[Viffermike]

And I repeat:

All of you peeps who are arguing the points that other peeps are offering only solidify what I believe will happen -- or not, as the case may be -- with autonomous tech:

We will not see widespread private use of fully automated cars within the next generation (20-25 years) in the U.S.

Imagine how this kind of conversation would go among lawyers. It will take years upon years to settle out. Then, imagine how this kind of conversation would go among lawmakers. Count on more years upon years to legislate, tweak, legislate again. Finally, imagine what lobbyists and other officials for insurance companies, tech companies, vehicle manufacturers, and other large corporate parties will do to turn both conversations above. Go ahead and add some more years upon years.

It's one thing to standardize the use of 'automatic' safety equipment such as seat belts, air bags, and ABS systems that affect one larger machine. It's quite another to standardize the automatic use of an entire machine that affects uncountable other machines, as well as environmental factors that utilize little to no safety control and, thus, cannot be reliably accounted for in any artificial algorithm. We simply don't have the computing and processing power of nature.

Yet.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

I'm sure there are other articles stating the same point but from "Can You Sue a Robocar?" in The Atlantic:



Maybe IK6SPEED Esq. can intervene and clear this whole "muddy and confused" thing up for everyone?

Asked and answered.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

And I repeat:

All of you peeps who are arguing the points that other peeps are offering only solidify what I believe will happen -- or not, as the case may be -- with autonomous tech:

We will not see widespread private use of fully automated cars within the next generation (20-25 years) in the U.S.

Imagine how this kind of conversation would go among lawyers. It will take years upon years to settle out. Then, imagine how this kind of conversation would go among lawmakers. Count on more years upon years to legislate, tweak, legislate again. Finally, imagine what lobbyists and other officials for insurance companies, tech companies, vehicle manufacturers, and other large corporate parties will do to turn both conversations above. Go ahead and add some more years upon years.

It's one thing to standardize the use of 'automatic' safety equipment such as seat belts, air bags, and ABS systems that affect one larger machine. It's quite another to standardize the automatic use of an entire machine that affects uncountable other machines, as well as environmental factors that utilize little to no safety control and, thus, cannot be reliably accounted for in any artificial algorithm. We simply don't have the computing and processing power of nature.

Yet.

As stated previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

Current trends point to your opinion being incorrect.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

That has been established as incorrect

By who? the police? By 'established' it feels to me that you imply that that legally/officially has been contradicted by a party that has an official mandate over that matter.
I know that that local paper says otherwise, but I would like to know if the police stated it in an official press statement/press report, or if the SF chronicle made it up (and did they also made up that specific number of 38mph?, so in essence what info did the sf chronicle use to specifically mention 38mph and 35mph speed limit)

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

By who?
I know that local paper says otherwise, but I would like to know if the police stated it in an official press statement/press report, or if the SF chronicle made it up (and did they also made up that specific number of 38mph?)

Reread last 3 pages.

Established multiple times.

Local paper and google street view as well.

Police also stated victim had just stepped off curb in initial reports.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

We will not see widespread private use of fully automated cars within the next generation (20-25 years) in the U.S.

Key point..."in the US". I'd expect the rest of the world will adopt autonomous tech way before the US.

[UncleWede]

They showed video (graphically disturbing) on NBC last night. I probably wouldn't have seen her in time due to lighting but I thought these cars should "see" better that there was an object in the road

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Local paper and google street view as well.

But a local paper doesnt have a mandate. Did or did not the police say in ANY release to the press that the vehicle was moving 38mph or/and that the speed limit at that spot was 35mph.
You say you've read everything on this matter, but you dont answer this question.
I'm not interested in what the local papers say or what streetview says, I'm interested in what the police officially released to the press. Because that determins if the SF chronicle made stuff up or not.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But a local paper doesnt have a mandate. Did or did not the police say in ANY release to the press that the vehicle was moving 38mph or that the speed limit at that spot was 35mph.
You say you've read everything on this matter, but you dont answer this question.
I'm not interested in what the local papers say or what streetview says, I'm interested in what the police officially released to the press.

