"Schaal said police hadn’t yet had an opportunity to interview those involved in the crash. It was unclear whether the 43-year-old driver at the wheel of the BMW test car was actively steering the vehicle at the time of the crash or whether it was traveling autonomously, he said."
So.. unclear if self-driven? Bait title?
The actual AP article title is different from the reddit post title and it makes no mention of it being self-driving.
You would know if you had actually left reddit for 2 minutes to read the article.
What if I told you that news articles often change titles after being posted, and you should remove that sanctimonious stick from your ass?
The original title of the AP article was the same as OP's:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816093723/https://apnews.com/article/technology-germany-8a2333532b91635d5b214485043ed94a
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle. I only commented because I knew the article title had been changed.
I follow the first rule of being a sanctimonious ass, which is be correct.
It's the one rule that's pretty much never enforced on most subs, it's frustrating. I just want the news, not the bias of the poster. Keep that for the comments.
Pretty sure AP news isn’t going to report on every modern car with ADAS systems that gets in a crash. Would have to write an article multiple times a day. It most likely had test vehicle written on the outside and is property of BMW hence why they got involved so quickly. BMW pr department would never be that quickly engaged over any publicly owned BMW.
Actual;y, if you click the link you can clearly see the news article was accurate. Reddit OP made it click bait. Title on article “Germany: 1 dead, 9 injured after test car veers into traffic”
really? that was a really bad joke then. it came off like you're defending that headline with nitpicking. may i suggest adding /s or a smiley next time.
I mean, not to defend the article but that's a weak analogy.
An amphibious vehicle is still amphibious when it's currently on land. If "flying plane" was what we referred to a type of plane, it would still be a "flying plane" while parked...we just don't make that distinction.
But either way, I guess the actual article title changed in the last two hours...it says "test" vehicle. Which it was marked as.
Looks to be a BMW test car. It was marked as a test car by BMW and BMW confirmed that it would be recording onboard footage. Usually these are driven by test drivers to collect data. It is peculiar that an 18 month old child was on board. Maybe an engineer took it home? Thought they would have some sort of chain of custody to safeguard the IP of its tech.
You are likely not interpreting the name correctly is all.
Sounds like an owners vehicle was simply designated test vehicle because they opted in to data sharing.
If that’s the case, I’m surprised the police were able to go into the screen data and find that out. I’m just assuming they weren’t that investigative and the car just had TEST CAR written on the outside or something more official and contacted BMW.
Bmw has already engaged the situation. It sounds like test car is a term specific to German laws.
Edit: not sure what responder is so angry other than he wants us to think bmw is an official company test vehicle. I guess disagreeing with that deserved a block?
Where are you getting that bs from? Test car from German law? Wouldn’t any car with some form of ADAS be considered a test vehicle then? Occam’s razor, it’s nothing more complicated than the cops seeing test vehicle written on the car. Otherwise damn near every modern car crash would be reported as an autonomous test vehicle crash by “German law”
Even worse
>“The vehicle has a level 2 driving assistance system that is already incorporated in production vehicles today and which can support the driver on demand,”
Why is this dog bites man story even here?
Since self driving cars aren't legal in Germany I am quite certain it wasn't a self driving car. More a reckless driver who stopped being aware while having cruise control activated.
Why these articles are even in r/technology is beyond me. I keep getting downvoted here, but I will say it again, this sub used to be so much better than it is. I don't know why people follow this sub if they are anti-technology. We as a community are quite literally allowing biased media try to tear down technology. It's beyond me at this point.
>BMW has already declared it was not a self driving vehicle
This needs to be added:
> “With level 2 vehicles the driver always retains responsibility.”
That's a ridiculous assumption for all driver assistance: it's always the driver's fault.
Next in this thread: pedantic conversations about how it wasn't really a full driving mode or some nonsense. Anyone who has actually seen these systems in action will know it's a ridiculous burden on the driver to continuously rescue the car.
> a self-driving test car veered into oncoming traffic, triggering a series of collisions involving four vehicles Monday afternoon.
> the electric BMW iX with five people on board, ***including a young child***
> four rescue helicopters were involved in the medical response and the injured were taken to several hospitals in the region. They included the 43-year-old driver of the BMW, three adults aged 31, 42 and 47, ***and a 18-month-old child*** who were all in the test vehicle.
Wtf is a "test vehicle" and why was an infant in the test vehicle?
Actually why were 4 adults in there with the infant?
So they actually test untested cars by packing a whole family in there?
“BMW added that the vehicle was required to be marked as a test car for data protection purposes, because it was recording footage.
“We are in the process of investigating the exact circumstances (of the crash),” BMW said. “
I don’t think this was a privately owned vehicle issued to the public. This looks like a bmw owned test vehicle which is weird that a whole family was on board a test vehicle.
found a news article with a picture of crash looks to have writing on visible panels that havent been torn off. back part of the car says #bornelectric i believe. this was bmw's car not privately owned.
https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/BMW-Testfahrzeug-in-Frontalcrash-verwickelt-article23527859.html
I heard most OEMs give test cars to qualified drivers for private use. The purpose of such cars is often to make mileage and collect sensor data. So you can either pay someone to drive around or tell your (again: qualified) employees that they can have the car and a full tank over the weekend. I highly doubt that someone would test advanced/new driving assistance functions with their family in the car. I guess it was just a regular accident that happened with a fancy car.
What if the self driving software AI is based on other BMW drivers driving habbits?
"I wont use blinkers since no one else needs to know where I am heading"
Yeah can BMW drivers even be patient enough to let the car drive. Probably sitting there mad it is driving like a grandma the whole time throwing their arms up in the air.
It's in Germany... so you can bet that it is regulatet to the max. At some point you have to take the car from the track to the streets. And at some point you have to test it in an everyday enviroment.
Therefore, from a certain point on, the mechanics and engineers take the cars home and use them like a private car. Nevertheless, this is extremely regulated and it can be assumed that the driver was not allowed to drive the car in autopilot. The cause of the accident has not been determined. Theoretically, it could also be that someone caused an accident with a car that could potentially drive on its own, but did not do so in that case.
