Self-driving car kills pedestrian

in my humble opinion these self driving cars have little do do with safety, it's all about money.
these people pushing the issue are just using safety as their excuse to make billions. the only reason governments are even considering it is they're all in the pockets of the car manufacturers.

reminds me of the breathalyser 'law' they used to have in france where it was found the only 'approved' device was made by a manufacturer that the french politician who campaigned so hard for has a vested interest in.

Controversy hits France's crackdown on drink driving - France 24
 


lenshack said:
I would have thought “self driving car” meant exactly that, with no third party input required other than the destination.

With the requirement for someone to be available at all times to take over the steering, as I understand it,
in reality it hasn’t even reached that stage yet.

The mind boggles at what mayhem could occur if they turned these things loose in a busy city centre of some backward country, with traffic regulation and road signs about as clear as mud.
Click to expand...
They aren't turning them loose now man. It'll be another decade before that happens.
 
Morse said:
When Concorde crashed, it statistically became the most unsafe passenger aircraft, despite its previously impeccable record.
There’s probably a billion or more cars on the world’s roads, and hardly any driverless cars. I wonder how the statistics would look if they were adjusted accordingly?

Having said that, viewing the footage, I’d say the pedestrian was mainly responsible for their own demise.
People have to take some responsibility for their own safety, but you get hammered for saying that these days.
Frankly, the pedestrian was either deaf and blind, or simple.

I reckon I’d have stood a reasonable chance of seeing the pedestrian, though it’s hard to tell as cameras and eyes are very different. The technology should have spotted the pedestrian, no question. The car didn’t even look like it braked at the last split second, or took any evasive action.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many youngsters will take a delight in playing chicken with driverless cars once they’ve weighed up their capabilities and limitations ?
Multiple shunts could well become the order of the day.
 
lenshack said:
I wonder how many youngsters will take a delight in playing chicken with driverless cars once they’ve weighed up their capabilities and limitations ?
Multiple shunts could well become the order of the day.
Click to expand...
Their limitations are the laws of physics. I'd suggest not running in front of one as it will likely run you over. They have the same stopping distance as cars driven by humans.
 
James said:
You simply can't argue with the science mate. I have no horse in this race, just going off data. Hard to swallow for some I know.
Click to expand...

Modern living comes at a cost to the environment. It’s impossible for humans to live as we do without negatively impacting the planet. We can take steps to mitigate it somewhat, but right now I think worrying about tyre and brake dust pollution is going a bit too far! We have much greater worries than that.
 
humbug said:
in my humble opinion these self driving cars have little do do with safety, it's all about money.
these people pushing the issue are just using safety as their excuse to make billions. the only reason governments are even considering it is they're all in the pockets of the car manufacturers.

reminds me of the breathalyser 'law' they used to have in france where it was found the only 'approved' device was made by a manufacturer that the french politician who campaigned so hard for has a vested interest in.

Controversy hits France's crackdown on drink driving - France 24
Click to expand...

If they cost a lot more than manual cars then nobody will buy them, simple as that. Like any product, it is about making money, but when most people change their car every 4 years, I can’t see a massive difference sales wise. It will just be like any other car tech, must have feature.
 
Morse said:
When Concorde crashed, it statistically became the most unsafe passenger aircraft, despite its previously impeccable record.
There’s probably a billion or more cars on the world’s roads, and hardly any driverless cars. I wonder how the statistics would look if they were adjusted accordingly?

Having said that, viewing the footage, I’d say the pedestrian was mainly responsible for their own demise.
People have to take some responsibility for their own safety, but you get hammered for saying that these days.
Frankly, the pedestrian was either deaf and blind, or simple.

I reckon I’d have stood a reasonable chance of seeing the pedestrian, though it’s hard to tell as cameras and eyes are very different. The technology should have spotted the pedestrian, no question. The car didn’t even look like it braked at the last split second, or took any evasive action.
Click to expand...
Watching the signs (especially on the right) they seem to illuminate as if the indicators are flashing a few times.
 
Morse said:
Modern living comes at a cost to the environment. It’s impossible for humans to live as we do without negatively impacting the planet. We can take steps to mitigate it somewhat, but right now I think worrying about tyre and brake dust pollution is going a bit too far! We have much greater worries than that.
Click to expand...

More concerned about its impact on health than the environment. It doesn't need to be this way, and it is possible to reduce it.

Particle pollution from electric cars could be worse than from diesel ones
 
James said:
More concerned about its impact on health than the environment. It doesn't need to be this way, and it is possible to reduce it.

Particle pollution from electric cars could be worse than from diesel ones
Click to expand...
That is a terrible article and is very misleading on face value. 90% of emmissions from electric cars will be breaks, tyres and road dust, billed to be a shocking statistic. It does not mention how much total emissions will fall. It is like saying if someine turns off their loud music then 90% of the noise in the room will be from breathing. It does not mean everyone in the room is about to turn into Darth Vader.

It should be saying that break dust could be up to x% higher but total emissions are y% lower and y is far greater than x.

A bike will also add tyre and break dust along with kicking up road dust. You could paint a bike in the negative way.
 
DaveH said:
That is a terrible article and is very misleading on face value. 90% of emmissions from electric cars will be breaks, tyres and road dust, billed to be a shocking statistic. It does not mention how much total emissions will fall. It is like saying if someine turns off their loud music then 90% of the noise in the room will be from breathing. It does not mean everyone in the room is about to turn into Darth Vader.

It should be saying that break dust could be up to x% higher but total emissions are y% lower and y is far greater than x.

A bike will also add tyre and break dust along with kicking up road dust. You could paint a bike in the negative way.
Click to expand...

Aye its not the best, but was only used to show I was talking about health, not about environmental impact. As I say, there are journal articles on this but it's very dull and not really relevant (or anything anyone wants to talk about).
 
I just don;t understand the story, surely this is the end of self driving cars, I thought the whole point of them was this couldn't happen?
 
The Rat said:
I just don;t understand the story, surely this is the end of self driving cars, I thought the whole point of them was this couldn't happen?
Click to expand...

Not a lot of point in them anyway, if they still need someone behind the wheel ready to steer them at a moments notice.
 
lenshack said:
Not a lot of point in them anyway, if they still need someone behind the wheel ready to steer them at a moments notice.
Click to expand...

They are in their infancy. They will be the dominant mode of transport eventually.

The Rat said:
I just don;t understand the story, surely this is the end of self driving cars, I thought the whole point of them was this couldn't happen?
Click to expand...

It isn’t - or shouldn’t be - the end. Self driving cars aren’t perfect, and not all firms use a standard.

James said:
Yeah. It was just the first link I saw really. There are journal articles on it, but not something anyone would want to read. :)


You're being a complete bell again.
Click to expand...

That is the kind of thing you would say though. You are the cycle path evangelist. It isn’t a bad thing but it is the kind of thing you would say.
 
The Rat said:
I just don;t understand the story, surely this is the end of self driving cars, I thought the whole point of them was this couldn't happen?
Click to expand...
They did not stop development after the first car or plane accident.

It it were blatant that the person was visible and that the person was not taking a big silly risk then I would be more concerned. From this unfortunate accident, the technology will learn and improve.
 
I’m predicting they’ll never be perfected.
The pitfalls are far too many and complex and changing all the time as road systems and related issues constantly change around the world, not always for the better.

In some situations, as with tractors and combines on arable farms where all necessary factors are known and the human factor hardy exists, it can and does work well.
With commercial aircraft it is a partial success, though still continuing to bring along its own problems.
But on the constantly varying worldwide road systems with their endless associated ongoing complications and issues, I won’t hold my breath.
 

Back
Top