If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involvingpedestrian
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Mayayana" on Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:38:16 -0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: "Char Jackson" wrote ... Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtTB8hTgHbM Driver looking down. There was a second or two that an actual driver would have at least slammed on the brakes. They might not have ben able to avoid hitting the woman, but they wouldn't have hit her at 38 mph. So what Uber has is not so much an "autonomous car" (Which can be told "to the office" and it drives there) as an "enhanced autopilot system" where the 'driver' still has to man the driver seat, prepared at all times to resume actual operation of the vehicle. I'll wait for the full "Johnny Cab" option. Some of the companies involved, want a revenue stream while they perfect the technology. Engineering is hard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma...dge_%281940%29 As engineers (even electricals get to see the movie), we're shown video of the Tacoma bridge disaster. Just as a reminder of how conservative we have to be, when lives are on the line. Seeing the Tacoma bridge movie, is as much about ethics, as about bridge design. Practice, practice, practice! The next one will be perfect. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/21...m-highway.html We had a small structure here, built by the city, where the concrete pour was bad, materials not checked properly by onsite supervisors, and the entire structure had to be ripped down and started again. Nobody hurt. Just a waste of money. Everything in life seems to be a "learning experience" :-/ It's as if we never learn anything. Paul |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:46:56 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-03-22 22:19, Mayayana wrote: "Wolf K" wrote | Of course, she shouldn't have been crossing the road. | What if it were a moose? It might be the moose at fault but that won't help the mashed passengers in the robocar. Jaywalking is not an excuse for hitting and killing someone while not looking where you're going. Moose are almost impossible to see at night. Relevant anecdote: Driving back from Edson, Alberta. Fall, about 7pm, early evening, rain. On-coming traffic. IOW, pitch black out there. Doing under 50mph. Suddenly,a a moose-shaped shadow blots out the lights of oncoming cars. By the time I recognise it, it's crossed the road. A couple or three seconds difference between a very scary sight and a lethal collision. Had the whole family in the car, too. I occasionally wake up dreaming about it. That was over 50 years ago. Have you ever noticed that, of all the animals on road signs, only deer look like lunatics? And they seem to act that way, too. I was in the B.C. Rockies and a deer decided to cross the highway in front of us. It could not have done a much better job of attempting suicide. We just missed the deer and were the only car in possibly miles on that highway. Its dancing about made it especially "exciting". At least a moose would keep on a fairly predictable path, I think. (Do they?) Sincerely, Gene Wircheko |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:34 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:57:30 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [snip] In British Columbia (and probably some other places), snow can stick to signs to the point where the signs can not be read. And?? If you're suggesting that snow-covered signs are a problem that needs to be addressed, whether for humans or non-humans, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've seen a lot of snow-covered signs, and tree- covered signs, and just plain missing signs, and so far none of those situations has made it difficult to figure out what I should do. There Not yet, but it has been close sometimes. I grant that I will tend rate close calls as more dangerous than they actually are. This is to balance out not thinking something is dangerous when it actually is. I would rather be concerned about a close call and what I can do about situations like it in the future than to ignore it. are always other contextual clues, if you look for them. The point being that you do have to look for those clues. I do, you do, but does the self-driving car do so? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 22:06:24 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-03-22 14:57, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [snip] In British Columbia (and probably some other places), snow can stick to signs to the point where the signs can not be read. Yeah, we see that here in NorOnt, too. Doesn't bother us. We know what the shapes mean... Hah! :-) We also have windy areas where the signs are designed to rotate with the wind (or they could be bent or blown off). Occasionally, I have seen signs nearly horizontal in the wind: a bit tough to read. So many exceptional cases. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:49:56 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:30:43 -0400, Paul wrote: Char Jackson wrote: If you have time to use the horn, you have time to avoid the accident. It's not about being timid or aggressive or any of that hogwash. What if there's a driver right on your rear bumper, there's no place to back up to get away from a wild driver in front of you. Slow down. Change lanes, if possible. Problem solved. Two lanes of traffic. I'm in the faster one. There isn't an even-faster one I can move into, nor any gap in the slower one I consider it would be safe to move into. Some idiot in the same lane as me has come up fairly close behind me. Someone in the slower lane, but ahead of me, starts to pull out in front of me, with sufficient combinations of relative speeds and positions that _I_ deduce that, if I do nothing, I will hit him. If I brake, the idiot behind will run into me. (Never mind that it would be his "fault", I'd rather that didn't happen.) Here's where we disagree. The "idiot behind" (now who's being insulting?) If someone's tailgating me, and I'm not going any slower than the vehicle in front (just maintaining a larger distance), then I don't think too highly of his intelligence. can most likely see the car pulling out in front of you and will typically proactively slow down in anticipation of you slowing down. Even if they are oblivious to what's happening ahead of you, they aren't likely to be oblivious to you slowing down. Unless this is the very first time the "idiot behind" has decided to tailgate someone, he's probably very aware that following closely will mean that he has to brake suddenly from time to time. 1. I'm not convinced. 