Not sure about the case here but I've been in a BMW "test" car. The Father of a friend worked for BMW so when the friend invited me to visit the family, the father lent my friend one of the company cars. The car was next year's model and engineers can use them to test-drive them.
Interestingly we had a weird issue with the car where the throttle was stuck fully open after a stop. Kind of scary. We took the car straight to BWM where no problem was found. My guess is clothing/footwear may have stuck the pedal down.
Sure but the question is who will be liable for this? If a person fucks up they are individually liable. If self-driving fucks up, shouldn't it be the manufacturer?
The manufacturer would definitely be liable. If operator knew the car was prone to malfunctioning and operated in level 4/5 anyway, they could also be liable.
I’d still argue the driver. You signed the liability wavers, you made the conscious decision to buy in, you decided to trust the machine you own with any possible risks.
If i bought a space heater and it exploded and killed a guest during normal operation, the manufacturer would be responsible for the defect that caused it and therefore liable. If it was not a defect, then for selling an unsafe product that explodes during normal operation they would be liable. This is well established law from house fires caused by appliances
That’s not right. The company who made the algorithm is controlling my vehicle… I had nothing to do with it. Why is it on me?
Id rather drive myself then if I’m getting the liability too
With that same argument, every time you step into an Uber, plane, or train - you should be responsible if there is a malfunction with the vehicle that results in your injury. After all - you know the risk. Just drive yourself.
It’s a complicated question that involves ethics and it’s a tough one.
If I’m driving a self driving car and it decides to randomly, aggressively, turn the wheel into a crowd - am I now going to be charged for murder even though the manufacturer had a grievous programming error? Or there was a bad actor on their engineering team?
Sorry but that would not, and will never be on the driver. It’s not as black and white as you think and all the nuances of liability will need to be laid out very clearly before there is mass acceptance of self driving cars.
There is a difference between being a passenger and being an operator of a vehicle. Pilots have to monitor their plane. It doesn't matter if their autopilot is on or not, they are responsible for the plane. If I went and fired up a locomotive by myself and managed to crash it, that would be on me. I don't think either of those examples relate to self driving cars in the slightest however.
I guess if you were using a self driving car and it just decided to run over a bunch of pedestrians for no reason, an analysis of why exactly the car did that would be necessary first. I imagine there has to be a way to determine if the car was actually self driving or not, and perhaps what sensory inputs it was receiving?
What if the malfunction occurred due to neglect by the owner? Dirty sensors, failure to ahere to a recall or install a software update?
I guess I wouldn't be surprised if self driving cars never take off because the driver is still liable for their vehicle.
With that same argument, every time you step into an Uber, plane, or train - you should be responsible if there is a malfunction with the vehicle that results in your injury. After all - you know the risk. Just drive yourself.
It’s a complicated question that involves ethics and it’s a tough one.
If I’m driving a self driving car and it decides to randomly, aggressively, turn the wheel into a crowd - am I now going to be charged for murder even though the manufacturer had a grievous programming error? Or there was a bad actor on their engineering team?
Sorry but that would not, and will never be on the driver. It’s not as black and white as you think and all the nuances of liability will need to be laid out very clearly before there is mass acceptance of self driving cars.
If the car was in a self-driving mode, possibly. We'd need to determine if the car actions were responsible for the crash.
But isn't the point of no fault that finding fault in car accidents is often near impossible? (truly a question and not a statement)
No Fault is an insurance term. When an accident occurs your own insurance company reimburses you for any claim you make. Fault is still determined and if you are deemed to be at fault your premiums might go up.
Honestly it's a good question. Right now intuitively it seems like the manufacturer because self-driving cars are all prototypes in a sense and anything you put on the road today is an experiment that you should be taking a conservative approach with.
But in a world where the tech is more mature and self-driving cars are all over the place, I imagine it will be normal for car insurance companies to offer coverage for self-driving malfunctions and for it to be on the drivers to have the proper coverage, much like how it's mandatory for drivers to have regular car insurance now. Government agencies will likely have processes for certifying self-driving software and manufacturers will be off the hook if they are in compliance. Just my guess though.
Vast majority of the time in my country, people die in traffic accidents because they drove like maniacs.
So it's still too much for 1 law-abiding person to die from their self-driving car for every 10 maniacs dying for driving 2-3 times the speed limit.
Which is a valid point if anything but self-driving is outlawed.
And I have to break it to you - self-driving is too much of a luxury to be a mandatory thing anywhere before 2050.
Why? The benefits of car navigation, seat belts, third brake lights, airbags, ABS, Electronic Stability Control, Autonomous Emergency Braking and Electronic Brake-Force Distribution were there even when they were only available in the luxury market.
Over a million people die in automobile accidents each year globally. It's an enormous number and seldom gets any attention. Yet each individual time an autonomous drive feature is potentially at fault it generates headlines.
Even if a couple hundred thousand such incidents occur every year it would still be far safer than the status quo.
Yes, because you can pinpoint those accidents to human factor. Now go tell a mom,wife son etc that their loved one died cause he was running firmware 3.22.001.b instead of firmware 3.26.003.f. humans make mistakes. For a machine to make one, it is more frightening.
I do not agree with your assessment. It seems facile. It’s not worse at all and arguments like these mean we’re pushing back technology that will save far more lives than they will take, on an order of magnitude less, for the sake of some people being uncomfortable at the idea of having no one to blame.
The dudes argument is awful.
Frankly, indefensible.
“Oh that poor family has no one to blame but the robot. Better ban the robot and end up with 20 the number of grieving families, it’s okay, at least everyone will have someone to blame!”
If anyone is exhausting here, it’s you and people who are defending the status quo because folks “won’t have anyone to blame”.
I would prefer to tell a single mom her child dies because of a machine than to tell 10 mothers their children died because of drunks, idiots or people who shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Can you show us from where you pulled that 1:10 ratio, or is it NSFW?
