Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A good driver in a regular car wouldn't think an accident was impossible on a seemingly empty street. And I don't see any reason for a person in a self-driving car to think that either, considering the high incidence of interventions needed.
Uber will be financially responsible, for sure. But the only way I see this woman getting out of charges is if she was brand new, had never needed to intervene in the auto pilot, and Uber failed to tell her she needed to remain vigilant. Again, I have no law expertise. But that's how I hope it shakes out. This woman "driver" was at the very least negligent.
The driver does not think an accident is unlikely...she thinks a glitch with the AV system is unlikely. And she would normally be correct.
A good driver in a regular car wouldn't think an accident was impossible on a seemingly empty street. And I don't see any reason for a person in a self-driving car to think that either, considering the high incidence of interventions needed.
Uber will be financially responsible, for sure. But the only way I see this woman getting out of charges is if she was brand new, had never needed to intervene in the auto pilot, and Uber failed to tell her she needed to remain vigilant. Again, I have no law expertise. But that's how I hope it shakes out. This woman "driver" was at the very least negligent.
I'm not so sure. My understanding is that under Arizona law, a safety driver is not even required to be in the car. So if she is not required to even be in the car, why would she be charged? As I understand the Arizona law, she was just a passenger in the car.
Quote:
Arizona will now allow self-driving cars to operate in the state without a safety driver behind the wheel. Governor Doug Ducey signed an executive order this week making it legal for these vehicles to operate on their own as long as they abide by all federal and state safety standards. "As technology advances, our policies and priorities must adapt to remain competitive in today's economy," Governor Ducey said in a statement. "This executive order embraces new technologies by creating an environment that supports autonomous vehicle innovation and maintains a focus on public safety."
Uber's self-driving cars weren't able to meet its target goal of 13 miles per intervention as of March.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
whats the difference between a self-driving car and a car equipped with: abs, stability traction control, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, pedestrian auto-braking, parking-assist, self-parking, ... ?
These features that you mention require a human being to initiate them when a human driver is occupying the vehicle, unlike the "self-driving" vehicle having no human interaction.
Putting someone at risk that has not been informed or notification that they may be killed by a driver-less vehicle on the road for test purposes isn’t in the best interest of society or the Uber Company. At that time Uber knowingly had a paid human occupant in the vehicle for the purpose of responding to a possible failure of the computerized control feature. The failure of the cars computer system to take evasive action was not corrected by or even noticed by the “backup” operator whose purpose and responsibility was placed there in the car by Uber. The operator was distracted and failed to take corrective action which could have cause injury by prevented a death.
LIDAR manufacturer also claims the LIDAR would have clearly seen the lady...
Quote:
Uber's fatal crash immediately sparked a series of questions, long debated by the nascent driverless car industry. Some states, particularly Arizona, have embraced the tech, permitting companies to test without backup drivers behind the wheel. Still, regulators nationwide have yet to settle on issues of liability and standard safeguards. California demands companies testing these cars disclose how many times humans must take over the systems — a rare requirement that sent some firms to other states with less-stringent regulation.
This is the part I don't get. How the hell can these idiots approved testing cars without a backup driver behind the wheel, without first settling the liability issues?
^^^ I thought the same thing however I see too much of our state’s leaders here in Arizona and that explains it all. Incompetents!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Waymo - its car would have seen woman.
