The Law Uber driverless car kills its first pedestrian.

[Number37]

"......the producer....."?

I was suggesting that in the event of a collision and subsequent litigation the outcome would be based on at least -but not necessarily exclusively - dual responsibilities ie degree of care the pedestrian took and whether a human would have handled the circumstances better. For example, been able to avoid or mitigate the damage. Expert witnesses would be used in determining the outcome you'd think.

As I've said, it's new territory. Different jurisdictions in the US, who are far further down the track than we are, have yet to develop a cohesive policy. We are taking it cautiously as we should.

Ordinarily causation is a question of fact, not law.
In the driverless scenario does causation become a question of law?

 

[RupieDupie]

"......the producer....."?

I was suggesting that in the event of a collision and subsequent litigation the outcome would be based on at least -but not necessarily exclusively - dual responsibilities ie degree of care the pedestrian took and whether a human would have handled the circumstances better. For example, been able to avoid or mitigate the damage. Expert witnesses would be used in determining the outcome you'd think.

As I've said, it's new territory. Different jurisdictions in the US, who are far further down the track than we are, have yet to develop a cohesive policy. We are taking it cautiously as we should.

Producer = CEO

Algorithm of autonomous vehicle;

X = Poor person

IF <pedestrian> == X, swerve to <pedestrian>, ELSE swerve away from <pedestrian>

Court the next day after a homeless man is killed by car;

Rich lawyer of CEO - Your honour, the AI which operates this vehicle is black box, we can only assume that after billions and billions of driving scenarios the best course of action was for the car to swerve onto the curb and take out the homeless guy. What say you judge?

Judge <counting munny under his desk> - I find the CEO... Not Guilty!

 

[AM]

Ordinarily causation is a question of fact, not law.
In the driverless scenario does causation become a question of law?

Is causation sufficient to create legal liability? In one State there is some questioning of the notion that causation is even a necessary element in some cases of liability.

Producer = CEO

Algorithm of autonomous vehicle;

X = Poor person

IF <pedestrian> == X, swerve to <pedestrian>, ELSE swerve away from <pedestrian>

Court the next day after a homeless man is killed by car;

Rich lawyer of CEO - Your honour, the AI which operates this vehicle is black box, we can only assume that after billions and billions of driving scenarios the best course of action was for the car to swerve onto the curb and take out the homeless guy. What say you judge?

Judge <counting munny under his desk> - I find the CEO... Not Guilty!

I'm going to have to call on my interpreter to give meaning to your post Rupie.

 

[RupieDupie]

Is causation sufficient to create legal liability? In one State there is some questioning of the notion that causation is even a necessary element in some cases of liability.


I'm going to have to call on my interpreter to give meaning to your post Rupie.

Well the CEO could create a decision making process in the algorithm whereby people he doesn’t like can be deliberately murdered by the “autonomous” vehicle, like poor people.

10 engineers are walking across the road with a CEO, the CEO is paid 4x the combined salary of the engineers, and therefore is valued higher than the engineers, an autonomous vehicle is driving along and cannot stop without hitting at least one of these pedestrians, who should it hit?

Most likely the CEO of Uber would have the algorithm make the car plough through the 10 engineers to save the CEO.

 

[cartwright]

Video of the incident from the car: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/v...omous-uber-was-distracted-before-fatal-crash/

 

[RobbieGray17]

Video of the incident from the car: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/v...omous-uber-was-distracted-before-fatal-crash/

Just saw the video, pedestrian came out of dark patch on the road. I estimate 15 metres to stop plus reaction time. No human driver would have stopped in time.

Technology could improve with better cameras and sensors with heat detection. But the number one thing we need to realize about autonomous cars is that they should only be used to AUGMENT our driving, not to replace it. The variability of roads will pose great problems on fully autonomous vehicles. If roads were more sophisticated we could possibly look at full automation. You can see from the video that the guy was not concentrating on the road for a significant amount of time. I feel as if these cars should only be used for accident avoidance, but not for full automation.

I'm not sure myself, but if you are driving in manual mode, can the computer take over to avoid an accident?

 

[cartwright]

Just saw the video, pedestrian came out of dark patch on the road. I estimate 15 metres to stop plus reaction time. No human driver would have stopped in time.

