Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
that's what you're going by. I think it says this:
The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.
Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.
I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.
But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.