) have minimum limits as well because of just this type of accident.

 

[russ_watters]

People are idiots, if the guy delayed his trip by less then a minute he could have safely passed me, people are idiots.

Agreed, but you're still arguing against your point! In order for an automated car to maximize safety, it must avoid doing things that trigger idiots to act like idiots.

[edit] And frankly, this conversation matches my perception of truck drivers not caring if they are in the way, or worse being obstinate about it.

 

[Spinnor]

However, you expect that everyone else should match your speed on a road that has a marked speed limit.

It was a 4 lane road, he could have passed me safely with only a slight delay of his trip.

 

[Spinnor]

Most roads (escpecially freeways) have minimum limits as well because of just this type of accident.

The road I was on had a 45 speed limit, there was no minimum.

 

[Spinnor]

automated car to maximize safety

But it should also follow the rules of the road. New tech, over the speed limit, I can guarantee you Uber will be found negligent.

 

[Borg]

It was a 4 lane road, he could have passed me safely with only a slight delay of his trip.

I really do understand your frustration but there are stupid drivers on the road. I have a dash cam and could make a full length Michael Bay movie of the stupity that it has recorded in just the last year. The only reason I didn't have any accidents or indirectly cause them is that I expect others to do stupid things and do my best to avoid them.

 

[russ_watters]

But it should also follow the rules of the road.

Fair enough. My opinion is different; that it should instead always act in a way that maximizes safety, even if that causes a violation of the law.

Let me ask you this: if the car had noticed the biker and calculated it couldn't stop in time to avoid the collision, but instead swerved into the opposing lane of traffic (which is illegal), would you have the same position? Would you rather the car decide to kill someone in order to avoid a minor violation of traffic law?

New tech, over the speed limit, I can guarantee you Uber will be found negligent.

If Uber is found neglegent, I doubt it will be because of being over the speed limit.

 

[Spinnor]

The only reason I didn't have any accidents or indirectly cause them is that I expect others to do stupid things and do my best to avoid them.

You are a science advisor, you are smart and probably drive smart . Being as careful as possible on the road takes a lot of attention. I do not always give 100 percent attention while on the road, shame on me, but I strive to be a safe driver.

 

[Spinnor]

If Uber is found neglegent, I doubt it will be because of being over the speed limit.

Maybe not but I'm sure even a crappy lawyer will get a big payout from Uber. What does the software tell the car to do, forget the speed limit, go with the flow?

 

[russ_watters]

What does the software tell the car to do, forget the speed limit, go with the flow?

No, I'm sure there is an algorithm that starts with the speed limit and then adds an adjustment for traffic conditions. And if there's no traffic it may have a preset fraction or value above that it chooses.

And could you please respond to my question about whether your position on this goes to the extreme that you'd rather the car choose kill someone than commit a minor traffic law violation.

 

[Borg]

You are a science advisor, you are smart and probably drive smart . Being as careful as possible on the road takes a lot of attention. I do not always give 100 percent attention while on the road, shame on me, but I strive to be a safe driver.

Thank you but I'm not as careful as that. I am probably too observant of other drivers to the point of getting upset at having to continually avoid them. I keep thinking that I should get a bumper sticker that says "Caution, I drive like you".

 

[Spinnor]

And could you please respond to my question about whether your position on this goes to the extreme that you'd rather the car choose kill someone than commit a minor traffic law violation.

Do neither. Don't kill, obey the law. That is one rule I guess, obey the law.

 

[russ_watters]

Do neither. Don't kill, obey the law.

That isn't one of the choices. Have you never had to swerve to avoid hitting someone/something?

 

[Spinnor]

Have you never had to swerve to avoid hitting someone/something?

City driving, yes. Now that I think of it, many times.

 

[russ_watters]

City driving, yes.

Have you ever crossed the centerline in doing so? Would you?

 

[Spinnor]

Have you ever crossed the centerline in doing so? Would you?

In one particular case, I had to.

 

[russ_watters]

In one particular case, I had to.

Ok, so then the answer is yes; you do believe there are cases where violating the law is needed to increase safety and is preferred over choosing to cause an incident by not violating the law.

 

[Spinnor]

violating the law.

If the Uber car needs to violate the speed limit in order to keep of with the flow of traffic which is also violating the law then Uber should not be on the road and all the drivers should have transponders in their cars that report their speed violations to big brother.

What was the speed limit in this case, do you know?

 

[Borg]

What was the speed limit in this case, do you know?

The car was most likely going about 38 miles (61 kilometers) per hour, Moir said. The speed limit where the accident occurred is 35 mph, police spokeswoman Lily Duran said.

 

[Spinnor]

That is not very fast. Humans are pretty damn fragile.

There has got to be a safer way to teach robots to drive?

Would limiting the cars to daylight hours of operation help? Do they lose some of their sensing "abilities" at night? Surely the human backup driver would have had a better chance of seeing the women during the day?