Technology could improve with better cameras and sensors with heat detection. But the number one thing we need to realize about autonomous cars is that they should only be used to AUGMENT our driving, not to replace it. The variability of roads will pose great problems on fully autonomous vehicles. If roads were more sophisticated we could possibly look at full automation. You can see from the video that the guy was not concentrating on the road for a significant amount of time. I feel as if these cars should only be used for accident avoidance, but not for full automation.

I'm not sure myself, but if you are driving in manual mode, can the computer take over to avoid an accident?

Yep... why would that person (who can see the lights of the car) keep crossing the road? Even though the driver is distracted, I am not convinced they would have averted the accident if they were concentrating. They possibly could have swerved, but with such a short reaction time, it might have had the same horrible result.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Yep... why would that person (who can see the lights of the car) keep crossing the road? Even though the driver is distracted, I am not convinced they would have averted the accident if they were concentrating. They possibly could have swerved, but with such a short reaction time, it might have had the same horrible result.

Agreed. I watched over and over, swerving would have possibly done worse if it clipped the side of the bike. Nearly every driver in a near accident like that would brake rather than swerve. Only those who have done professional motor sports, or defensive courses would swerve. I still don't like how people are treating these cars as fully autonomous and not concentrating on the road. Like I said, it should only serve as an accident avoidance system. Now we have scores of people running around saying autonomous cars are a problem and should be banned. If used correctly, it could spare 30K lives at least in the U.S a year.

Having said that, I'd like to know why the car didn't pick up the pedestrian. If they get that full proof, then accidents will be a thing of the past.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/h...ving-cars-are-supposed-to-detect-pedestrians/

 

[RupieDupie]

Just saw the video, pedestrian came out of dark patch on the road. I estimate 15 metres to stop plus reaction time. No human driver would have stopped in time.

Technology could improve with better cameras and sensors with heat detection. But the number one thing we need to realize about autonomous cars is that they should only be used to AUGMENT our driving, not to replace it. The variability of roads will pose great problems on fully autonomous vehicles. If roads were more sophisticated we could possibly look at full automation. You can see from the video that the guy was not concentrating on the road for a significant amount of time. I feel as if these cars should only be used for accident avoidance, but not for full automation.

I'm not sure myself, but if you are driving in manual mode, can the computer take over to avoid an accident?

When I heard about this I was under the impression the person would have been coming onto the road from a behind a few large objects, how could the car not sense this? In my understanding the car is utilising a variety of spectra to detect objects, like ultrasonic sensors, image sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors and the cloud - being dark should not be an issue (here's from my Google Search http://www.thedrive.com/tech/8657/heres-how-the-sensors-in-autonomous-cars-work)

Edited to add - I just read that the link Cartwright provided asks the same question.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Yes, this is a concern. I still think autonomous cars should only be used for accident avoidance, not automation. Not unless the roads are specifically designed to eliminate randomness. but then you'd be better off setting up a rapid transport network.

If we use the tech right, then we could save so many lives. You wouldn't have any off road crashes, no head on collisions, no side swipes, no rear end collisions. we could practically eliminate road fatalities.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Ford using vision systems, clearly would have picked up this woman.
https://www.dezeen.com/2015/07/21/f...strians-cyclists-animals-infrared-gps-design/

 

[RupieDupie]

Yes, this is a concern. I still think autonomous cars should only be used for accident avoidance, not automation. Not unless the roads are specifically designed to eliminate randomness. but then you'd be better off setting up a rapid transport network.

If we use the tech right, then we could save so many lives. You wouldn't have any off road crashes, no head on collisions, no side swipes, no rear end collisions. we could practically eliminate road fatalities.

I agree that this is concerning as this is the kind of accident that should have been solved before the car was allowed to navigate on the streets, this is something that should have been done at the "driving on empty roads with traffic cones" type of training.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yep... why would that person (who can see the lights of the car) keep crossing the road? Even though the driver is distracted, I am not convinced they would have averted the accident if they were concentrating. They possibly could have swerved, but with such a short reaction time, it might have had the same horrible result.

It looks like the 'driver' was checking her phone. Given that these cars are not regulated to self-drive without a qualified driver the woman in the driver's seat is responsible for the car's actions. She was not paying attention to the road which might render her liable for the accident, regardless of what the pedestrian did.

 

[Pessimistic]

Or in a busy area, they put up barriers alongside roads.

30km/h speed limit. Incredibly frustrating for a human driver but simple for automated one

Barriers on urban roads where speed exceeds 50km/h

Sounds expensive but the only way to make majority AVs work which will bring huge rewards to soceity


Oh and ugly ugly vehicles with airbags on the outside

 

[kickazz]

Yes, this is a concern. I still think autonomous cars should only be used for accident avoidance, not automation. Not unless the roads are specifically designed to eliminate randomness.

