lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
in addition, it is the car and the occupants that accept the risk by choosing to travel by car over the pedestrian thus the pedestrian should have priority.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I think you just gave Musk the idea for his next company--Teslinsure. Ad slogan: "Our vehicles are smart enough to pick who they're going to run over--make sure it's not you!"
How do you think that would go over with the marketing people?
If it comes down to the car's software determining whose life to save in a Sophie's Choice situation, I certainly hope it prioritizes the lives of the car's occupants over the lives of pedestrians.
It'd be easier to sell a device for pedestrians that sonar sees easily and prevents the car from missing you. "With this device, Tesla creates a bubble of safety around you that no Tesla vehicle will drive into. Unless the driver disabled the AutoPilot in which case, RUN!"
I assume you meant to write "prevents the car from hitting you"? ("You" being the pedestrian carrying the hypothetical device)
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Today's cars in such a situation would brake (when equipped with auto braking), but would not have the ability to swerve and avoid the pedestrian. A human might, but neither would the human purposefully hit a solid object to avoid a pedestrian in most circumstances.
With the addition of auto-steering, the car might try to steer around the pedestrian. The option you suggest of hitting a solid object will likely never be considered an option. This is because there are too many situations where it's impossible to tell for sure if hitting such an object won't result in serious injury or death for the vehicle passengers. For example, if they hit the a collapsible pole perhaps there might not be serious injury, but if it was a tree or something falls from that pole then serious injury or death is likely.
MarkS22
Member
I thought about a bracelet for children or dog collar which could communicate with cars but... what happens if someone chucks it into the road in front of a car doing 60mph? Maybe, by that time, it'll be easy enough to detect an EKG to ensure it's actually being worn. Of course, we're talking about outlier cases here. But I can imagine a future where part of the data coming into the autonomous cars isn't just from other cars, but our cell phones. So, even if you're completely invisible to the car's camera/radar, they'd be aware of your presence, trajectory, and speed.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree for the most part, but I wouldn't say "never" an option. It should be very, very conservative in "choosing" to hit something, though. The only way to prevent pedestrian deaths is for pedestrians to respect the rules of the road better. And this applies to right now, not just in the future. The DOT reports over 80% of pedestrian deaths are due to some form of improper action on the part of the pedestrian. If someone jumps in front of a car on a highway from behind a tree, a car should do its best to stop (again using any freespace available). Perhaps it can fall back on hitting another object at a low enough speed, like 20mph or less, to prevent hitting a pedestrian?
In the end, I don't think we should limit the technology (or hold back approvals) for a tiny percentage of outlier situations. Especially when the autonomous car will have better vision, reaction time, and driving skills than any drivers today.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, it can work on a bidding system, like paid search. The more you pay, the less likely the car will hit you verses the guy you're standing near. For enough money, you can just safely walk across a busy 5 lane highway and watch as the cars swerve and crash into walls and trees around you.
travwill
Active Member
Think global guys! In China you'll notice that people need to yield to cars in that culture ;-) So were good on an incomplete system!
First of all, the Model S uses radar, not Lidar. I expect it's frame rate is pretty darn high. Now, it's a reasonable question as to whether or not the current radar could look in the oncoming lane to detect oncoming traffic properly (I'm reasonably sure it won't), but there's no technological reason they couldn't build a setup which could do this.
Once you have that, it's probably safer and easier for the car to detect a safe gap than for you to do it. For one thing, the car has very accurate information about the speed and acceleration of the oncoming cars (better than you do), and secondly it is looking 100% percent of the time, never looking down, hesitating, etc.
After I posted, I thought maybe you were talking about waiting at a stop light to turn left, where you have to pull into the intersection on the yellow and force the oncoming cars to stop. Now that could be more difficult for the automated system, although again not impossible.
Once you have that, it's probably safer and easier for the car to detect a safe gap than for you to do it. For one thing, the car has very accurate information about the speed and acceleration of the oncoming cars (better than you do), and secondly it is looking 100% percent of the time, never looking down, hesitating, etc.
After I posted, I thought maybe you were talking about waiting at a stop light to turn left, where you have to pull into the intersection on the yellow and force the oncoming cars to stop. Now that could be more difficult for the automated system, although again not impossible.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm talking about the Google car, not the Model S. As you point out, the current radar installed on the Model S is unlikely to be able to detect oncoming traffic reliably, and I suspect the same with the one on the Google car (which is mounted low like the Model S). It would have to depend on the roof mounted lidar to do so. I'm just speculating as to why the article said that was a specific situation that the hardware is unlikely able to handle (as opposed to the software/logic).