Asked and answered only 10 minutes ago.

Geez

Please read.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Asked and answered.

Geez

Please read.

Then give the post.
Where do you show all content on all official police press releases related to this incident?

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Key point..."in the US". I'd expect the rest of the world will adopt autonomous tech way before the US.

Great observation; That's a fair point that I hoped to elicit with that lil' detail.

Yay for reading comprehension!

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Another article related to ADS liability.

From "A Self-Driving Uber Killed a Woman. Whose Fault Is It?" in The New Republic

There’s an ongoing debate about legal liability when it comes to collisions in which an autonomous vehicle harms someone else through no fault of that person. Would the blame lie with the self-driving car’s owner, manufacturer, a combination of the two, or someone else? In their quest to become the Mecca of self-driving cars, Arizona regulators have largely left those questions unanswered, The New York Times reported last year:

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Then give the post.
Where do you show all content on all official police press releases related to this incident?

I do not repost incorrect information (as far as I know).

That’s why I researched this from multiple sources and posted them.

Facts.

Not my opinion.

[M3_WC]

Irrelevant to the argument going on here. But how did this lady not see headlights coming? Who is crossing streets in the middle of night, with no crosswalk hoping cars will stop. Weird behavior.

Edit: I see the woman was homeless and has many priors relating to drugs. Guess that explains the behavior.

Interesting cast of characters, driver formally known as Rafael was convicted of armed robbery. Who now identifies as a woman. Runs over a homeless woman wandering streets of Arizona, while passenger/driver of an autonomous Uber car. You couldn't make that up if you tried.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I do not repost incorrect information (as far as I know).

That’s why I researched this from multiple sources and posted them.

Facts.

Not my opinion.

But you still cant (or wont) answer my question.
So let me rephrase:
- Was there an official police statement that said the speed limit there was 35mph.
- Was there an official police statement that said the car was doing 38mph.

2 simple questions. Should be easy to answer for someone that claims to have read everyting and have researched it so thoroughly from multiple sources.
Or are you afraid to say that you dont know if there were?
Because there are only 3 answers possible to those questions:
1. yes
2. no
3. I dont know.

My answer to both is 3: I dont know.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Irrelevant to the argument going on here. But how did this lady not see headlights coming? Who is crossing streets in the middle of night, with no crosswalk hoping cars will stop. Weird behavior.

Edit: I see the woman was homeless and has many priors relating to drugs. Guess that explains the behavior.

Interesting cast of characters, driver formally known has Rafael was convicted of armed robbery. Who now identifies as a woman. Runs over a homeless woman wandering streets of Arizona, while passager/driver of an autonomous Uber car. You couldn't make that up if you tried.

To be fair (though most posting here are not) LEO reported they do not think victim was impaired at the time.

Though her mental condition is most likely in question given the facts you posted and that she continued her leisurely pace across street right up to point of being struck.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But you still cant (or wont) answer my question.
So let me rephrase:
- Was there an official police statement that said the speed limit there was 35mph.
- Was there an official police statement that said the car was doing 38mph.

2 simple questions. Should be easy to answer for someone that claims to have read everyting and have researched it so thoroughly from multiple sources.
Or are you afraid to say that you dont know if there were?
Because there are only 3 answers possible to those questions:
1. yes
2. no
3. I dont know.

My answer to both is 3: I dont know.

1) Yes. To both.

Asked and answered in thread previously.

You even posted link to article, so why are you questioning this?

You DO know answer to questions.

The person quoted was in a position to make official police statement.

It was also quoted in Phoenix Paper.

ABOUT 40 MPH was what investigating officer initially stated.