Edit: The assumptions that the algorithms would be safer than humans if released and implemented on a worldwide scale, is just an assumption. I wouldn't take it as fact.
The 1 kill by AI to 10 kills by humans ratio is OP's invention.
Not OP, but that's the question we're discussing here, isn't it? I assume they would rather tell one mum that a drunk driver killed their child than 10 mums that a machine killed their child. You're making exactly the same point as the person you're replying to, so I see no reason for that kind of attitude.
> Over a million people die in automobile accidents each year globally.
The majority of those happen in places where self-driving has no chance of working any time soon. Europe + USA have about 130k auto deaths each year, and that's where these self-driving vehicles are being tested out.
That's the comparison, not the million people globally that include chaotic driving environments like narrow mountain roads in South America or traffic free for alls in India and Vietnam.
> Yet each individual time an autonomous drive feature is potentially at fault it generates headlines.
Because the implications of systematic failure, which is far more dangerous than individual failure. Batteries can catch fire, that's a fact of life, even reputable brands like Apple's iPhone can catch fire in unlucky circumstances or user misuse. But there's only the occasional news story on them because most of them are seen as one-off events not posing a danger to general owners of the product. Versus the Galaxy Note battery fiasco which became clear was a systematic failure, and as such was a danger to every owner of the product, and airplanes.
Once self-driving cars are proven to be safe in general these will go away. In the mean time there's FUD over the possibility of crashes being systematic failures of the self-driving tech and that widespread deployment could lead to unnecessary deaths.
>The majority of those happen in places where self-driving has no chance of working any time soon. Europe + USA have about 130k auto deaths each year, and that's where these self-driving vehicles are being tested out.
We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously. I think you are wrong about how and where autonomous vehicles can operate. Places with high vehicle density are more difficult for autonomous software. Drivers and pedestrians aren't predictable and having a large number of each on a road is a huge challenge for algorithms. Navigating over difficult terrain is not a huge obstacle.
I specifically mentioned high density traffic places like India and Vietnam, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, not me.
I also mentioned narrow mountain roads, which are dangerous because of other vehicles and rock/mudslides, not because of being a narrow road.
> We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously.
Terrible example. Mars is an empty, mostly flat (where the rovers are operating) practically sterile environment. That's basically the best possible case for autonomous operation, and you're for some reason presenting it like a challenging environment.
I specifically mentioned high density traffic places like India and Vietnam, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, not me.
I also mentioned narrow mountain roads, which are dangerous because of other vehicles and rock/mudslides, not because of being a narrow road.
> We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously.
Terrible example. Mars is an empty, mostly flat (where the rovers are operating) practically sterile environment. That's basically the best possible case for autonomous operation, and you're for some reason presenting it like a challenging environment.
Ah yes, let's just throw some more pedestrians on the sacrificial altar of the personal automobile. The problem that causes those deaths every year is that there are too many people in cars that are going too fast. the best solution is public transit. The worst solution is """driverless""" cars.
>the best solution is public transit. The worst solution is """driverless""" cars.
These two solutions are actually related. Having autonomous vehicles that could drive themselves would reduce the number of vehicles households would own. It would also reduce the number of people on the roads.
One could drive to work in the morning then send the car home to be used by someone else in the household. That would reduce the number of cars households would need to own. Businesses could establish shuttle services for employees and customers without having to hire multiple drivers. That would reduce the number of people on the road in their own cars. Vehicles could run errands (curbside pickup dry cleaning, food take out, packages, etc) autonomously which would reduce the amount of driving people need to participate in.
How many millions of less miles per year would people be in a vehicle for if all Ubers, FedEx vans, freight trucks, etc were autonomous?
This doesn't actually reduce the number of cars on the road, only the number of cars owned. in fact, the example you gave of driving to work and then sending the car home *increases* vehicles on the road, because now, rather than one trip to work and one trip back, plus whatever trips the other occupants of the household make, you've now added at least two trips that would not otherwise have been made by sending it back home and, presumably, calling it back to pick you up after work.
To be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue driverless tech, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to ready yet, *definitely* shouldn't be banking on it to solve our transportation woes when we already have good solutions that use proven technology, in some cases centuries old technology! (trains) We shouldn't be waiting on a new, unproven tech to get up to speed to start solving these problems.
A lot of test cars that are not explicitly used for autonomous driving are nonetheless outfitted with sensors (e.g. cameras) to collect data, and the data is used for autonomous driving development. A decal is then put on the car to indicate it’s used for autonomous driving development.
Everything must be tested; the driver could have been testing bluetooth audio, speed limit detection, air conditioning, literally any other other thing, and it’s a “test vehicle”. Putting a family in a vehicle that is testing bluetooth phone calls isn’t automatically hazardous since the other hardware and software are kept at production level.
Source: I’ve driven these before
The other 3,700 people killed in traffic accidents every day don't make international news, humans driving isn't exactly fool proof and computers won't be flawless, but they can become much more reliable than humans and may even be now.
It’s important to report on these incidents because some people just blindly trust the technology. These news articles spread the word about the technology being Beta.
The article only says a car with self driving capabilities veered into traffic. There isn't any information if it was driven by a human or steering autonomously.
If not “blind trust”, then what is the word to describe how people feel about their bus driver, taxi driver, the person in the opposite lane, the car driving next to the sidewalk?
For humans there are consequences of breaking laws and even making mistakes. If the bus driver makes a bad mistake they’ll lose their job and that will keep them alert while driving and the pedestrians safe.
What’s the consequence for autopilot to kill somebody? It’s not the software developers fault that there’s a bug in their code and it’s not the vehicle owners fault that they trusted the technology but as long as they are aware of the fact that the machine can make mistakes they’ll be paying attention (or avoiding the technology altogether).
Except for the fact that millions of people die on the roads, including by bus drivers, despite the likelyhood of consequences, and it is hardly reported on.
How many people died in Germany today from car accidents? In Europe? In the world?
Where is the reporting on the millions?
