What's so different now? (go get a horse)

[Philosophy Explorer]

That's because the driver was inattentive. Watch the video.

Wow that was sad.

Over here that 'assisted' driver would be prosecuted as they were clearly checking their phone which is illegal but from the footage it seems quite clear that no-one or thing would have been able to stop in time as that cyclist came out of nowhere with no lights or any relective clothing. I'm amazed that given she's a cyclist she appears to have had no self-preservation or road skills as surely she could see the car coming and judged it's speed before she crossed?

Except, Arising, these vehicles are supposed to be equipped with LIDAR to detect anybody no matter how
"invisible" they are.

Ultimately all the accidents involving these cars will be resolved within the court system and then we'll see how things will move along (legislatively speaking) which will take years. Currently there's too much speculation based on media reporting.

Based on closely tracking the media for negative reporting, I believe a potential exists for saving 30,000 lives annually in the US along with billions of dollars.

PhilX

[Walker]

What’s interesting to consider is that some scientist figured out that folks keep seeking the edge of the safety improvements. Better tires, suspension, brakes and design don’t mean that people go the same speed to be safe, to take advantage of the improvements. It means that folks constantly push the edge, drive faster, corner sharper, maneuver more, and tailgate because of those great brakes and their self-assessed superior driving skills.

What’s funny is that the car commercials show attractive folks fiording streams with the machine, scaling mountains off road from the comfort of the machine, driving 90 mph on the Bonneville salt flats, sloloming through the Valley of Fire north of Las Vegas in AC comfort, and never with another car in sight.

The realistic commercial would be inching along during rush hour, but that’s not selling the dream.

Folks don't dream about squeezing into a European sardine can.

[Philosophy Explorer]

What’s interesting to consider is that some scientist figured out that folks keep seeking the edge of the safety improvements. Better tires, suspension, brakes and design don’t mean that people go the same speed to be safe, to take advantage of the improvements. It means that folks constantly push the edge, drive faster, corner sharper, maneuver more, and tailgate because of those great brakes and their self-assessed superior driving skills.

Once 100% driverless takes over (no backup driver, no way of altering the car to disable the automated system), whenever that may be, this will become irrelevant.

Does anyone want to take a stab at when driverless cars will take over, beyond the testing stage?

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

Unless the homeless woman on the bicycle was completely suicidal, and I doubt if she was, I could have stopped, or swerved. ...

Maybe but doubtful you'd have missed her as she came out of the shadows and did you see how fast she appeared in the lights. Ah! Homeless, so not quite on the mental ball probably.

More importantly, doesn't the car have automatic braking?

Like anti-lock doesn't matter if the person is within the possible braking distance.

It was some Volvo model.

Might have been electric and it quietly sneaked up on her.

With great big headlights on at night?

As an aside, those autonoumous cars must be getting pretty good as did you see how inattentive and comfortable the assisted-driver was? That comes from experience and confidence I reckon.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Arising said:

"Ah! Homeless, so not quite on the mental ball probably."

Not a factor as the ultimate responsibility lies with the car's manufacturer along with the local authorities.

Once this works its way through the court system, we'll get a better idea how this plays out. Everything else is preliminary.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

Except, Arising, these vehicles are supposed to be equipped with LIDAR to detect anybody no matter how
"invisible" they are. ...

Sounds like it wasn't working then but given she had no reflective gear on couldn't have helped.

Personally I think the pedestrian/cyclist has a lot of culpability in this case as it's just plain stupid to walk out in front of a fast moving car at night, one with its headlights on to boot.

[Arising_uk]

...

Not a factor as the ultimate responsibility lies with the car's manufacturer along with the local authorities.

...

I disagree, the ultimate responsibility relies upon the person who values their life and walking acoss an unlit road in front of a lit fast moving car at night is not very responsible. If you can't cross a road safely use the crossing provided by the local authorites.

[Walker]

Except, Arising, these vehicles are supposed to be equipped with LIDAR to detect anybody no matter how
"invisible" they are. ...

Sounds like it wasn't working then but given she had no reflective gear on couldn't have helped.

Personally I think the pedestrian/cyclist has a lot of culpability in this case as it's just plain stupid to walk out in front of a fast moving car at night, one with its headlights on to boot.

One could even say, suspiciously stupid.

She was an unanticipated variable.

Fault reality. It’s full of such things.

If the machines can’t adapt to reality, which includes unanticipated variables, then folks better adapt to the machines because somebody other than consumer demand is pushing hard to make these things the norm. Folks just better get used to not stepping outside that crosswalk. No more unmapped road trips for the spontaneous adventurer.

Get in line and know your place, which in her case is at fault.

If you go out and run over someone, and claim it was unavoidable, manslaughter charges for you. The machine gets a pass, the human gets blamed, and so many machine apologists!