Electricfan
Active Member
Well, I give you credit for saying what you think. But when an automated car runs over you some day I believe you'll be singing a different tune (if you can still sing).
No, a pedestrian is always going to take priority over someone sitting in a seat belt in front of an air bag surrounded by crumple zones and thousands of hours of engineered safety. And always should.
What if the choice was: A) take the car over the cliff to spare the pedestrian, or B) avoid the cliff edge and hit the pedestrian? As the driver, I doubt you would choose option A. A conscious pedestrian can at least get out of the way of an approaching vehicle. You can't do that if you're captive inside the car.
Still don't agree. Even without autonomy, if I'm driving now, I'm where I'm supposed to be, and a pedestrian comes out of no where without paying attention or whatever... I'm going to consider my options. Under no circumstance am I going to crash into a solid object (like another vehicle, building, telephone pole, etc) if my choices are between that and hitting the pedestrian. I'm of course going to mash the brakes and do my best not to hit them, but if I wouldn't otherwise hit something that would damage my car or myself if the pedestrian hadn't been shooting for a Darwin award by heading into traffic then I'm not going to hurt myself or my property to protect them beyond attempting to stop.
You may not intentionally do it, but instinct kicks in, and you may swerve accidentally while stomping the brakes.
Which is another selling point for autonomous cars, you don't have to worry about accidentally swerving
Been in the situation a couple of times, actually. I don't accidentally swerve. Fortunately the Darwin award contenders have thus far managed to escape death and injury either via my prompt braking and/or finally reconsidering their award by getting the hell out of the way.
My interpretation of your post is that you will run into a pedestrian in your path of travel if your only other choice is to run into a large solid object that will damage your car.
I hope that if you are ever in a driving situation where those are the two choices that your innate human empathy will kick in and you will avoid injuring/killing the pedestrian.
And by the way, in California the pedestrian always has the legal right of way on the road even if they are not in a marked crosswalk. Don't know about North Carolina, where you live.
Well, like I said.... Pedestrians don't get a pass to be stupid even if a law says they have the right of way. If there is a car coming, and you step into the road, that's your problem. I have no empathy for such things. I'm not going risk injury to myself, my passengers, or my property in a potentially futile effort to save some idiot that shouldn't have been in the middle of the road in the first place.
As for NC law:
When crossing the road at any other point than a marked or unmarked crosswalk or when walking along or upon a highway, a pedestrian has a statutory duty to yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway. It is the duty of pedestrians to look before starting across a highway, and in the exercise of reasonable care for their own safety, to keep a timely lookout for approaching motor vehicle traffic.
Edit: It's worth noting that if it is possible and safe to avoid the misguided pedestrian in any circumstance then of course that is the action I'll do my best to take. But if brakes aren't working fast enough and there is no where else to go besides into oncoming traffic on one side and trees/parked cars/buildings/etc on the other... sorry dude, your day's of being a mindless phone zombie are over and I won't shed a tear for you.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
There is a big difference between right of way and an unavoidable accident.
If I'm doing 15 mph I'm sure I can stop or swerve and give the right of way to the pedestrian. If I'm doing 55 mph that isn't an option.
The pedestrian always has the right of way in all 50 states (laws vary on the penalties and interpretations of this but they all favor pedestrians to some extent).
At the same time a pedestrian is prohibited from walking into high speed traffic, high volume traffic, restricted areas of various types.
You can play grammar nazi or word lawyer all you want it doesn't keep someone from walking in front of a high speed moving vehicle that might not have anywhere to go other than through the pedestrian or into an immovable object.
Pedestrian Killed by Car While Crossing Freeway | NBC 7 San Diego
Pedestrian Killed on Highway 99 now identified - KernGoldenEmpire
CHP investigating fatal Highway 101 crash involving a pedestrian | KRON4.com
and on and on and on
just Google "pedestrian on highway in California" and see how many were fatal for the pedestrian. Be sure to tell all the injured drivers, police, family members, etcetera how the pedestrian had the right of way in the middle of a highway.
I don't think people in general think "oh I want to kill that pedestrian instead of damaging myself or my car" I think they just think "oh ****" and then its over. (like that old comedian said, first you say it, then you do it!).
Similar threads
