Polaris OBark

The scary part is it clearly detects the pedestrian's presence in the crosswalk, and elects not to stop, where it is legally required to do so.

Link to Ars Technica (no paywall)

Bald Paul

I recently saw a report on TV about 'full autonomous' cars in SF blocking intersections and stopping right in the path of emergency vehicles when they "see" the flashing lights. SF officials are not impressed.

Mtracer

I agree, looking at the video, it did seem like a situation where the car should have stopped. Though the lighting makes it hard to see the pedestrian, though maybe not hard for the Tesla. On the other hand, the pedestrian seems to be displaying no common sense at all. As if a crosswalk is a magic force field.

Also, it is hard to judge distance and speed in the video. While cars are expected to yield, they are not required to come to a skidding stop if a pedestrian suddenly enters a crosswalk. Common sense is required by everyone involved.

On the other hand, there was a comment in the link saying that this type of driving is common in urban areas. In the above video, the Tesla was able to pass the pedestrian without putting them in danger. But again, it looks like the Tesla could have and should have stopped.

Polaris OBark

The law in CA says you have to come to a stop.

jon c. 

In California most drivers would have stopped. But maybe the car is programmed to be a Florida driver.

Mtracer

I was curious, about this. Because obviously there has to be some practicality. As I mentioned, a driver certainly isn't required to slam on brakes if a pedestrian suddenly steps into a crosswalk. Note: I'm saying steps into the crosswalk, not steps out in front of the car. Drivers must always do what they can to avoid an accident.

Here's a section from the California code concerning pedestrians and crosswalks.

"(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
"
This comes from this link:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=VEH

I'm not saying this applies to the situation in the OP's link. Just that pedestrians have responsibilities as well.

Polaris OBark

Yes, apart from the fact that this was in San Francisco (a city within CA), and the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, where the law very unambiguously requires a car to stop, those are truly excellent points.

livedarklions

Pay more attention to the screen on the video. The AI detected the pedestrian in the crosswalk right from the beginning of the video (0 seconds), and there's a full 3 seconds between that mark and the second it crosses the crosswalk. So we know that the AI had AT LEAST 3 seconds of notice that it was illegal to proceed. I live in an area where drivers disregard the crosswalk rules all the time. It renders them worse than useless. This is exactly the same as if the AI decided to run a red light.

Save the reckless pedestrian commentary for a time when you have an actual instance of it. If this pedestrian was acting irresponsibly, there's obviously no responsible way to cross that street.

GhostRider62

I wasn't aware that AI cars stopped running over cyclists.

In NJ, cars must stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk and generally they do. However, walk your bike across and they will run you over. I suppose they don't see a walking cyclist as a pedestrian and therefore, on par with an AI car.

unterhausen

They have threatened to cite people here if they drive on the part of the crosswalk that the pedestrian has already cleared. That's a bit amusing since they don't enforce the any law regarding pedestrians. OTOH, violating the right of way of pedestrians is endemic downtown, they really should put in traffic tables at crosswalks. The economic health of our downtown relies on pedestrians, although that fact is not well understood by most retailers there, somehow.

Hypno Toad

What's even scarier ... humans driving cars do the same thing, and they are all over the roads.

pdlamb

Maybe California (and Arizona) need to write into a law or regulation that autonomous car software must be demonstrated by the CEO of the car company must cross the street in front of a car using that autonomous software. CEO dies, software isn't approved.

himespau 

I wonder if the algorithm running the Tesla takes enforcement rates into account. Where I live, the posted limit all the limited access highway loops surrounding the city is 55 mph, but the median speed is at least 70 mph. Given that I see a traffic enforcement police officer having pulled someone over (don't know the offence) maybe 2-3 times a year at most on those highways. Would the Tesla take that into account and drive 75 automatically similarly to driving through the crosswalk if it is not going to be enforced?

Kalas

Tesla's software has always been a work in progress. While it's getting better, it's definitely not at the point that you can trust it without paying attention to what is going on around you. I'd be more concerned with the thing driving itself into the side of the Columbus Convention Center (that really happened) than trying to beat a pedestrian across a crosswalk.

livedarklions

I can be concerned with both. I'd guess that sheer repetition is going to make the crosswalk issue the more dangerous one.

livedarklions

Interesting question--when the AI commits a clear offense like this, who gets the ticket if it's fully driverless?

Kalas

You get the ticket. It's your responsibility to make sure the car is driving itself properly at all times. Tesla has a showroom at a mall here and their sales people are very up front about it working most of the time, but you still need to pay attention to what is going on around you because it's not perfect. From the point of objectivity, when it works properly it's not a story so major mistakes are statistically rare, even if it's not hard to find an example of one. Full AI driving without you paying attention has been an upgrade that will be "coming soon" for free with their $15,000 autopilot package (maybe $12k, something like that) since the first time I was in their showroom about 5 years ago.

livedarklions

What if you're in the back seat?

Iride01 

At the risk of making this political, I'll say that this is something that as is usual for them, our lawmakers will wait to see which direction the most wind is coming from. And even then a multitude of attorneys will get bunches of money for as the laws won't be adequate or will leave many loopholes and unintended consequences.

I-Like-To-Bike

From the point of objectivity, if the human driver has to override the FSD/Autopilot software decisions or make real time corrections to steering, braking and or acceleration mistakes of the software to avoid "incidents" or worse at any point in the trip, the alleged self-driving system is NOT working safely or properly. Ignoring such software failures to drive safely is one of the biased data gathering tricks used by apologists for such prototypes to arrive at inflated claims of "x" numbers of safely driven miles by the alleged self-driving systems.

Watch any of the numerous YouTube videos posted by Tesla fan boys demonstrating how wonderful the system is, all the while giggling or making excuses about the software oopsies and mistakes that they have to override on every trip. And all those mistakes are potentially major mistakes if not corrected in time by human override.

What makes the headlines are the software oopsies and mistakes in steering, braking, speed correction, and navigation that the driver is not able to override in time to avoid a crash.

livedarklions

Hey, them ambulances ain't gonna chase themselves! Oh, wait, maybe they can. AI is unfair to lawyers!

retswerb

Except that nothing in the section you quoted backs up the statement that a driver doesn't have to stop, even if pedestrians act unpredictably.

mschwett 

we're gonna need some more CEO guys i guess.

mschwett 

exactly right. the pedestrian is not allowed to just jump into a crosswalk with a car barreling towards them at close range, but if they do, the driver STILL has to try and stop. you don't get to just run people over for being stupid.

and for all the car apologists spouting "we should ticket more pedestrians!!!!!!!!" remember that pedestrians impacting other pedestrians, cyclists, or cars rarely kill anyone else. cars, on the other hand...

CrimsonEclipse

You hire an uber, and the car crashes. Uber is at fault

If the car has an AI driver, and no controls, the AI creator is at fault

Car with owner at the controls with and 'autopilot' : depends

in the near future, it might be determined that a lever 5 autonomy might require the manufacturer to assume all liability.

Also, with advanced systems, you must determine who has the final authority, the human or the AI

Is the AI in charge only being assisted by the human or is the human in charge only being assisted by the AI?