Self-driving autos are kinda like the California so-called bullet train. Only the vested interests wanted that boondoggle of conception and faults, including the San Andreas.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Except, Arising, these vehicles are supposed to be equipped with LIDAR to detect anybody no matter how
"invisible" they are. ...

Sounds like it wasn't working then but given she had no reflective gear on couldn't have helped.

Personally I think the pedestrian/cyclist has a lot of culpability in this case as it's just plain stupid to walk out in front of a fast moving car at night, one with its headlights on to boot.

"Sounds like..." Speculation. Presuming this goes to court since a person died, I'd prefer to wait for a court ruling which should include a complete investigation.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

What’s interesting to consider is that some scientist figured out that folks keep seeking the edge of the safety improvements. Better tires, suspension, brakes and design don’t mean that people go the same speed to be safe, to take advantage of the improvements. It means that folks constantly push the edge, drive faster, corner sharper, maneuver more, and tailgate because of those great brakes and their self-assessed superior driving skills. ...

I agree and they do lead to complacency and a reduction in driving skill. As I keep telling people just because you have anti-lock brakes in the wet does not mean you stop shorter than you would if you had the skill to wet-brake just that your lack of skill is removed and you stop in the shortest possible distance given the conditions but you'll still be slamming into the back of that lorry if you're too close.

Folks don't dream about squeezing into a European sardine can.

I'm not surprised as their lardy arses wouldn't fit. But I understand why the American car is why it is given the roads and distances, it's why we don't buy them in general as we don't want to crash at the first corner we come to.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Except, Arising, these vehicles are supposed to be equipped with LIDAR to detect anybody no matter how
"invisible" they are. ...

Sounds like it wasn't working then but given she had no reflective gear on couldn't have helped.

Personally I think the pedestrian/cyclist has a lot of culpability in this case as it's just plain stupid to walk out in front of a fast moving car at night, one with its headlights on to boot.

One could even say, suspiciously stupid.

She was an unanticipated variable.

Fault reality. It’s full of such things.

If the machines can’t adapt to reality, which includes unanticipated variables, then folks better adapt to the machines because somebody other than consumer demand is pushing hard to make these things the norm. Folks just better get used to not stepping outside that crosswalk. No more unmapped road trips for the spontaneous adventurer.

Get in line and know your place, which in her case is at fault.

If you go out and run over someone, and claim it was unavoidable, manslaughter charges for you. The machine gets a pass, the human gets blamed, and so many machine apologists!

Self-driving autos are kinda like the California so-called bullet train. Only the vested interests wanted that boondoggle of conception and faults, including the San Andreas.

Again I'd wait for a complete investigation than speculate. Also any pedestrian shouldn't have to adjust for driverless cars (do you take into account airplanes when you go out for a walk?)

PhilX

[Walker]

Again I'd wait for a complete investigation than speculate. Also any pedestrian shouldn't have to adjust for driverless cars (do you take into account airplanes when you go out for a walk?)

PhilX

Funny that you mention that because I do, ever since I was walking in the desert one day and a 747 was apparently waved off his pattern. From behind I hear this curious noise. I turn and boy here he comes, low, right at me. I thought he might be crashing but he maintained the pitiful excuse for altitude and went right over over me. I saw the belly of the beast up close. It would have been totally illegal if not over wasteland. So, I really don’t assume that jets will always be in the sky, although if he was crashing, there wouldn’t have been a damn thing I could have done other than try a futile perpendicular sprint over uneven terrain.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Your touching attention to my typo is absolutely hilarious. Of course, there could actually be a place called Anerica where nearly everyone drives automatics (just like America).

I think women demand the automatic transmissions. There’s just too much luxury to be bothered with shifting the gear stick thingy while driving. Attention goes to eating the Big Mac, drinking the half-gallon sized soda pop, smokin’ ‘em if you gottem, checking the GPS, adjusting the temperature of the heated seats, applying makeup to face, flossing the Big Mac out of the teeth, fielding the messages and phone calls, monitoring the movies for the soccer brats in the back, opening the moon roof, closing the moon roof, adjusting the rear-view mirror so it reflects back into the eyes of the asshole tailgating you, and not mowing down homeless women on bicycles even though interactive autos are supposed to apply the brakes in place of your inattentive self, if you can believe the commercials.

So it's only women who buy cars in your country? Or eat McDonalds?

[Science Fan]

PC people always get apoplexy when they see a large vehicle, without thinking why someone would own one. A person may have a large family. A person may have to drive in areas where a large vehicle works well. A person may be active in driving their kids to sporting events, along with other team members. The person may do a lot of camping. The PC crowd always thinks everyone should be driving little cramped cars.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How am I a hypocrite?
Wow, I was able to comfortably fit 5 people into a fiat uno when I had one. Y'all must have huge families ( 'huge' in more ways than one).