2. I'd rather not bank on it _not_ being his first time - or, that he's intelligent enough to think ahead that far. There _are_ idiots out there. Perhaps the person pulling out hasn't seen me - I'm in his blind spot, or something; or, perhaps, he's just not paying attention. I honk. He notices me, and stops pulling out. Yes, it's not foolproof by any means; certainly he has to decide that it's him I'm honking at. But on the whole, someone undertaking such a manoeuvre is IMO more likely to think it's him I'm honking at than the drivers of the other vehicles around me who are maintaining lane and speed. Longer term, yes, I would diddle my brakelights to tell the person behind that I feel they are too close. But (ignoring the fact that they probably wouldn't pull back anyway), that wouldn't help the situation described - where using the horn has _some_ chance of averting an accident, and not doing so has IMO less chance. Yes, you can drive defensively, read situations before they happen, and take measures. But once in a while, it's just "the enemy in front of you" and a brick wall behind. And at that point, it's horn time. (In my case it was the barrier to the side and the idiot behind rather than a brick wall, but yes.) If I understand correctly, you sometimes use your horn to make yourself feel better, not to actually accomplish anything useful with regards to traffic conditions. It seems like you could find something more productive. You did not understand Paul correctly, and the above paragraph is rather insulting. In what way do you think I misunderstood what Paul said? I thought he was pretty clear. He sometimes uses his horn because it makes him feel better. I'm sure he's not the only one. I didn't read anything Paul said that I could interpret as meaning that. YM obviously does V. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited ), 1998 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes: [] We also have windy areas where the signs are designed to rotate with the wind (or they could be bent or blown off). Occasionally, I have seen signs nearly horizontal in the wind: a bit tough to read. So many exceptional cases. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko If it's that windy, should you be out driving anyway (-:? (Whether you're a human or otherwise!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited ), 1998 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:35:48 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: [snip] Here in the US, especially in smaller towns, as you approach the town you'll be likely to see two signs. The first might say, "Welcome to Mayberry, birthplace of Andy Griffith. Population 367." The second sign might say, "Speed Limit 25 MPH unless otherwise posted." That provides context for the "unless otherwise posted". When I see such a sign with no context, what to do? [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Paul
writes: Keith Nuttle wrote: On 3/23/2018 10:47 AM, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-03-22 22:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] If I passed a sign saying limit 25, I would assume the limit was 25 until I saw a sign saying otherwise. I would not _expect_ to see signs repeating the 25. I do not see the need for the words "unless otherwise posted". [...] What if you do not see a speed limit sign for the next 25 miles as you drive through rural parts of the mid west and great plains. The defaults are roughly Presumably any sign - whether it has the words "unless otherwise posted" - overrides the default. I still haven't seen an answer to how you know, once you've passed an explicit sign (with or without), that the limit has reverted to the default (-:. 30mph 50kph City 80kph Secondary roads (two lane, no median, no shoulder) (I take it "median" means "physical structure down the middle") 100kph 100-Class highway (i.e. Route 104) [] Ours (still all in MPH) a 30 in built-up areas (whatever the type of road - unless otherwise posted!); outside built-up areas, 60 on single-carriageway roads (two or more lanes, but nothing physical to stop you driving on the other side), and 70 on dual carriageways. But in practice the only ones that aren't explicitly signed are the 60 and 70, and those _are_ sort of explicit in that there's a "national limits apply" sign - white circle with black diagonal - on every exit from a village or town. _Any_ other limit will be explicitly posted, at both entrance and exit. Common ones a 20 in some residential areas (often accompanied by speed bumps you'd not go over at above that anyway); 40 where a main road goes through a town or village; or 50 on motorway roadworks. But these are all explicitly signed as such, at start and end. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited ), 1998 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:35:48 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: [snip] Here in the US, especially in smaller towns, as you approach the town you'll be likely to see two signs. The first might say, "Welcome to Mayberry, birthplace of Andy Griffith. Population 367." The second sign might say, "Speed Limit 25 MPH unless otherwise posted." That provides context for the "unless otherwise posted". When I see such a sign with no context, what to do? [] 25 or less (-: _Do_ such signs occur without such a context? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited ), 1998 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Gene Wirchenko writes: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:35:48 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: [snip] Here in the US, especially in smaller towns, as you approach the town you'll be likely to see two signs. The first might say, "Welcome to Mayberry, birthplace of Andy Griffith. Population 367." The second sign might say, "Speed Limit 25 MPH unless otherwise posted." That provides context for the "unless otherwise posted". When I see such a sign with no context, what to do? [] 25 or less (-: _Do_ such signs occur without such a context? Don't worry about it, John! It's just different. To us - Europeans - it makes no sense and it doesn't save any signs, compared to 'our' method. I (from The Netherlands) sometimes see a bit of the same when driving through some German towns and they *do* make me more alert, because I think "What the fsck do they mean!". :-) |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
