> Let's hope we don't end up with an even more
> pedestrian hostile world than what we have already.
Unless there's a cultural sea change, you can bet on it worsening. If you take presentism out of the equation, what we have now - ie: most roads off limits to humans due to giant metal death machines - is insane.
In many European cities it's quite common for pedestrians to pass on red (which is considered more of a warning), even in front of cop cars. I've also seen cops on foot cross the street on red.
And I've seen quite a number cross the street randomly among traffic, some of them barely able to move (old, ...)
Same here in Boston. While I'm interested in self-driving cars if they can actually save lives, I'm not interested in restricting people's ability to walk about freely.
Also it seems that some companies blatantly lie about their capabilities and would face criminal charges if they were humans driving on public roads.
In France if there is a collision between a car and a pedestrian the car is always at fault unless it can be proved the pedestrian was committing suicide.
While I appreciate how the article brings up the history of the use of roads, times do change. Despite their dire last sentence, humans have always altered their behavior for the sake of their created machines. This is a trade-off with progress. This is why we have rules to allow shared use of the road.
Automated cars are simply a new addition to this. Travel to countries where there are no enforced road rules and see how efficiently traffic flows. It's horrible. The idea that we don't want to change behaviors for new tools is silly. If that's really their assertion, they need to stop posting in the internet and only share their news in the public square, that they walked too.
It is not a change in behaviour what is sought but a change in accountability. Even today you are expected to behave predictable. However it is not punishable by death today. Here in Germany you are always civilly accountable to a great deal when colliding with a weaker obstacle because the mere existence of a car puts a greater risk on pedestrians.
Well, effectively pedestrians always have the right of way because nobody wants to hit a pedestrian with their vehicle. This is the kind of calculus that will disappear with self-driving cars IMO.
It also seems they incorporate the 'if a situation is unclear, stick to the speed limit' heuristic that many human drivers also use.
The car did not brake because it detected a 'false positive'??!
The Uber Volvo SUV that hit her as she walked her bike in a pedestrian-heavy area had a hard time identifying her, plus the car was programmed not to brake if it believed it had detected “false positive.”
> “What we tell people is, ‘Please be lawful and please be considerate,’” Andrew Ng, a machine learning researcher whose venture fund invests in driverless startups, told Bloomberg.
This is like web developers criticizing users for using their website "wrong". Unless Andrew Ng has found a way to eliminate all crime on Earth, then I sure hope the startups he's investing in don't actually count on "people being lawful", and they make sure their cars are safe even when people aren't lawful.
The problem with this is that jaywalkers aren't the only things that could be in the road. There are animals, things falling it of other vehicles, construction debris and so on...
Yeah it would be cool if people didn't walk in front of a car. It would be even cooler if the car could not hit things. Like that is the whole point of self driving cars, to drive better than humans can.
http://moralmachine.mit.edu
The general law is that people always have the right of way unless it's unavoidable. It's important that self driving cars do their best to not kill people and follow the law. Though, I don't think all these 'kinks' will be out for another 10 years.
The last person who jaywalked in front of me was 9 years old. I doubt society is going to accept autonomous cars taking out elementary students on their way to school.
This prompted me to look up US pedestrian deaths. Some interesting numbers:
"According to the GHSA report, 74 percent of pedestrian fatalities happen at night, and 72 percent of those killed were not crossing at intersections."
"The GHSA report indicated that 15 percent of pedestrians killed each year are hit by a drunk driver, while 34 percent of pedestrians killed are legally drunk themselves."
I'd say we should put in more crosswalks and add lights and reflectors, but I've almost been hit twice by cellphone-distracted drivers in one like that in my neighborhood.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlesism|7 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/8Q5Nur642BU
[+] [-] strathmeyer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j88439h84|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhencke|7 years ago|reply
Note that every story directly featured on https://www.streetsblog.org/ is filed under "promoted".
[+] [-] 21|7 years ago|reply
And I've seen quite a number cross the street randomly among traffic, some of them barely able to move (old, ...)
[+] [-] MiddleEndian|7 years ago|reply
Also it seems that some companies blatantly lie about their capabilities and would face criminal charges if they were humans driving on public roads.
[+] [-] jobigoud|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elmerfud|7 years ago|reply
Automated cars are simply a new addition to this. Travel to countries where there are no enforced road rules and see how efficiently traffic flows. It's horrible. The idea that we don't want to change behaviors for new tools is silly. If that's really their assertion, they need to stop posting in the internet and only share their news in the public square, that they walked too.
[+] [-] chopin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] repsilat|7 years ago|reply
> Ng’s quote itself suggests he doesn’t understand crosswalk laws. Every intersection is technically an unmarked crosswalk
And that's only true in some places too. Laws vary from place to place:
>> Nine states and the District of Columbia require motorists to stop when approaching a pedestrian in an uncontrolled crosswalk.*
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
Laws can also be changed, and laws are not synonymous with norms.
[+] [-] chatmasta|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snarfybarfy|7 years ago|reply
The car did not brake because it detected a 'false positive'??!
The Uber Volvo SUV that hit her as she walked her bike in a pedestrian-heavy area had a hard time identifying her, plus the car was programmed not to brake if it believed it had detected “false positive.”
[+] [-] mtgx|7 years ago|reply
This is like web developers criticizing users for using their website "wrong". Unless Andrew Ng has found a way to eliminate all crime on Earth, then I sure hope the startups he's investing in don't actually count on "people being lawful", and they make sure their cars are safe even when people aren't lawful.
[+] [-] jobigoud|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismcb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helthanatos|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmpman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhinoceraptor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] google_censors|7 years ago|reply
"According to the GHSA report, 74 percent of pedestrian fatalities happen at night, and 72 percent of those killed were not crossing at intersections."
"The GHSA report indicated that 15 percent of pedestrians killed each year are hit by a drunk driver, while 34 percent of pedestrians killed are legally drunk themselves."
I'd say we should put in more crosswalks and add lights and reflectors, but I've almost been hit twice by cellphone-distracted drivers in one like that in my neighborhood.
https://www.npr.org/2017/03/30/522085503/2016-saw-a-record-i...