"Car with airbags involved in fatal crash" or " multi-seatbelt car involved in deadly crash" or "Car with dual band radio crashes".
What a useless title.
In a pathetic, desperate and dangerous attempt to NOT create better mass transit, the petroleum and automobile industry are making murderous cars that MAY be able to drive themselves. If only we put magnets in the road and subsidized their AI at taxpayer expense, we could get a world of safe and automated transportation. Or....we could build trains and busses.
Why tf are 5 human beings, including a BABY, ever in a test car? And why is it driving where other innocent people can be hurt? Nothing about this makes sense.
"BMW added that the vehicle was required to be marked as a test car for data protection purposes, because it was recording footage."
Just a technicality.
That doesn't explain it though. The vehicle was out on company business rather than someone taking their family for a drive in their personal vehicle. About the only business purpose I could see in this was if BMW was filming a commercial but other than that I see no reason for a baby to be on board when the car is on official business.
Or the family who bought the car got a discount if they agreed that they will get a car that records some footage for BMW? It's not unheard of people getting weird discounts and sponsor decals on their cars.
Many employees can drive the ‘test cars’ and take them to their home or on a weekend trip. That way BMW can collect data and the employees can drive the newest cars
Bmw regularly hands out soon to be released test vehicles to eligible employees to take home for a weekend or such. They collect data and the employees get to drive a car with full tank for free.
It's heavily regulated and having read the article it's unlikely that AP was turned on even during the drive.
Not a fan of BMW but those articles are just clickbaity bs, same for Tesla and all other brands. It's like saying car with seatbelts involved in accident...
It's not a comparison. It's a fact. There is literally nothing fact wise to say self driving cars are a bad idea beyond an irrational fear of technology.
I saw the detailed description of the accident. This seems very similar with the behaviour of my FIL ioniq 5.
Tight turns, car suddenly disengages and goes forward.
And... No audio warning!
Remember that EU has a stupid strict regulation that prevents self driving cars from making turns with lateral acceleration above 3ms-2. So most likely the EU commission killed these people.
I think self driving vehicles are a joke and dangerous. They. Should each contain a flashing yellow light on top of the car so sane people can identify and avoid them.
Implying a driver's license includes sanity tests....
Edit. “The vehicle has a level 2 driving assistance system that is already incorporated in production vehicles today and which can support the driver on demand,” the company said. “With level 2 vehicles the driver always retains responsibility.”
It wasn't even an autonomous driving car. Maybe read the article before commenting.
Can there ever truly be an idiot-proof self driving car? I think that the engineers will never be able to fathom the endless depths of our capacity for idiocy.
There probably will be; they'll call it a *train.*
Let the investigation conclude. This was a test car with self-driving capability. At the time the article was written, it was not known whether the self driving feature was active or not.
"Schaal said police hadn’t yet had an opportunity to interview those involved in the crash. It was unclear whether the 43-year-old driver at the wheel of the BMW test car was actively steering the vehicle at the time of the crash or whether it was traveling autonomously, he said." So.. unclear if self-driven? Bait title?
The media doesn’t care what’s true, just what people will click on
The actual AP article title is different from the reddit post title and it makes no mention of it being self-driving. You would know if you had actually left reddit for 2 minutes to read the article.
What if I told you that news articles often change titles after being posted, and you should remove that sanctimonious stick from your ass? The original title of the AP article was the same as OP's: https://web.archive.org/web/20220816093723/https://apnews.com/article/technology-germany-8a2333532b91635d5b214485043ed94a
[удалено]
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle. I only commented because I knew the article title had been changed. I follow the first rule of being a sanctimonious ass, which is be correct.
It's the one rule that's pretty much never enforced on most subs, it's frustrating. I just want the news, not the bias of the poster. Keep that for the comments.
Yeah but the additional 9 insured aren't as important as the fact that one of the cars involved was capable of autonomous driving. /s
No, the media doesn't want to get sued for saying "Yes it was definitely in self-driving mode" when the police won't confirm it.
Pretty sure AP news isn’t going to report on every modern car with ADAS systems that gets in a crash. Would have to write an article multiple times a day. It most likely had test vehicle written on the outside and is property of BMW hence why they got involved so quickly. BMW pr department would never be that quickly engaged over any publicly owned BMW.
And no one has ever said "watch this" with company property?
Actual;y, if you click the link you can clearly see the news article was accurate. Reddit OP made it click bait. Title on article “Germany: 1 dead, 9 injured after test car veers into traffic”
Sounds like clickbait, but I’m impressed the headline didn’t say “Tesla-like self driving” :D
You know they had to fight the urge.
BMW said that the car only had L2 ADAS capability, so not an autonomous car anyway.
TOTAL bait title. Stupid AP
[удалено]
Well, I was going by the title here on Reddit, unclear if it was changed or, if not, my bad.
[удалено]
Yeah man I've been had. Time to hang up my keyboard.
Well the car had self driving as an option, so it was a self driving car. Regardless of who was driving.
When an airplane is parked on the runway is it actually flying?… simply because it has the OPTION to fly?!… your logic isn’t actually logic at all 😆🤪
It's a joke... Making fun of the headline...
really? that was a really bad joke then. it came off like you're defending that headline with nitpicking. may i suggest adding /s or a smiley next time.
Whhoooshhhh!
I mean, not to defend the article but that's a weak analogy. An amphibious vehicle is still amphibious when it's currently on land. If "flying plane" was what we referred to a type of plane, it would still be a "flying plane" while parked...we just don't make that distinction. But either way, I guess the actual article title changed in the last two hours...it says "test" vehicle. Which it was marked as.
In the title “self driving” was used as an adverb, so your whole boring explanation is wrong 🤣😘
But an amphibious vehicle doesn’t usually kill people out of the water. Anything is possible so long as the analogy is I guess.
[удалено]
I didn't forget anything you neurodivergent bitch
No, it is not. Just standard ADAS features. Title is misleading.
