Pedestrian killed by self-driving car

[mdavies]

Apologies that I didn't appreciate that the Telegraph article is Premium - for subscribers.  I believe the paper offers a freebie or two to non-subscribers though.  For anythat don't get to read it, the title is "The five reasons driverless cars could cause havoc on Britain's roads".  The fundamental point!

[mdavies]

Too serious to comment on except seriously, as I've been doing intermittently for years.  It is a serious comment that I regard the following as very good news.   Anyone who can combine knowledge of driving in the real world with that of AI - yes, I can - will not in any way be surprised by this piece from the Telegraph today.  For those not able to access the link, I've extracted key phrases.

_______________________

Driverless car company hit by ban after crash

Cruise issued with immediate suspension after ‘misrepresenting’ safety of its vehicles ……. string of crashes and safety incidents.     ……  Cruise, which is owned by General Motors ….. an immediate and indefinite suspension. The DMV said the company had “misrepresented” the safety of its vehicles and warned they may pose an “unreasonable risk to the public”.

[In one incident] …….woman was trapped under a Cruise vehicle…… The car subsequently attempted to pull over “to avoid causing further road safety issues”, which dragged the woman a further 20 feet.

……..cars have been blamed for causing traffic jams, blocking roads and making unusual driving decisions. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/25/cruise-driverless-car-california-ban-licence-stripped/

 

[mdavies]

Some sense emerging at last, I'm glad to see in Telegraph Business section.

______________________________

Tesla ‘faces ban’ on selling self-driving cars in Britain

Elon Musk could be dealt significant setback over system that still requires driver monitoring

ByJames Titcomb25 November 2023 • 5:30pm

Tesla faces a ban on selling its full self-driving technology in Britain under new driverless car laws, in a setback to Elon Musk’s plans for millions of robot-driven vehicles.

The Department for Transport will prevent carmakers from describing vehicles as “self-driving” or “driverless” unless their systems are approved under changes coming as soon as next year.

Blocking the technology’s sale in Britain would be the latest blow for Mr Musk’s Tesla, which has faced multiple lawsuits and investigations over the safety of its driver assistance technology.

...............[Article continues.]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/25/tesla-faces-ban-selling-driverless-cars-uk/

 

[ChrisJ]

Good

Although it will probably just be renamed to something else.

 

[C8RKH]

Self driving cars scare the shit out of me.

[mdavies]

Illustrates a fundamental point.

As far as I’m aware, the analysis, design and rule-making that is being done on “self-driving”(SD) vehicles focuses on the wide range of sensing, interpretation, and decision-making abilities that are implemented by their technology.  Some technical aspects of those abilities may in themselves  exceed the usual levels of sensitivity and attention that the typical human driver can give, or anyway gives, on a continuous basis.

I suspect though that there is a major aspect of what we humans bring to bear on the activity of driving that is neglected in SD design. Neglected by  people generally because, although it underlies or influences our approaches to many of our human activities, we don’t like it to be at the forefront of our thoughts – or, in the case of those involved in the design and testing of SD vehicles, not because does not occur to them but of “how could we implement it?”. Too hard, so let’s not talk about it.

Fear, of course. Fear of anything and everything from minor short-term inconvenience to serious injury and death, affecting ourselves as drivers, and potentially many others, that could result from an “accident” – an excuse in a word.

Volvo has mentioned fear indirectly in their publicity: in terms: “Our aim is that no one should die in a Volvo”. And they try to address that. However, disgracefully, the UK insurance rules re SD cars have transferred responsibility for collisions from the person still in charge of the car to its maker. (Both should be, to a significant extent, equally until evidence tilts the balance but without removing blame entirely from either. Merely using a SD car is a human decision that incurs some responsibility for any consequences.) 

(No, I’ve never worked on SD vehicles for public use, but quite extensively in other fields of AI applications in the physical/human world.)

[Spinney]

On 25/11/2023 at 21:20, C8RKH said:

Self driving cars scare the shit out of me.

Having experienced how my Volvo reacts to quite benign traffic situations in a totally inappropriate manner recently, I agree completely. 
I doubt I’ll be around by the time we get to that but you know what, I’m perfectly happy about that. 

[mg4lotus]

Sadly, manufacturers that add gizmos and gadgets are "adding value", so they can charge us more and make bigger profits. The more complex it is the more likely it will be to break and a more expensive fix that has to be done at a dealer. Built in obsolescence will mean more new cars will be sold. The manufacturers will be happy to see it happen sooner than later. Legislators will be happy to take control away from the driver so that no rules of the road are broken. Don't be surprised when it happens.

[ChrisJ]

@mg4lotus - Sounds all very green and save the plant.

[ramjet]

I don't think SD will ever catch up to humans.

How many people here have been driving along and said to themselves,

"This numpty is going to change lanes in front of me. I'll bet on it."

SD won't be able to have that foresight, will it? It will only react once the car in question just blatantly moves into your path.

I can't imagine that is the only one.

Hmm.

Other drivers just pulling in front the left. I never trust them. Same as I don't trust indicators on other cars any more. I'll move when I see that person commit to whatever their indicator shows.

The idiots that pull out from behind you, fly past and just pull over on top of you. As a driver, I am already pre-empting that is going to happen.

There has to be great many others.

The car in front of you in either the lane to the left or right of you that crosses in front of your car on a sweeping corner on a bend and the SD see a car in front of you that is not doing the same speed and applies your brakes. A human can see that the car is not a safety hazard.

The software/AI/descision making process has a long way to go, I think.

[stevensr34]

And - importantly - the whole rationale for Fully Self Driving is to be BETTER than a human - NOT about the same as - preferably an order of magnitude better than - so there's no way these car companies are even close (this century)...

[Bibs]

They've got this issue to deal with...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Would you get in a car that will choose to drive you off a bridge rather than run someone over? Extreme example but it'll have to make choices that humans make instinctively in a number of situations. 

[ramjet]

Wait for the trolleys' first wheels to continue straight and then pull the lever to divert the rear bogie onto the siding and effectively derail the trolley.

Killed = ?

[Bibs]

You could vapourise it with a laser but that's not in the options. You've got a choice of 1 or 2. 

[drdoom]

The concept is fundamentally and terminally stupid, as the points above make clear. How about my tactic of signalling a lane change in order to exploit the undue competitive instinct in nearby drivers? Works a treat in directing them to give me an opening, just as a brief flash of brake lamps helps ensure the trailing twats respect traffic signal turning red. Good luck waiting for the code numpties to cover these off.