 

[Borg]

From TeethWhitener's link on page one, the woman stepped in front of the vehicle so fast that it was unlikely that anyone could have avoided that accident. This really isn't a case of excessive speed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber

 

[Spinnor]

From TeethWhitener's link on page one, the woman stepped in front of the vehicle so fast that it was unlikely that anyone could have avoided that accident. This really isn't a case of excessive speed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber

Going slower would have reduced the injuries a bit. If it was day time and you were approaching this women you would have probably had her in your sights and might have been cautious near her. You said yourself you watch out for stupid people. I would like to think you would have avoided hitting her during the day, you would have been alert and swerved out of the way, at night less likely.

 

[russ_watters]

If the Uber car needs to violate the speed limit in order to keep of with the flow of traffic which is also violating the law then Uber should not be on the road...

So you can violate the law, but Uber can't? Really?

...and all the drivers should have transponders in their cars that report their speed violations to big brother...

Well that's just silly. You're really digging in here, but I think you've probably gotten the point by now that your logic doesn't work/doesn't produce the best outcome. So I think we can drop this rather than keeping getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Spinnor]

Well that's just silly.

Why is obeying the speed limit funny? People speed in front of my house and I detest it. Tech could basically eliminate speeding.

 

[russ_watters]

From TeethWhitener's link on page one, the woman stepped in front of the vehicle so fast that it was unlikely that anyone could have avoided that accident. This really isn't a case of excessive speed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber

Maybe. We'll have to wait for the results of the investigation, but one thing I suspect computer drivers still aren't good at is recognizing and reacting to threats before they happen (such as anticipating whether a pedestrian at the side of the road is about to try to cross). Whether or not that could have prevented this specific case, I suspect it is still a considerable issue in other cases. Part of that is that drivers and pedestrians communicate with each other in ways that autonomous vehicles are not yet able to do.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is obeying the speed limit funny?

Please stop. I wasn't saying obeying the speed limit is funny, I was saying your suggestion to put transponders on cars to enforce it was silly (not funny). And it is unnecessary for you to keep trying to argue this point, since you already acknowledged that you are willing to break the law to enhance safety. So there is no reason for you to continue arguing as if you don't believe that.

 

[Spinnor]

Stopping now.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

...though "probability" is not clear-cut because the transportation is used in different ways/for different purposes and as such there are different choices that can be made for the measurement in some cases. I can consistently compare miles or trips to make a decision on how to get from Philly to Boston (and get different answers if I use "miles" or "trips"), but I can't really compare them for a flight to San Juan, since you can't drive there. That makes direct comparison a little tough.

The idea from finance here would be a replication (read: arbitrage) argument. In math it would be either dominance or an exchange argument. (I actually think you could look at this, nicely, in terms of majorization of probability distributions as well.)

Looking at safety in terms of mortality per person per mile (aka per "person miles") is a fairly common metric. As a simple first cut, you could decompose your trip to San Juan by driving to Florida then taking a boat. Commercial flying in the US is so shockingly safe that I'm quite confident it will come out ahead in terms of safety per person mile over any amount by car and, I suspect, per person mile by ferry / commercial boat.

Getting good data on public marine transport seems to be a bit patchy, though a quick look on mortality rates on cruise ships puts them as being in the neighborhood of airlines on a per passenger amount (I think it gets much worse once mileage comes into play, and industry doesn't have great reporting requirements here).

---
Note trains are another land option, though they too are dominated by planes in terms of safety evaluated on per 'person mile' morality .
---

The idea is that commercial flying dominates all other transport methods in terms of safety, so any convex combination of other transportation options, to get the same person miles done, is dominated by the commercial flying approach. (Note that flying generally allows approximately direct routes in a way that cars can't -- they are at mercy of the road system-- and certainly trains are limited by where the train tracks run, and I suspect there are similar issues with ships, so we could throw in triangle inequality as icing on the cake.)

 

[Borg]

Maybe. We'll have to wait for the results of the investigation, but one thing I suspect computer drivers still aren't good at is recognizing and reacting to threats before they happen (such as anticipating whether a pedestrian at the side of the road is about to try to cross). Whether or not that could have prevented this specific case, I suspect it is still a considerable issue in other cases. Part of that is that drivers and pedestrians communicate with each other in ways that autonomous vehicles are not yet able to do.

Agreed. While I try not to judge events through their news stories, this really looks like a case of someone stepping into the road without looking. Of course the family will sue and they will probably get something - lawyers will always be chasing ambulances.

While it's beyond my skillset as a programmer, I agree with your suspicions about threat recognition. However, I think that the companies that have been designing and building these cars have done a remarkable job so far. The accident rate has been much smaller than I expected. And I'm REEEALY GLAD that this isn't a government, lowest-bidder project.

 

[OmCheeto]

About an hour ago, the Tempe police department released a video of the accident:

 

[gleem]

If the standby driver had had his foot on the break he might I say "might" have kept the car from killing her.