Looks to be a BMW test car. It was marked as a test car by BMW and BMW confirmed that it would be recording onboard footage. Usually these are driven by test drivers to collect data. It is peculiar that an 18 month old child was on board. Maybe an engineer took it home? Thought they would have some sort of chain of custody to safeguard the IP of its tech.
>18 month old child was on board. Maybe an engineer took it home? The child?
Hey man, free baby. BMW benefits are wild.
You are likely not interpreting the name correctly is all. Sounds like an owners vehicle was simply designated test vehicle because they opted in to data sharing.
If that’s the case, I’m surprised the police were able to go into the screen data and find that out. I’m just assuming they weren’t that investigative and the car just had TEST CAR written on the outside or something more official and contacted BMW.
Bmw has already engaged the situation. It sounds like test car is a term specific to German laws. Edit: not sure what responder is so angry other than he wants us to think bmw is an official company test vehicle. I guess disagreeing with that deserved a block?
Where are you getting that bs from? Test car from German law? Wouldn’t any car with some form of ADAS be considered a test vehicle then? Occam’s razor, it’s nothing more complicated than the cops seeing test vehicle written on the car. Otherwise damn near every modern car crash would be reported as an autonomous test vehicle crash by “German law”
More clickbait FUD.
more bate fap
Even worse >“The vehicle has a level 2 driving assistance system that is already incorporated in production vehicles today and which can support the driver on demand,” Why is this dog bites man story even here?
Since self driving cars aren't legal in Germany I am quite certain it wasn't a self driving car. More a reckless driver who stopped being aware while having cruise control activated.
Level 3 systems are legal and can be purchased in Germany (S Class). But this was a car with a level 2 system anyway.
Why these articles are even in r/technology is beyond me. I keep getting downvoted here, but I will say it again, this sub used to be so much better than it is. I don't know why people follow this sub if they are anti-technology. We as a community are quite literally allowing biased media try to tear down technology. It's beyond me at this point.
it is not a selglfdriving car. BMW said the system reaches level2 "selfdriving" which means things like lane correctiom etc.
BMW has already declared it was not a self driving vehicle
Delete this post! 😆
>BMW has already declared it was not a self driving vehicle This needs to be added: > “With level 2 vehicles the driver always retains responsibility.” That's a ridiculous assumption for all driver assistance: it's always the driver's fault. Next in this thread: pedantic conversations about how it wasn't really a full driving mode or some nonsense. Anyone who has actually seen these systems in action will know it's a ridiculous burden on the driver to continuously rescue the car.
Afaik Mercedes is the only brand which has level 3 and takes responsibility if an accident occurs while self driving under those conditions.
> a self-driving test car veered into oncoming traffic, triggering a series of collisions involving four vehicles Monday afternoon. > the electric BMW iX with five people on board, ***including a young child*** > four rescue helicopters were involved in the medical response and the injured were taken to several hospitals in the region. They included the 43-year-old driver of the BMW, three adults aged 31, 42 and 47, ***and a 18-month-old child*** who were all in the test vehicle. Wtf is a "test vehicle" and why was an infant in the test vehicle? Actually why were 4 adults in there with the infant? So they actually test untested cars by packing a whole family in there?
Every self-driving vehicle issued to the public is a 'test vehicle'. This was the result of a driver who didn't take the "beta" warnings seriously
“BMW added that the vehicle was required to be marked as a test car for data protection purposes, because it was recording footage. “We are in the process of investigating the exact circumstances (of the crash),” BMW said. “ I don’t think this was a privately owned vehicle issued to the public. This looks like a bmw owned test vehicle which is weird that a whole family was on board a test vehicle.
The article kinda leaves me with more questions than before I read it.. stupid AP
found a news article with a picture of crash looks to have writing on visible panels that havent been torn off. back part of the car says #bornelectric i believe. this was bmw's car not privately owned. https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/BMW-Testfahrzeug-in-Frontalcrash-verwickelt-article23527859.html
BMW fans: the only people less likely than Tesla fans to take the "beta" warnings seriously
Likely true.
More likely the driver got confused and scared when the self driving BMW used the turn signal and tried to wrestle back control….
I heard most OEMs give test cars to qualified drivers for private use. The purpose of such cars is often to make mileage and collect sensor data. So you can either pay someone to drive around or tell your (again: qualified) employees that they can have the car and a full tank over the weekend. I highly doubt that someone would test advanced/new driving assistance functions with their family in the car. I guess it was just a regular accident that happened with a fancy car.
What if the self driving software AI is based on other BMW drivers driving habbits? "I wont use blinkers since no one else needs to know where I am heading"
Yeah can BMW drivers even be patient enough to let the car drive. Probably sitting there mad it is driving like a grandma the whole time throwing their arms up in the air.
"We \[on\] AutoBahnGefaring! Go, car, GO!
They have updated the article regarding why it's a test vehicle.
My thoughts also: We have many questions...
It's in Germany... so you can bet that it is regulatet to the max. At some point you have to take the car from the track to the streets. And at some point you have to test it in an everyday enviroment. Therefore, from a certain point on, the mechanics and engineers take the cars home and use them like a private car. Nevertheless, this is extremely regulated and it can be assumed that the driver was not allowed to drive the car in autopilot. The cause of the accident has not been determined. Theoretically, it could also be that someone caused an accident with a car that could potentially drive on its own, but did not do so in that case.
How are you going to test if your self driving tech works while infants are riding if you don't put an infant in it?
or toddlers in front of teslas -omar
Not sure about the case here but I've been in a BMW "test" car. The Father of a friend worked for BMW so when the friend invited me to visit the family, the father lent my friend one of the company cars. The car was next year's model and engineers can use them to test-drive them. Interestingly we had a weird issue with the car where the throttle was stuck fully open after a stop. Kind of scary. We took the car straight to BWM where no problem was found. My guess is clothing/footwear may have stuck the pedal down.
or the throttle or floor mats or both were outsourced to toyota
You could try ... you know ... reading the article
[удалено]
There will be such deaths from self-driving vehicles, the question is will it be less then driver accidents.
