akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 The problem with that scenario is that a driver won’t know or have time to process all of those options and the exact implications before they have to make a decision. It’s all instinctive reaction. I don’t really see where having a computer make that decision is really any worse than what happens every day with human drivers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 "There are situations where it’s impossible for a car to avoid hitting or killing a person. Period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human driver or autonomous". Based on your statement: Who is to blame? Lot's of "blame" in this thread... That is my point. The person who got hit is at fault, not the driver or the car. If you run out in front of a car and they don’t have time to stop, it’s your fault. Period. End of story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Now answer the question you asked worded a bit differently... All this does is eliminate the life long guilt that a good person carries when they are involved in a very unfortunate situation. Like rear ending someone. If a person stops in the middle of the road to text, or because they dropped their device, and you hit them from behind, then you are technically at fault. Where I came from, if you were not in full control of your car at all times, including the ability to make an unexpected emergency stop, then you were at fault. Guess times have changed, we are in the world of blame, blame, blame, now. It doesn't change the scenario. If a child/adult/dog/rabbit darts out in front of the car with no time to swerve or stop, it's not the car nor the driver's fault. It's just an accident that was only preventable by the object not running in front of the car. Plain and simple. And there is no eliminating the life-long guilt of killing or maiming someone in that situation. The person has to live with that their entire lives, whether they are at fault or not. It's not about blame. It's about NOT blaming someone who couldn't do anything to stop it. You can't blame the driver or the autonomous car if there is simply nothing they could do. Welcome to the future - I don't like it but I am old and nobody cares what I think - and so it goes... example: "In this case, the car will continue ahead and crash into a concrete barrier. This will result in the deaths of a criminal, a homeless person, and a baby." The other choice: "In this case the car will swerve and drive through a pedestrian crossing in the other lane. This will result in the deaths of a large man, a large woman, and an elderly man. Note that the affected persons are flouting the law by crossing on the red signal." The questions — harsh and uncomfortable as they may be in outcome — reflect some of the public discomfort with autonomous vehicles. People like to think about the social good in abstract scenarios, but when it comes time to actually buy a car, they are going to protect their occupants, the data shows. https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/23/12010476/social-dilemma-autonomous-vehicles-car-moral-machine-trolley-problem That decision will be made by a human in an instant if there is no autonomy. The human won't have all the facts, either, and it will be gut instinct. There's no way to know what any of us would do. Oh, and the car doesn't know that the person is homeless or a criminal or elderly. Neither does the human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) The person who got hit is at fault, not the driver or the car. If you run out in front of a car and they don’t have time to stop, it’s your fault. Period. End of story. Is that what a judge/jury will say - period end of story, or is that just you? Edited March 20, 2018 by Kev-Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 It doesn't change the scenario. If a child/adult/dog/rabbit darts out in front of the car with no time to swerve or stop, it's not the car nor the driver's fault. It's just an accident that was only preventable by the object not running in front of the car. Plain and simple. And there is no eliminating the life-long guilt of killing or maiming someone in that situation. The person has to live with that their entire lives, whether they are at fault or not. It's not about blame. It's about NOT blaming someone who couldn't do anything to stop it. You can't blame the driver or the autonomous car if there is simply nothing they could do. That decision will be made by a human in an instant if there is no autonomy. The human won't have all the facts, either, and it will be gut instinct. There's no way to know what any of us would do. Oh, and the car doesn't know that the person is homeless or a criminal or elderly. Neither does the human. Read the article - It is about asking groups to determine how the car should be programmed in certain scenarios - strike a pole or hit pedestrians? What the data indicates is that when engineers meet with focus groups and ask what the car should do, the majority says protect the occupants over hitting pedestrians. Human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Is that what a judge/jury will say - period end of story, or is that just you? That’s the law. The person would not be charged with a crime. Now if you’re talking about a civil trial where someone will sue saying the driver or the vehicle mfr were partially at fault that’s a completely different issue. People sue and win all the time when they shouldn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Is that what a judge/jury will say - period end of story, or is that just you? I have no idea the point you’re trying to make