This could be the way to go. Set up major arterials and highways as autonomous enabled. No pedestrians, no cyclists, etc. Imaging Geelong to Melbourne, Melbourne to Sydney for example.
Let's people make the bulk party of their journey without having to actively drive.

As an aside, how does it go with animals? There are some parts of Australia I am very reluctant to drive in at dusk.

 

[Pessimistic]

This could be the way to go. Set up major arterials and highways as autonomous enabled. No pedestrians, no cyclists, etc. Imaging Geelong to Melbourne, Melbourne to Sydney for example.
Let's people make the bulk party of their journey without having to actively drive.

As an aside, how does it go with animals? There are some parts of Australia I am very reluctant to drive in at dusk.

And have max speed of 30kph or less in places where people walk or cycle. Including the cyclists. Traffic will move better and autonomous cars or part time autonomous cars will be moving at such a predictable speed people will be able to dodge between them like the old footage of horse powered carriages

Traffic will move better, it will be magnitudes safer except morons walking while texting will be the biggest problem. Maybe smartphones can have intelligent proximity alerts for those people

On your last point where autonomous seems to be an excellent future for cities, freight, public transport, there will always be huge parts of the world where it may never be ideal

 

[Pessimistic]

Well the CEO could create a decision making process in the algorithm whereby people he doesn’t like can be deliberately murdered by the “autonomous” vehicle, like poor people.

10 engineers are walking across the road with a CEO, the CEO is paid 4x the combined salary of the engineers, and therefore is valued higher than the engineers, an autonomous vehicle is driving along and cannot stop without hitting at least one of these pedestrians, who should it hit?

Most likely the CEO of Uber would have the algorithm make the car plough through the 10 engineers to save the CEO.

Ironically the technology for machines to kill people is far advanced on those in this thread

But make no mistake autonomous freight transport is here and now on private roads in mines, dockyards and warehouses

 

[RupieDupie]

Ironically the technology for machines to kill people is far advanced on those in this thread

But make no mistake autonomous freight transport is here and now on private roads in mines, dockyards and warehouses

Yes but when something doesn’t go as planned, should this be considered an “act of God” or negligence? If the latter, I believe the CEO should be immediately jailed, and waterboarded.

 

[Number37]

As an aside, how does it go with animals? There are some parts of Australia I am very reluctant to drive in at dusk.

They already use technology in Audis (I think?) that can recognise animals that they were trying to adapt to recognise kangaroos.

 

[Pessimistic]

There’s often a focus on private cars when discussing AV.

I reckon there’s far bigger disruption to come in the freight, public transport, ride sharing spaces

For example imagine a small robot big enough to deliver something like a fridge, it takes it from warehouse to your house then a smaller one rolls off, installs it in your kitchen, then takes the old one away

A lot less empty freight capacity clogging up the roads

 

[quotemokc]

The title of this thread makes it sound like an achievement

 

[Power Raid]

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/w...ehicle-hits-kills-pedestrian-arizona-53853445

Driverless car program suspended across US and Canada.

How do they deal with this legally? Are the car's logs made available to the victim's family for legal analysis? The article makes it seem like Arizona has few laws or requirements for driverless cars.


A self-driving Uber SUV struck and killed a pedestrian in suburban Phoenix in the first death involving a fully autonomous test vehicle — an accident that could have far-reaching consequences for the new technology.

The crash Sunday night in Tempe was the event many in the auto and technology industries were dreading but knew was inevitable.

Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. The testing has been going on for months as automakers and technology companies like the ride-hailing service compete to be the first with cars that operate on their own.

The family of the victim sued the operator/ owner of the car (uber).

The owner/ operator sued the car manufacturer.

The car manufacturer sued the software/ hardware manufacturer.

 

[Pessimistic]

If the US etc suspends this, the Chinese will just get a head start

 

[Moonwatcher]

https://www.sciencealert.com/fatal-uber-self-driving-car-crash-detected-pedestrian-but-didn-t-stop

Apparently the car detected the woman but chose not to stop. Uber decided the cars were stopping for too many unimportant objects such as cardboard on the road.

 

[AM]

The Moral Machine undertook a large driverless car moral dilemna survey. This piece in nature shows choices varied according to country and culture.