Is/n't Tesla literally/figuratively crashing?

[Day]

fuckin yikes

[Day]

would you rather get hit by a car (and live obv) with or without a driver i'm curious...

i think no driver would make my blood boil on another level

[Salodin]

would you rather get hit by a car (and live obv) with or without a driver i'm curious...

i think no driver would make my blood boil on another level

Two points I should make.

1. This car had a driver behind the wheel.

2. I'd argue your blood would boil either way, but with a human driver you can direct that anger. With a driverless car, that's tested to be safer than human drivers, you're kinda SOL and are just really unlucky cause the odds probably couldn't be anymore in your favor.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, you'd probably rather be hit by a driverless car, because that implies it is owned by a well-heeled corporation, as opposed to some random person from whom you might be able to get something out of their insurance company (if they are even insured) but is otherwise trying to get blood from a stone.

[Jaybar]

With a driverless car how do you pinpoint the fault? The autonomy is supposed to be "flawless" so does that mean the software isn't ready for wide-spread use? Are there scenarios that are better handled by humans and others by autonomy instead of a sole reliability on either? Did the car have to choose the best-case scenario to prevent the most damage? You know, the classic railcar dilemma.

The story doesn't have a lot of information to go by. Maybe she was wearing a ghillie suit and jumped in front of the car, and the car thought it was some debris - who the hell knows.

[Salodin]

Can't wait to see how this gets spun around as the woman hitting the driverless car instead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

Rationally, autonomy isn't supposed to be "flawless," it is supposed to be superior to human drivers.

but legally and rationally are rarely in alignment, soooo

[Jaybar]

Rationally, autonomy isn't supposed to be "flawless," it is supposed to be superior to human drivers.

but legally and rationally are rarely in alignment, soooo

Right, and so now we have to determine if the car's actions could not be avoided. If the safety driver couldn't catch it then something is amiss. But if the safety driver was busy texting...

[dasva]

Human nature being what it is I seriously doubt the safety driver was as alert as they would've been had they been driving. It's just hard to keep the same level of concentration on something that you aren't actively participating in. Granted there are trade offs as it lets you catch things you might have been too busy watching other stuff to catch and there will be some overlap but it wont be 100%.

As far as the car who knows could just be something that hadn't been encountered yet for it to properly deal with. The article does say she wasn't in the crosswalk and it looks like a pretty big and busy intersection from google maps with small road divider in the middle so she could have lets say froggered it to the middle then tried to finish the rest of the way and the car was turning into that lane and couldn't respond in time and it being late the actual driver might not have seen her. Also lol but google maps shows the traffic sign in the divider there knocked down

[Salodin]

Lmfao if the chick was J walking. Hate those fuckers. If that's the case I hope they dismiss this case cause fuck you you know who you are.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[dasva]

That's the part that kind of confuses me a little. Like it says she was at the intersection but not in the crosswalk. But the intersection has a crosswalk all 4 ways. So like was she just near the intersection and was too lazy to go the extra bit? Did she walk out of it for some reason? Do some kind of super crazy double crossing?

[Jaybar]

She probably was trying to cut the corner through the intersection. But if the autonomous software isn't configured for "pedestrian not in normal pathways" then we are fucked. If the car was going so fast around a corner that it couldn't feasibly stop then that's a traffic engineer's fault for making shitty streets that favor speeding cars over multi-modal methods.

edit: that turning radius is stupid big

[dasva]

I mean can't really say until we know exactly what she did but it could easily be largely her fault and we do know she done fucked up at least a little

[AoE]

Lmfao if the chick was J walking. Hate those fuckers. If that's the case I hope they dismiss this case cause fuck you you know who you are.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'm sorry man. J-Walking is a life skill for us New Yorkers.

[Salodin]

I understand your frustration, but we can't live in the future of self driving cars going 200mph on residential streets with you j walking. Take one for the team homey.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

I'm sorry man. J-Walking is a life skill for us New Yorkers.

that's the key word

if you are requiring a car to consider slowing down for you, then yer doin it wrong

[Rooney]

My personal favorite are the people that do it ~10ft from the crosswalk. I mean you saved all of 1-2 seconds.

[archibaldcrane]

Looks like a homeless lady with a bike laden with plastic bags just wandered into the street.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business..._medium=social

From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said. The police have not released the videos.

[Salodin]

Oh, she's homeless. Looks like the case file got lost when they were moving offices.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Just remember, streets used to be for pedestrians, automakers successfully lobbied Congress to enact jaywalking laws so that they could have an excuse when their cars hit people. No reason to think this is going to be different.