in relation to the topic being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 "There are situations where it’s impossible for a car to avoid hitting or killing a person. Period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human driver or autonomous". Based on your statement: Who is to blame? Lot's of "blame" in this thread... That is my point. Is that what a judge/jury will say - period end of story, or is that just you? You complain about lots of blame, then you worry about who's to blame in court? It's no telling what a judge/jury would say. If they have the facts and make a good, sound, judgement, then yes, they would say what akirby said. However, each case is different, and you know as well as I do that there have been a lot of wacky cases with no rhyme or reasoning in the verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 That’s the law. The person would not be charged with a crime. Now if you’re talking about a civil trial where someone will sue saying the driver or the vehicle mfr were partially at fault that’s a completely different issue. People sue and win all the time when they shouldn’t. You mean the civil trial that will result from this new development: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-that-killed-arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html Guess we know now where all the 'blame' is going to end up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 You mean the civil trial that will result from this new development: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-that-killed-arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html Guess we know now where all the 'blame' is going to end up. That’s bullshit. Being a convicted felon doesn’t impact or disqualify a person from operating a vehicle and has no impact on whether the driver or vehicle was at fault. Just because we have ambulance chasing lawyers and stupid juries that doesn’t mean it’s a valid issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) I have no idea the point you’re trying to make in relation to the topic being discussed My point is: What I believe is missing from this thread is that notion that anytime a vehicle has an incident with a pedestrian or a cyclist the vehicle will cause destruction, and the pedestrian/cyclist will be the loser. Therefore it is the inherent obligation of the vehicle operator to exercise extra caution in the case that an unfortunate mistake, or action - by the pedestrian or cyclist - happens at the instant the two come together. Can this be programmed into an autonomous vehicle? Do others here share my notion that it is the obligation of the operator or is it just the law? You have been blasting me for implying that a vehicle operator should strive to be aware of what might happen and possibly avoid these accidents, even if the other is at 'fault'. Is that relevant enough to the topic? Edited March 20, 2018 by Kev-Mo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Read the article - It is about asking groups to determine how the car should be programmed in certain scenarios - strike a pole or hit pedestrians? What the data indicates is that when engineers meet with focus groups and ask what the car should do, the majority says protect the occupants over hitting pedestrians. Human nature. Yes, human nature. Protect me and my family in all cases. I get that. Thing is, autonomous cars can determine that so they need to be programmed to choose. We as humans normally cannot, in that split second, decide which is the most desirable action. We are driven by instinct, not programming. Autonomous cars need to be programmed to make the choice with the least injuries, regardless of who gets injured. It doesn't know that it's going to kill a criminal or a pregnant mother of 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 My point is: What I believe is missing from this thread is that notion that anytime a vehicle has an incident with a pedestrian or a cyclist the vehicle will cause destruction, and the pedestrian/cyclist will be the loser. Therefore it is the inherent obligation of the vehicle operator to exercise extra caution in the case that an unfortunate mistake, or action - by the pedestrian or cyclist - happens at the instant the two come together. Can this be programmed into an autonomous vehicle? Do others here share my notion that it is the obligation of the operator or is it just the law? You have been blasting me for implying that a vehicle operator should strive to be aware of what might happen and possibly avoid these accidents, even if the other is at 'fault' He's not blasting you for implying the vehicle operator should strive to be aware, he's (and I) am saying that there are instances when the driver and car just simply CANNOT avoid the circumstances. You can't drive through a residential neighborhood at 5 MPH because there is the potential for a kid to dart out in front of you. You can stop at green lights because there is the potential from someone to disobey the don't-walk sign. Be alert and exercise caution, yes, but there are instances when you just can't do anything. It has nothing to do with any laws other than the laws of physics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 You mean the civil trial that will result from this new development: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-that-killed-arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html Guess we know now where all the 'blame' is going to end up. What the hell does being a felon and server jail time have to do with anything? Had he shot her with a gun, it would be a different story, but he didn't break any law by 'driving' the car. The video also mentions that there is no perceived fault at this time to the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 maybe the car had been drinking.