The point of the article is that somebody died because the machine failed to do what Uber said it would do.  In a very clear and simple situation.  The car did not brake at all.  It was a complete failure, meaning that it could just as well have failed when the dead women was being completely sensible and law-abiding.  Blaming the victim is a distraction.

It does look like she came out of nowhere but that's her walking in the camera's view. I've had people walk in front of me plenty of times but have yet to kill someone. 

Drive through the French Quarter one day.

1 hour ago, siteunseen said:

It does look like she came out of nowhere but that's her walking in the camera's view. I've had people walk in front of me plenty of times but have yet to kill someone. 

Drive through the French Quarter one day.

Drive in the Philippines.  People will walk backwards into traffic.

 

Here we have to watch out for deer .

 

The driver in that vehicle was looking at phone, no hands on wheel, and most likely off the gas and brake.  It is a joke having a human in those cars and claim they are in control.  They are bums and the companies pushing this bad idea are evil.

3 hours ago, 240260280 said:

Drive in the Philippines.  People will walk backwards into traffic.

The driver in that vehicle was looking at phone, no hands on wheel, and most likely off the gas and brake.  It is a joke having a human in those cars and claim they are in control.  They are bums and the companies pushing this bad idea are evil.

It was part of a test to see what could go wrong, after all.  I'm sure Uber will have a lot of data to review after the lawsuit.

As for driving in the Philippines, I did that for a year and a half and mostly had to dodge pigs, chickens, and guys with guns.

Dennis 

Maybe the test was to kill someone and see how much it is going to cost?

52 minutes ago, 240260280 said:

Maybe the test was to kill someone and see how much it is going to cost?

Calculated risk.  The various test cities were part of the "proof of concept" program which was put in place to learn what could go right and what could go wrong.  Everyone was aware that there could/would be fatalities due to pedestrian and vehicle accidents.  Uber must have had to provide a huge insurance policy.  I wonder how difficult it will be to get states and cities to host the tests now.

Dennis

On 3/23/2018 at 4:30 PM, 240260280 said:

It is a joke having a human in those cars and claim they are in control.  They are bums and the companies pushing this bad idea are evil.

Autonomous vehicles are probably inevitable, but the idea of turning these things loose on public roads at such an early stage of development is wrong-headed.  It all sounds like such a cool idea -- until somebody gets hurt or killed. 

I'm equally troubled by the idea of drones as personal transportation devices. What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-uber-mobileye/mobileye-says-its-software-would-have-seen-pedestrian-in-uber-fatality-idUSKBN1H22LM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-25/china-seeks-its-own-brains-to-steer-30-million-autonomous-cars

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-uber-settlement/uber-reaches-settlement-with-family-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092

On 3/25/2018 at 8:28 AM, Namerow said:

Autonomous vehicles are probably inevitable, but the idea of turning these things loose on public roads at such an early stage of development is wrong-headed.  It all sounds like such a cool idea -- until somebody gets hurt or killed. 

I'm equally troubled by the idea of drones as personal transportation devices. What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

Drones need parachutes of some type I believe.  As soon as you hit a button on the remote it would deploy and fall a little slower onto your head.

Darwin Award Nominee:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-crash/tesla-says-crashed-vehicle-had-been-on-autopilot-prior-to-accident-idUSKBN1H7023