Official Spokesman then stated 38 MPH.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

So the initial report from the SF chronicle that the car was speeding was not correct:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php
"Traveling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone on Sunday night, the Uber self-driving car made no attempt to brake, according to the Police Department’s preliminary investigation."
They way they write it, to me it reads that that was stated in the police report/investigation, but maybe you can read it multiple ways that the speeding is a speculation and that that only the statement that the car made no attempt to brake is taken from the police investigation (and the speed obviously, or that would be a really wild guess).
Does anyone have that actual official press release from the police they refer to, or is it only sent to newspapers and such? Would be interesting to see if the police actually stated that or that the SF chronicle made that up.
If the police really stated that to the press and it turns out not to be true, that would be a strange mistake.... Usually you come up with specifics (speeds etc) once they have been verified by the tech staff.
I only saw the media interview on fox, but there only "approximately 40mph" was mentioned. So I would like to know from which official statement/report did the sf chronicle get that 38mph and did that statement/report also say the car was speeding (or that the speedlimit was 35mph).

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

1) Yes. To both.

Asked and answered in thread previously.

You even posted link to article, so why are you questioning this?

You DO know answer to questions.

The person quoted was in a position to make official police statement.

It was also quoted in Phoenix Paper.

ABOUT 40 MPH was what investigating officer initially stated.

Official Spokesman then stated 38 MPH.

Ok, this is still not proof as it's not a written or filmed statement, its a report on an interview, written by a reporter.
But you believe that Sylvia Moir, the chief of police, made the mistake to say that at the place of the accident the speed limit was 35mph? So that she spreads incorrect factual information regarding this accident? That would be some mistake to make for a police chief, not knowing the speed limit at the scene of a traffic accident scene that is followed globally by every news channel etc.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Ok, this is still not proof as it's not a written or filmed statement, its a report on an interview, written by a reporter.
But you believe that Sylvia Moir, the chief of police, made the mistake to say that at the place of the accident the speed limit was 35mph? So that she spreads incorrect factual information regarding this accident?

Actually, upon rereading, all reports of 35 MPH Zone are not in quotes, so it might very well be assumption by Media, who, like multiple poster in thread, assumed and did not check the facts.

EDIT: Apparently a Detective (Lily Duran) misspoke in the hours after the crash and that led to the confusion which has now become “gospel” as a result.

Pretty sad when the Verge double checks things that CNN, SF Chronicle, Fortune and AZ Central Paper and others (along with multiple thread posters) do not.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

This one from the Detroit News shows how concerning the safety of this technology is...

Howes: Hype takes a back seat in self-driving car death

[the accident in Tempe] should force a reappraisal across the industry and everyday consumers, among government regulators and overly bullish investors. The result: a clearer understanding that a self-driving future must reckon with a real-world reality of rules, safety and imperfect technology with a lot to learn.

“We’re still very much in the early days of making self-driving cars a reality,” Bryan Salesky, CEO of Ford Motor Co. wrote in a blog post last fall. “Those who think fully self-driving vehicles will be ubiquitous on city streets months from now or even in a few years are not well connected to the state of the art or the safe deployment of the technology.”

Sensors “have a long way to go,” he added. Cameras struggle in poorly lit conditions, but lidar sensors don’t. And “combining all of this into one comprehensive and robust picture of the world for the computer to process is incredibly difficult. Developing a system that can be manufactured and deployed at scale with cost-effective, maintainable hardware is even more challenging.”

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

From Tulsa World

Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman

The Volvo was in self-driving mode with a human backup driver at the wheel when it struck Herzberg, police said.

The video shows the human backup driver in the SUV looking down until seconds before the crash. The driver looks up and appears startled during the last moment of the clip.

Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir has told the San Francisco Chronicle that the SUV likely wouldn't be found at fault. But two experts who viewed the video told The Associated Press that the SUV's laser and radar sensors should have spotted Herzberg and her bicycle in time to brake.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."

Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.

"It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," he said. "From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian."

Smith said that from what he observed on the video, the Uber driver appears to be relying too much on the self-driving system by not looking up at the road.

"The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."

Just stating facts here... The local police are specifically referring to the Uber employee as the "driver."

Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez.

[IK6SPEED]

Just Stating facts here.

LEO said they will charge driver.

AZ Governor and Laws say that’s not the law and so any charges of that kind will not be upheld if they ever get to court.

LEO also stated victim had just stepped off curb and speed limit was 35 MPH.

False information takes on a life of its own, as witnessed in this thread and as people continue to repost known false information.