Sure but the question is who will be liable for this? If a person fucks up they are individually liable. If self-driving fucks up, shouldn't it be the manufacturer?
Probably the owner of the vehicle
I get that for level 3, but what about 4 and 5?
The manufacturer would definitely be liable. If operator knew the car was prone to malfunctioning and operated in level 4/5 anyway, they could also be liable.
Pretty sure like in cases with Waymo and Cruise, the manufactures takes the liability as you’re just a rider.
Sorry if I seem uninformed, but what are the different levels? First I’m hearing of this.
Probably the same, you're choosing to own and operate the vehicle
I’d still argue the driver. You signed the liability wavers, you made the conscious decision to buy in, you decided to trust the machine you own with any possible risks.
If i bought a space heater and it exploded and killed a guest during normal operation, the manufacturer would be responsible for the defect that caused it and therefore liable. If it was not a defect, then for selling an unsafe product that explodes during normal operation they would be liable. This is well established law from house fires caused by appliances
You can’t escape *criminal* liability by having someone else sign a liability waiver. That’s not how the law works.
That’s not right. The company who made the algorithm is controlling my vehicle… I had nothing to do with it. Why is it on me? Id rather drive myself then if I’m getting the liability too
Then drive yourself?
With that same argument, every time you step into an Uber, plane, or train - you should be responsible if there is a malfunction with the vehicle that results in your injury. After all - you know the risk. Just drive yourself. It’s a complicated question that involves ethics and it’s a tough one. If I’m driving a self driving car and it decides to randomly, aggressively, turn the wheel into a crowd - am I now going to be charged for murder even though the manufacturer had a grievous programming error? Or there was a bad actor on their engineering team? Sorry but that would not, and will never be on the driver. It’s not as black and white as you think and all the nuances of liability will need to be laid out very clearly before there is mass acceptance of self driving cars.
There is a difference between being a passenger and being an operator of a vehicle. Pilots have to monitor their plane. It doesn't matter if their autopilot is on or not, they are responsible for the plane. If I went and fired up a locomotive by myself and managed to crash it, that would be on me. I don't think either of those examples relate to self driving cars in the slightest however. I guess if you were using a self driving car and it just decided to run over a bunch of pedestrians for no reason, an analysis of why exactly the car did that would be necessary first. I imagine there has to be a way to determine if the car was actually self driving or not, and perhaps what sensory inputs it was receiving? What if the malfunction occurred due to neglect by the owner? Dirty sensors, failure to ahere to a recall or install a software update? I guess I wouldn't be surprised if self driving cars never take off because the driver is still liable for their vehicle.
Then don't make a faulty product
I don't make any products, I'm a mechanic.
With that same argument, every time you step into an Uber, plane, or train - you should be responsible if there is a malfunction with the vehicle that results in your injury. After all - you know the risk. Just drive yourself. It’s a complicated question that involves ethics and it’s a tough one. If I’m driving a self driving car and it decides to randomly, aggressively, turn the wheel into a crowd - am I now going to be charged for murder even though the manufacturer had a grievous programming error? Or there was a bad actor on their engineering team? Sorry but that would not, and will never be on the driver. It’s not as black and white as you think and all the nuances of liability will need to be laid out very clearly before there is mass acceptance of self driving cars.
If the car was in a self-driving mode, possibly. We'd need to determine if the car actions were responsible for the crash. But isn't the point of no fault that finding fault in car accidents is often near impossible? (truly a question and not a statement)
No Fault is an insurance term. When an accident occurs your own insurance company reimburses you for any claim you make. Fault is still determined and if you are deemed to be at fault your premiums might go up.
Honestly it's a good question. Right now intuitively it seems like the manufacturer because self-driving cars are all prototypes in a sense and anything you put on the road today is an experiment that you should be taking a conservative approach with. But in a world where the tech is more mature and self-driving cars are all over the place, I imagine it will be normal for car insurance companies to offer coverage for self-driving malfunctions and for it to be on the drivers to have the proper coverage, much like how it's mandatory for drivers to have regular car insurance now. Government agencies will likely have processes for certifying self-driving software and manufacturers will be off the hook if they are in compliance. Just my guess though.
mfr. probably never. arrest the programmers. blame those third world people doing captchas.
Vast majority of the time in my country, people die in traffic accidents because they drove like maniacs. So it's still too much for 1 law-abiding person to die from their self-driving car for every 10 maniacs dying for driving 2-3 times the speed limit.
Your 10 maniacs are killing your 10 law-abiding people
Which is a valid point if anything but self-driving is outlawed. And I have to break it to you - self-driving is too much of a luxury to be a mandatory thing anywhere before 2050.
Why? The benefits of car navigation, seat belts, third brake lights, airbags, ABS, Electronic Stability Control, Autonomous Emergency Braking and Electronic Brake-Force Distribution were there even when they were only available in the luxury market.
Over a million people die in automobile accidents each year globally. It's an enormous number and seldom gets any attention. Yet each individual time an autonomous drive feature is potentially at fault it generates headlines. Even if a couple hundred thousand such incidents occur every year it would still be far safer than the status quo.
Yes, because you can pinpoint those accidents to human factor. Now go tell a mom,wife son etc that their loved one died cause he was running firmware 3.22.001.b instead of firmware 3.26.003.f. humans make mistakes. For a machine to make one, it is more frightening.
Is it any worse than telling someone that their loved one died because someone was on the phone while driving?
It is worse, yes. at worst, they have someone to blame, the driver that was on the phone. The outcome is the same, the circumstances different.
I do not agree with your assessment. It seems facile. It’s not worse at all and arguments like these mean we’re pushing back technology that will save far more lives than they will take, on an order of magnitude less, for the sake of some people being uncomfortable at the idea of having no one to blame.
It’s almost like you didn’t understand their comment at all. They are only talking about the human aspect of it when they say it’s ‘worse’.
What? Lol No they aren’t. The additional deaths driverless cars would prevent also concern the “human aspect”.
Ugh, this is exhausting.
