Quote:
Originally Posted by IK6SPEED
Just watched the video from the car 5 times on a 75” Screen tv on nightly news.
1) person killed was not in any crosswalk. Double lane road with medians on both sides. Nothing on the other side of the road where crossing. Makes little sense why someone crossing there.
2) it was dark. And given the video, I suspect a driver would have hit her as well.
3) person killed was wearing black top and dark blue jeans. Only her head and blonde head stood out.
4) she clearly was at fault crossing in front of car for whatever reason
That said, any life loss is sad. Vehicle had lidar and radar. I wonder if it dismissed the return as she should not have been where she was.
Again, I doubt human would have not hit her, given the video.
Proving that this may make driving safer, but nothing can completely stop injuries when humans do dumb things.
https://usat.ly/2DLt9GW
Bottom line, I believe that coding should favor the vehicle occupant SHOULD THE CAR HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. In this case, the death was the pedestrian’s fault.
While sad, don’t play chicken with a car, at night, in dark clothing while essentially “jaywalking”. |
So you've basically said the pedestrian was in a position the autonomous machine's software didn't expect a pedestrian to be located. This proves the point that the autonomous machine is fallable. Had the pedestrian followed the law and not jaywalked the machine would have not hit her because she would have been in the crosswalk where the machine expects a street-crossing pedestrian to be.
The pedestrian expected the car to stop because most states have laws that require a car to stop if a pedestrian is crossing the street.
All this proves is the autonomous machine is fallable. The argument of "the human driver probably would have hit her too" is indifference to the argument FOR autonomous vehicles because they are supposed to be BETTER drivers than humans (that's the whole point of the technology).