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 He's not blasting you for implying the vehicle operator should strive to be aware, he's (and I) am saying that there are instances when the driver and car just simply CANNOT avoid the circumstances. You can't drive through a residential neighborhood at 5 MPH because there is the potential for a kid to dart out in front of you. You can stop at green lights because there is the potential from someone to disobey the don't-walk sign. Be alert and exercise caution, yes, but there are instances when you just can't do anything. It has nothing to do with any laws other than the laws of physics.k Couldn’t have said it better myself. Can SOME drivers anticipate these situations and avoid an accident in SOME cases? Sure. But most drivers are oblivious and there is a limit as to how careful you can be. Nobody is arguing that human drivers can make better decisions in certain circumstances even if it’s just “intuition”. That doesn’t change who is at fault in an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 What the hell does being a felon and server jail time have to do with anything? Had he shot her with a gun, it would be a different story, but he didn't break any law by 'driving' the car. The video also mentions that there is no perceived fault at this time to the vehicle. I didn't write the article - and the lawyers will chase this down no matter what we think- right or wrong in one's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) k Couldn’t have said it better myself. Can SOME drivers anticipate these situations and avoid an accident in SOME cases? Sure. But most drivers are oblivious and there is a limit as to how careful you can be. Nobody is arguing that human drivers can make better decisions in certain circumstances even if it’s just “intuition”. That doesn’t change who is at fault in an accident. Ok -fair enough -but at least you get my point now. Oblivious driving is never acceptable, Yes it does occur and I am not going to cast the first stone. I just thought this was missing among all the 'blame' comments. We are obligated to not be oblivious when driving. Edited March 20, 2018 by Kev-Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I didn't write the article - and the lawyers will chase this down no matter what we think- right or wrong in one's opinion. Wasn't necessarily directed at you, just ticked that people always try to blame something or someone. I mean seriously, sue because a felon was driving? Good grief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I get your point. It just wasn’t particularly relevant to the current discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) heres my issue....my computer crashes more in a week than my entire family, their kids, their kids kids, etc etc , has in their LIFETIME. Get a Mac or learn Linux. I am in IT though don't do desktop, of course that doesn't prevent everyone in my family from asking me to fix their Windows OS. If all you use a computer for is check email and surf the web get a chrome book, and use google's cloud. For a home computer you keep financial and other important data get an iMac or a Linux system. I replaced my Windows desktop with an iMac 10 years ago and have never, ever had an issue with it. My ex took that one five years ago and I bought myself another, I've never had an issue with it. For work I use Linux, am on my third system upgrade each with Linux, I have never, ever had an OS issue with any. In my opinion is Windows is 10% engineering 90% a elaborate sales job. On the other hand I am 100% against self driving cars; I hope this incident puts uber into chapter 11 and halts any further progress on self driving cars. Edited March 20, 2018 by meyeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 maybe the car had been drinking.... Oh, the evils of gasohol. Maybe we should start an automotive temperance movement... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I hope this incident puts uber into chapter 11 Autonomous shared cars are necessary for Uber to survive. That's why they're doing a lot of research and development in that area. Uber's current business model of paying people using personal cars to drive for them isn't sustainable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 Get a Mac or learn Linux. I am in IT though don't do desktop, of course that doesn't prevent everyone in my family from asking me to fix their Windows OS. If all you use a computer for is check email and surf the web get a chrome book, and use google's cloud. For a home computer you keep financial and other important data get an iMac or a Linux system. I replaced my Windows desktop with an iMac 10 years ago and have never, ever had an issue with it. My ex took that one five years ago and I bought myself another, I've never had an issue with it. For work I use Linux, am on my third system upgrade each with Linux, I have never, ever had an OS issue with any. In my opinion is Windows is 10% engineering 90% a elaborate sales job. In my almost 20 years of working in IT-the biggest enemy of Windows is cheap ass/crappy hardware people try to run it on. Linux is way too much for the average home user- FFS we barely do it in the industries I work in-then again we need to meet government requirements and Windows is the path of least resistance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said. The police have not released the videos. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.