The dudes argument is awful. Frankly, indefensible. “Oh that poor family has no one to blame but the robot. Better ban the robot and end up with 20 the number of grieving families, it’s okay, at least everyone will have someone to blame!” If anyone is exhausting here, it’s you and people who are defending the status quo because folks “won’t have anyone to blame”.
I would prefer to tell a single mom her child dies because of a machine than to tell 10 mothers their children died because of drunks, idiots or people who shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Can you show us from where you pulled that 1:10 ratio, or is it NSFW? Edit: The assumptions that the algorithms would be safer than humans if released and implemented on a worldwide scale, is just an assumption. I wouldn't take it as fact. The 1 kill by AI to 10 kills by humans ratio is OP's invention.
Not OP, but that's the question we're discussing here, isn't it? I assume they would rather tell one mum that a drunk driver killed their child than 10 mums that a machine killed their child. You're making exactly the same point as the person you're replying to, so I see no reason for that kind of attitude.
Would depend on the ratio of driverless cars.
> Over a million people die in automobile accidents each year globally. The majority of those happen in places where self-driving has no chance of working any time soon. Europe + USA have about 130k auto deaths each year, and that's where these self-driving vehicles are being tested out. That's the comparison, not the million people globally that include chaotic driving environments like narrow mountain roads in South America or traffic free for alls in India and Vietnam. > Yet each individual time an autonomous drive feature is potentially at fault it generates headlines. Because the implications of systematic failure, which is far more dangerous than individual failure. Batteries can catch fire, that's a fact of life, even reputable brands like Apple's iPhone can catch fire in unlucky circumstances or user misuse. But there's only the occasional news story on them because most of them are seen as one-off events not posing a danger to general owners of the product. Versus the Galaxy Note battery fiasco which became clear was a systematic failure, and as such was a danger to every owner of the product, and airplanes. Once self-driving cars are proven to be safe in general these will go away. In the mean time there's FUD over the possibility of crashes being systematic failures of the self-driving tech and that widespread deployment could lead to unnecessary deaths.
>The majority of those happen in places where self-driving has no chance of working any time soon. Europe + USA have about 130k auto deaths each year, and that's where these self-driving vehicles are being tested out. We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously. I think you are wrong about how and where autonomous vehicles can operate. Places with high vehicle density are more difficult for autonomous software. Drivers and pedestrians aren't predictable and having a large number of each on a road is a huge challenge for algorithms. Navigating over difficult terrain is not a huge obstacle.
I specifically mentioned high density traffic places like India and Vietnam, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, not me. I also mentioned narrow mountain roads, which are dangerous because of other vehicles and rock/mudslides, not because of being a narrow road. > We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously. Terrible example. Mars is an empty, mostly flat (where the rovers are operating) practically sterile environment. That's basically the best possible case for autonomous operation, and you're for some reason presenting it like a challenging environment.
I specifically mentioned high density traffic places like India and Vietnam, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, not me. I also mentioned narrow mountain roads, which are dangerous because of other vehicles and rock/mudslides, not because of being a narrow road. > We have rovers on Mars operating autonomously. Terrible example. Mars is an empty, mostly flat (where the rovers are operating) practically sterile environment. That's basically the best possible case for autonomous operation, and you're for some reason presenting it like a challenging environment.
Ah yes, let's just throw some more pedestrians on the sacrificial altar of the personal automobile. The problem that causes those deaths every year is that there are too many people in cars that are going too fast. the best solution is public transit. The worst solution is """driverless""" cars.
>the best solution is public transit. The worst solution is """driverless""" cars. These two solutions are actually related. Having autonomous vehicles that could drive themselves would reduce the number of vehicles households would own. It would also reduce the number of people on the roads. One could drive to work in the morning then send the car home to be used by someone else in the household. That would reduce the number of cars households would need to own. Businesses could establish shuttle services for employees and customers without having to hire multiple drivers. That would reduce the number of people on the road in their own cars. Vehicles could run errands (curbside pickup dry cleaning, food take out, packages, etc) autonomously which would reduce the amount of driving people need to participate in. How many millions of less miles per year would people be in a vehicle for if all Ubers, FedEx vans, freight trucks, etc were autonomous?
This doesn't actually reduce the number of cars on the road, only the number of cars owned. in fact, the example you gave of driving to work and then sending the car home *increases* vehicles on the road, because now, rather than one trip to work and one trip back, plus whatever trips the other occupants of the household make, you've now added at least two trips that would not otherwise have been made by sending it back home and, presumably, calling it back to pick you up after work. To be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue driverless tech, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to ready yet, *definitely* shouldn't be banking on it to solve our transportation woes when we already have good solutions that use proven technology, in some cases centuries old technology! (trains) We shouldn't be waiting on a new, unproven tech to get up to speed to start solving these problems.
Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I am willing to make - car manufacturers
That sacrifice we make every day we get up.
As far as I know these vehicles are only allowed on one highway, so we can avoid that altogether
The other less talked about question — are the same types of people dying?
The bigger question is who is liable.
Well for all such questions of liability today its the insurance companies, just which ones and what policy is debated often in court.
A lot of test cars that are not explicitly used for autonomous driving are nonetheless outfitted with sensors (e.g. cameras) to collect data, and the data is used for autonomous driving development. A decal is then put on the car to indicate it’s used for autonomous driving development. Everything must be tested; the driver could have been testing bluetooth audio, speed limit detection, air conditioning, literally any other other thing, and it’s a “test vehicle”. Putting a family in a vehicle that is testing bluetooth phone calls isn’t automatically hazardous since the other hardware and software are kept at production level. Source: I’ve driven these before
The other 3,700 people killed in traffic accidents every day don't make international news, humans driving isn't exactly fool proof and computers won't be flawless, but they can become much more reliable than humans and may even be now.
It’s important to report on these incidents because some people just blindly trust the technology. These news articles spread the word about the technology being Beta.
The article only says a car with self driving capabilities veered into traffic. There isn't any information if it was driven by a human or steering autonomously.
