What's Wrong With This Sentence?

[ToraToraTora]

"Uber safety driver charged over death of pedestrian who was struck by self-driving car "
https://news.sky.com/story/uber-safety-driver-charged-over-death-of-pedestrian-who-was-struck-by-self-driving-car-12072968
How can a "driver" be charged if the car is driving itself?

[Bazile]

Sort of , vicarious liability ?

[ToraToraTora]

trevor, or perhaps another name? but I'll play along for now: "You know when a jumbo jet goes to autopilot, the Captain and his Co-Pilot can't just sit back and rely on an inflated Otto. They still have a job to do. " ok a) flying a plane with software is much much much easier than piloting a car. b) the whole point of autonomous vehicles is to not have humans driving, if they have to be there anyway and are responsible then what's the point?

[TrevorThePug]

Sorry you lost me at 'flying a plane ....is much much much easier than piloting a car'. lol.

[fiction-factory]

>right FF, so lets stop pretending cars can ever drive themelves.

Did you mean EVER? My guess is they will one day be totally self driving- but maybe we (or our grandchildren) will be travelling in drones by then . We already have driverless DLR trains, warehouses where the fork lift trucks are driverless, space rockets that are not piloted by anyone on board, so cars that drive themselves are not totally out of the question, particularly on motorways and dedicated roads.

[ToraToraTora]

I mean programming the software to fly a plane is much easier than driving a car. That's why they've had autopilot since the 50s (analogue before that)

[ToraToraTora]

FF, yes I mean EVER. My definition is well known.

[bhg481]

Is that the same "Ever" as "Aeroplanes will never ever be able to fly faster than sound"?

[ToraToraTora]

no that's easy in comparison.

[bhg481]

It wasn't thought so at the time.

[Spicerack]

Or as 'this electricity thing will never catch on'.

[ToraToraTora]

just a discovery, now harnessed and put to good use.

[andy-hughes]

Apart from the tragic loss of life, I was perturbed by the fact that the car takes valuable seconds deciding the nature of the object in front of it, apparently before it decides what 'appropriate action' to take.

Surely if there is 'an object' in front of the car, it should stop, regardless of what it might be?

[TrevorThePug]

Ah yes but think what it is processing in those few seconds.

I guess the car had learnt to determine, right of way, movement of standard traffic flows at standard junctions etc, but not a non-stopping jay-walker. That and the deactivated brake + a distracted test pilot = disaster.

[ToraToraTora]

TTP, as any says right of way (no such thing anyway but that's another thread) means nothing if you are going to hit something, anything. Poor programming and/or sensor, end of. One of the excuses given in another of the many incidents of driverless cars was that someone jumped the lights, yep! that happens it needs to be anticipated by the software.

[andy-hughes]

I can't envisage any time in my lifetime when a car computer can replicate the split second decision made by humans every day.

[naomi24]

I would still like to know how, in a situation where an accident is unavoidable - say the choice between hitting a child or a parked car - a computer decides the least disastrous course of action - something a human being would do instinctively a split second.

[mushroom25]

the ability of technology to successfully manage a moving vehicle is in protecting the system from the unexpected.

yes we have automatic trains on Docklands, but the operating company were fined £450,000 a few years ago because a passenger fell on the tracks and operating staff were not able to stop the train that ran over and killed the victim.

yes we've had autopilot on aircraft for many years and it's not so big a step of imagination to fully autonomous aircraft. yet in the case of QF032 in 2010, no computer currently exists that could have landed that plane after an uncontained engine failure. the pilots did so and won awards.

autonomous road vehicles can only be successful if the unexpected can be eliminated, so far as is practical. so no pedestrians, cyclists or out of course stopping - for that reason it's likely that any mass use of autonomous vehicles will be limited to motorways and other segregated roads.

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "I can't envisage any time in my lifetime when a car computer can replicate the split second decision made by humans every day. " - bang on, it will take a quantum leap in software to achieve that.

[ToraToraTora]

mush: "autonomous road vehicles can only be successful if the unexpected can be eliminated, so far as is practical. so no pedestrians, cyclists or out of course stopping - for that reason it's likely that any mass use of autonomous vehicles will be limited to motorways and other segregated roads. " - bang on too.

[ToraToraTora]

naomi: here is a new take on the trolley problem, on the road it is entirely different, the car is not on rails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45991093 but in reality there are other choices that a human will find and beat the kobayashi Maru scenario. in the diagram on the attached there is an obvious solution to save everyone but it's invisible to software.