Maelochs

As i recall, Uber had turned off some safety features built into teh Saab because they interfered with Uber's software. The car "saw" the pedestrian but failed to identify it as an obstacle, I guess. The safety driver, who was there for Exactly this situation, was not paying attention. However, the show (some American idol clone) had just ended and the driver had just finished reading the comments. The driver Could have been looking at system alerts posted to her phone by Uber when the collision occurred (which is still distracted driving, obviously. Great thought went into that system one can see.) .

Uber would likely still be on the hook for major legal action if the company had not offered what we must suppose was a generous payoff to the victim's family. The victim was homeless, had a history of substance abuse, and as I recall had trace amounts of some substances in hr system at the time of the crash. She was heading across a dark street, about 100 yard upstream of a marked cross walk, passing a sign saying "Do not cross here," and heading to a popular homeless camp. Uber jumped right on that stuff, using statements made by the local police chief to create the illusion that it wasn't at fault, and "cleaned up" its little problem before the family had time to consider suing the sack off of Uber, unfortunately.

Uber had (and likely still has) the worst AV programming and by far the least success and the highest number of accidents (I did a lot of research back when this happened and anyone who wants can do the same, or search the various threads---or call me out on it I don't care. I might have remembered some stuff wrong ... again, I don't care.)

Basically, Uber spent its time and money lobbying the Arizona government for special treatment, while the big companies were improving their gear.

But whatever the details, i think even the manufacturers will admit that they are not ready to go live with AVs.

Rollfast

The OP was made by me.

Skipjacks

Okay. What's your point?

JW Fas

I can think of a plausible reason for the disparity. Most, if not all, auto makers today use metallic paints, so even black cars are sparkly enough to reflect light well. Skin doesn't reflect light well unless you're sweating profusely, and even then it's not great.

Leisesturm

As Maleochs has mentioned numerous times in this thread, most humans wear clothes in the out of doors. What skin is visible on the average person is the relatively small amount between hairline and neck! Military snipers may aim for the head during an assassination (or is that just Hollywood?) but all other forms of target acquisition use center of mass. Including, I suspect, ALL AV systems now in use. In fact the sensor suites on all the AV systems I know of are not limited just to visible light. They also use SONAR, LIDAR and Infra-red so that they can operate in all kinds of ambient light and precipitation. The sensor suite (the hardware) is not where any problem lies. We know that the victim of the deadly accident with the Uber AV was jaywalking. Is it crossing a line to speculate that such a possibility might simply not have occurred to a programming team composed of individuals from societies far more orderly than our own? Yep, its very possible that that woman would be alive today if America had not allowed its education system to lapse into dysfunction leading to an over-reliance on the intellectual work products of non-native STEM professionals.

mr_bill

Only if you wear a too small balaclava.

-mr. bill

Chris0516

Beyond crazy

Rollfast

You already quoted it.