Tempe police chief says early probe shows no fault by Uber
sfchronicle.com
sfchronicle.com
There was also a previous discussion about the report that Uber may not be at fault, though unlike this post the linked article was not the original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16624814
In the /r/SelfDrivingCars discussion RIGradStudent pointed out that the article's statement about the Uber car going 38mph in a 35mph zone may be a typo, since Street View shows a 45mph speed limit sign: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/85ozqr/exc...
According to the article:
> From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said.
That wouldn't affect LIDAR, would it? The safety driver may not have been able to avoid the collision, but what about the self-driving car itself? I would like to know more before ruling out Uber's fault.
That's actually an interesting question, I think: should we assign (formal, legal) fault to self-driving cars based on their actual capabilities, or on the capabilities of an average human driver in similar circumstances? What do we currently do when humans of very unequal skill (e.g., a race car driver vs daily commuter) have an accident -- does the race car driver potentially shoulder more of the blame? If not, should self-driving cars be treated differently?
Honest questions, I'm not sure how I'd answer them myself.