Mayayana wrote:
[...] I wondered whether that may have had an effect on the Tempe police chief. His public comment after viewing the video was that it seemed no was was at fault. A driver kills a woman crossing the road while paying no attention at all to the road ahead, yet no one is at fault! It was a ludicrous statement. Yes, that struck me - being from the other side of the pond - as well. In our country - The Netherlands - and probably in most of Europe, the driver is liable by default, because the pedestrian is a 'vulnerable' party. A vulnerable party is never *liable*. (S)He might have commited a (traffic) *offense*, but is never liable, at least not to any large percentage. So if the pedestrian survived, the driver could have been liable for amounts into the millions and the pedestrian might have gotten a fine. Since the pedestrian got killed, the amount of the liablity would be less, but still very substantial. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:31:18 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Paul" wrote | This is video from in-car. Released by the police. The player wrapper | on the Verge seems to work, while trying the twitter one using that | URL, didn't. | As I linked below, here's the original on youtube that all these parasites are linking to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtTB8hTgHbM | The woman hadn't just stepped off the media. | | She was out in the middle of the ****ing street when hit. | Yes. And there were almost 2 seconds of visibility. Also, before she comes into the light there's a reflective flash on the left, followed by visibility of her sneakers. This wasn't an unusual situation for a human driver to be able to stop or swerve. This also highlights a problem with having a human in a robot car. A driver will react in a split second. A human in a robot car will probably take at least 1-2 seconds to judge whether they need to take over. By then it's too late. Driverless cars will never be legal on public roads. The Google car crashed into a bus. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
Paul on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:00:55 -0400 typed
in alt.windows7.general the following: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/21...m-highway.html We had a small structure here, built by the city, where the concrete pour was bad, materials not checked properly by onsite supervisors, and the entire structure had to be ripped down and started again. Nobody hurt. Just a waste of money. Everything in life seems to be a "learning experience" :-/ It's as if we never learn anything. Smart people learn from their mistakes. Wise people, learn from other's mistakes. And then there are "the other people". -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
"Frank Slootweg" wrote
| In our country - The Netherlands - and probably in most of Europe, the | driver is liable by default, because the pedestrian is a 'vulnerable' | party. A vulnerable party is never *liable*. (S)He might have commited a | (traffic) *offense*, but is never liable, at least not to any large | percentage. I think it's about the same here. In theory a bicycle and a car have equal right of way, but if a bicyclist slams into me or cuts in front of me suddenly. I'll be the one who gets sued. Given that, the police chief seems to be saying that the driver in the robocar had no responsibility as a driver but was instead just a passenger, with no duty to watch the road. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
On 3/23/2018 5:00 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-03-23 13:12, Gene Wirchenko wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:46:56 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-03-22 22:19, Mayayana wrote: "Wolf K" wrote | Of course, she shouldn't have been crossing the road. | Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* What if it were a moose? It might be the moose at fault but that won't help the mashed passengers in the robocar. Â*Â*Â* Jaywalking is not an excuse for hitting and killing someone while not looking where you're going. Moose are almost impossible to see at night. Relevant anecdote: Driving back from Edson, Alberta. Fall, about 7pm, early evening, rain. On-coming traffic. IOW, pitch black out there. Doing under 50mph. Suddenly,a a moose-shaped shadow blots out the lights of oncoming cars. By the time I recognise it, it's crossed the road. A couple or three seconds difference between a very scary sight and a lethal collision. Had the whole family in the car, too. I occasionally wake up dreaming about it. That wasÂ* over 50 years ago. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Have you ever noticed that, of all the animals on road signs, only deer look like lunatics?Â* And they seem to act that way, too.Â* I was in the B.C. Rockies and a deer decided to cross the highway in front of us.Â* It could not have done a much better job of attempting suicide.Â* We just missed the deer and were the only car in possibly miles on that highway.Â* Its dancing about made it especially "exciting". Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* At least a moose would keep on a fairly predictable path, I think.Â* (Do they?) Sincerely, Gene Wircheko Moose go where they want, when they want. They ignore just about everything else. They do seem to have learned when it's hunting season, though: I stopped to take a photo of one munching on something in a roadside patch of swamp, by the time I'd stopped the car and started backing up, it had disappeared. Deer are similar, Here one minute, not here the next. Standing by the side of the road one minute, and a second later standing in front of your car. -- 2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|