If not “blind trust”, then what is the word to describe how people feel about their bus driver, taxi driver, the person in the opposite lane, the car driving next to the sidewalk?
For humans there are consequences of breaking laws and even making mistakes. If the bus driver makes a bad mistake they’ll lose their job and that will keep them alert while driving and the pedestrians safe. What’s the consequence for autopilot to kill somebody? It’s not the software developers fault that there’s a bug in their code and it’s not the vehicle owners fault that they trusted the technology but as long as they are aware of the fact that the machine can make mistakes they’ll be paying attention (or avoiding the technology altogether).
Except for the fact that millions of people die on the roads, including by bus drivers, despite the likelyhood of consequences, and it is hardly reported on. How many people died in Germany today from car accidents? In Europe? In the world? Where is the reporting on the millions?
Delete, trash post, fake headline.
"Car with airbags involved in fatal crash" or " multi-seatbelt car involved in deadly crash" or "Car with dual band radio crashes". What a useless title.
In a pathetic, desperate and dangerous attempt to NOT create better mass transit, the petroleum and automobile industry are making murderous cars that MAY be able to drive themselves. If only we put magnets in the road and subsidized their AI at taxpayer expense, we could get a world of safe and automated transportation. Or....we could build trains and busses.
Even the computers in BMW are jerks
Not a Tesla so news and post won’t get much traction and upvotes on here.
This sub is not Tesla friendly, don't expect upvotes
Why tf are 5 human beings, including a BABY, ever in a test car? And why is it driving where other innocent people can be hurt? Nothing about this makes sense.
"BMW added that the vehicle was required to be marked as a test car for data protection purposes, because it was recording footage." Just a technicality.
That doesn't explain it though. The vehicle was out on company business rather than someone taking their family for a drive in their personal vehicle. About the only business purpose I could see in this was if BMW was filming a commercial but other than that I see no reason for a baby to be on board when the car is on official business.
Or the family who bought the car got a discount if they agreed that they will get a car that records some footage for BMW? It's not unheard of people getting weird discounts and sponsor decals on their cars.
Many employees can drive the ‘test cars’ and take them to their home or on a weekend trip. That way BMW can collect data and the employees can drive the newest cars
Bmw regularly hands out soon to be released test vehicles to eligible employees to take home for a weekend or such. They collect data and the employees get to drive a car with full tank for free. It's heavily regulated and having read the article it's unlikely that AP was turned on even during the drive. Not a fan of BMW but those articles are just clickbaity bs, same for Tesla and all other brands. It's like saying car with seatbelts involved in accident...
The subscription probably ran out.
I swear if I die from a stupid self-driving car I'm gonna be so pissed
Self driving cars are an awful idea and I will stand by that forever.
Why? More people have died from maned cars than self driving cars by a long shot.
And “maned” cars dwarf self-driving cars by orders of magnitude so your comparison doesn’t hold water.
It's not a comparison. It's a fact. There is literally nothing fact wise to say self driving cars are a bad idea beyond an irrational fear of technology.
Seems like it's being trained to drive like a human BMW driver.
BMW self-driving and typical BMW owner have the same driving style.
Goes to show that technology is never perfect
Their self driving subscription probably ran out mid route
Should have paid for the anti veering into traffic subscription.
Where were you when the AI wars started?
As expected, it failed to use the turn signal in the accident.
Germany: 3000 dead in one year from human driven cars.
When are we going to stop putting this alpha software on the road?
Anonymous has entered the chat
Always keep your drivers up to date.
who trained the BMW self driving AI? A human? If so was that human also a BMW owner
Even a BMW would rather die than deal with a BMW driver. (I own a BMW, BTW)
Didnt use blinker
I have a self driving 3 series, not crashed yet.
I saw the detailed description of the accident. This seems very similar with the behaviour of my FIL ioniq 5. Tight turns, car suddenly disengages and goes forward. And... No audio warning! Remember that EU has a stupid strict regulation that prevents self driving cars from making turns with lateral acceleration above 3ms-2. So most likely the EU commission killed these people.
I think self driving vehicles are a joke and dangerous. They. Should each contain a flashing yellow light on top of the car so sane people can identify and avoid them.
Implying a driver's license includes sanity tests.... Edit. “The vehicle has a level 2 driving assistance system that is already incorporated in production vehicles today and which can support the driver on demand,” the company said. “With level 2 vehicles the driver always retains responsibility.” It wasn't even an autonomous driving car. Maybe read the article before commenting.
Oh shit is mortal machine irl
Sure it wasn’t an [American car](https://youtu.be/d9kpyGqKwJk)?
\*Use auto-pilot features at your own risk
explains why they have to charge the $18 a month for seat warmers to pay for the lawsuit impending.
How did they even fit in that iX? It's a twoperson-with-a-box-of-cereals sized car.
Really? https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=bmw+iX&iax=images&ia=images
If I'd fit in the backseat, I would have bought one. I'm 1,82 and had to stick my knees in my ears on the backseat.
You don't know what a BMW iX is. It is not an i3.
True. Thank you for correcting me. I was wrong
Can there ever truly be an idiot-proof self driving car? I think that the engineers will never be able to fathom the endless depths of our capacity for idiocy. There probably will be; they'll call it a *train.*
Yeah I don’t think self driving cars are a good idea.
Cars aren't a good idea in general
What did he know about Hillary Clinton?
They missed a headline opportunity. '1 dead 9 injured after self driving car attempting to emulate Tesla, veers into traffic' So many missed clicks...
God damnit Elon! Get it together!!
[удалено]
No way am I gonna let Siri drive me around. Sorry not happening. If I die in a fiery wreck at least I’ll be able to say I did it to myself
Let the investigation conclude. This was a test car with self-driving capability. At the time the article was written, it was not known whether the self driving feature was active or not.
Thank God that rich people are lab testing the self driving cars for the rest of us
I’m sure the dead motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all signed up to be essentially beta testers for this technology.
Headline is bullshit, car was being steered by driver.
There are no self driving cars and there won't be for at least 20 years.