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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Courtney
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Self
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of the first fatal accident involving a self-driving car, specifically an Uber vehicle that struck a pedestrian. Participants explore concerns regarding the safety, technology, and ethical considerations of autonomous vehicles, as well as the potential for learning from such incidents.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express serious concerns about the readiness of self-driving technology for public use, citing the small experimental base and the fatal incident as indicators of potential risks.
  • Questions arise regarding the size of the experimental fleet and how its accident rates compare to those of human-driven vehicles.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the accident, with some suggesting it could be due to a bug, bad programming, or an unavoidable situation, while others speculate on pedestrian error.
  • Some participants highlight the potential for engineers to analyze the incident in detail, which could lead to improvements in autonomous vehicle technology.
  • Concerns are raised about the legal implications of the accident, including who might be held responsible if the incident is deemed avoidable.
  • Data is presented comparing the accident rates of autonomous vehicles to those of human drivers, with some arguing that the current data may not accurately reflect future autonomous vehicle performance.
  • Participants note the ethical considerations of testing potentially dangerous technology on the public and the moral implications of such trials.
  • Some express skepticism about the future of autonomous vehicles, fearing that media coverage of accidents will negatively impact public perception.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the causes of the accident, the implications for self-driving technology, and the ethical considerations surrounding its testing.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainty about the specific circumstances of the accident, the definitions of safety in the context of autonomous vehicles, and the unresolved nature of the technology's reliability compared to human drivers.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the safety and ethical implications of autonomous vehicles, technology developers, policymakers, and those concerned with transportation safety may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Spinnor said:
That is crazy! If anything the damn car should have been going slower because of the new technology and slower because it was night. Uber, guilty. Pay up many millions. And do like they do in Asian countries, the CEO should get down on his knees and beg forgiveness to the community and the women's surviving family.
For 3 mph over the limit and an accident that was likely the pedestrian's fault? Do you think that a vehicle that is going significantly slower than the rest of the traffic is less or more of a hazard? It's more.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Borg said:
For 3 mph over the limit and an accident that was likely the pedestrian's fault?

The car was in clear violation of the rules of the road. Uber, guilty.
 
  • #33
Spinnor said:
The car was in clear violation of the rules of the road. Uber, guilty.
Are you going to lock up every driver on the road then?
 
  • #34
Borg said:
Are you going to lock up every driver on the road then?

No. But this is new tech. Why the hell is it going over the speed limit? Guilty. Pay up Uber. What is the stinking rush.
 
  • #35
Spinnor said:
No. But this is new tech. Why the hell is it going over the speed limit? Guilty. Pay up Uber.
As I stated before, a vehicle going much slower than the rest of the traffic is a hazard. I don't know if there was additional traffic but driving 3 mph over the speed limit is the last thing that I think that anyone would be alarmed over.
 
  • #36
Borg said:
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.
 
  • #37
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #38
Borg said:
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!
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #40
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #41
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Borg
  • #42
Borg said:
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.
 
  • #43
Borg said:
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.
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #45
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NTL2009
  • #46
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #47
Borg said:
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 :cool:. 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.
 
  • #48
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #49
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #50
Spinnor said:
You are a science advisor, you are smart and probably drive smart :cool:. 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".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Spinnor
  • #51
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #52
Spinnor said:
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?
 
  • #53
russ_watters said:
Have you never had to swerve to avoid hitting someone/something?

City driving, yes. Now that I think of it, many times.
 
  • #54
Spinnor said:
City driving, yes.
Have you ever crossed the centerline in doing so? Would you?
 
  • #55
russ_watters said:
Have you ever crossed the centerline in doing so? Would you?

In one particular case, I had to.
 
  • #56
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #58
Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #59

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?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News First fatal accident involving a car in self driving mode
  • · Replies 123 ·
5
Replies
123
Views
12K
How bright is the future of Maglev Cars?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Graduate BRS: PKI Cryptosystems for SA/Ms: A Tutorial
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K