EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 11:32:03 pm
content: An update on the autonomous self driving Uber Volvo XC-90 involved in the pedestrian fatality.It is being reported that Uber disabled the Intel Mobileye collision avoidance sensor that is factory fitted in Volvo XC90.Intel have ran the dashcam footage of the accident through the Mobileye system and said that even with the dark footage it would have detected the pedestrian a second before the incident.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 12:14:38 am
content: Those systems are supposed to be toys in comparison. If one of those can detect and prevent only 5 % of accidents that would be great. However the standard for a robotic car must be virtually 100%, certainly much better than human. Even 99 % wouldn't be good enough since hitting 1% of all jaywalking pedestrians is obviously not acceptable. Something was seriously wrong with the Uber car.Unsurprisingly Uber have had their licence to operate selfdriving cars in Arizona suspended:http://ideas.4brad.com/arizona-bans-uber

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:40:01 am
content: Silly to see they wouldn't integrate that sensor since it was already there.Better angle, lets see all the safety driver video. Did Uber know their safety drivers where distracted most of the time and choose to ignore it?Google wrote off the safety driver concept because of the obvious problem with keeping them engaged. See Waymo safety report. Seems common sense, why did Uber not figure this out?Crash and burn, goodbye for Uber's AV program I suspect.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:57:53 am
content: Arizona just banned the autonomous cars:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-27/uber-s-autonomous-cars-suspended-by-arizona-after-fatal-crash

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 03:00:15 am
content: Nvidia also halting their testing effortshttps://www.recode.net/2018/3/27/17168732/uber-fatal-crash-self-driving-nvidia-ducey-toyota

author: Cnoob
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 03:35:41 am
content: Unlike what the Sheriff said, it's looking more like a preventable accident. From Ubers video I thought the incident happened in a less built up area.But those mobile phone videos show otherwise. Even though digital cameras over expose at night when set to automatic, the mobile videos show many light sources and Ubers video shouldn't been so dark.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 04:31:08 am
content: IMO the Sheriff in Arizona was much too quick to say that it was NOT Uber's fault.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:27:54 am
content: Not really.The cycle-pushing pedestriancontributed the mostto this accident. They caused the hazard in the first place.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:48:13 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 28, 2018, 05:27:54 amThe issue is here is not the actual accident and who's at fault, sadly fatal car accidents happen dozens of times a days. This is being talked about because of the unique nature of the technology involved, that is was a technology trial of essentially a prototype system, and the huge ramifications it has in the short and medium term on the implementation and adoption of autonomous cars, a subject that technology that will potentially change our way of life.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:49:19 am
content: Quote from: Cnoob on March 28, 2018, 03:35:41 amAnd it probably doesn't matter either way, because it's the LIDAR that should have picked it up and it didn't, under almost ideal practical circumstances.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 06:01:11 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2018, 05:48:13 amOh, I quite agree. I was simply responding to this:Quote from: Stray Electron on March 28, 2018, 04:31:08 amWhat you and I are interested in is the background as to whythe tech in playdid not (as it appears) act at all.This is, by far, the most important aspect of this whole incident and is key to the refinement of AV technology.There's going to be some name-calling and finger-pointing coming out of all this, but that's just butt-covering crap that nobody really wants to get caught up in. In 5 years' time, this incident will be a memory - but the tech will have evolved.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 08:21:02 am
content: It totally failed to detect the cyclist at 6:17 in the video.I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

author: ChrisLX200
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 08:21:42 am
content: The facts are that the Uber system failed spectacularly when it clearly should not have. All the fluff about 'dark video/she came out of nowhere' is irrelevant.The system was not Fit for Purpose and should not have been in use on public roads in live traffic. Someone signed off that it WAS fit for purpose and will shortly get their ass handed to them in a basket. I can think of no excuse they can offer other than hardware failure and that possibility should have been screened out before these trials started.

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 09:01:25 am
content: Quote from: ChrisLX200 on March 28, 2018, 08:21:42 amBy this logic, human drivers are not fit for purpose and should also be banned from roads, because this sort of accident happens all the time.Of course, Uber still needs to get their shit together because a LIDAR systemshouldeasily outperform humans in cases like this.I really want to see the data. Unfortunately they will do their best to make sure it never gets out (other than shitty dashcam footage), as it will only demonstrate their incompetence.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 09:34:35 am
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 28, 2018, 09:01:25 amThe problem is we humans except that other humans fail sometimes, and whilst we try to make that batter through regulation and training, we essentially live with that.But technology on which our lives depend is held to a different standard, we expect it to work and work reliably when our lives depend on it.QuoteThey will pay any price to make this go away. Both the driver and family of the victim will be made offers they can't refuse.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 11:42:14 am
content: Don't think I have heard anyone talk about the lidar blind spot near the car caused by relying on a single roof mounted unit.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-sensors-insight/ubers-use-of-fewer-safety-sensors-prompts-questions-after-arizona-crash-idUSKBN1H337QCA has also announced it will not renew Uber's testing permit, they are done at the end of this month. Another nail in their coffin.

author: ChrisLX200
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 12:46:51 pm
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 28, 2018, 09:01:25 amThese trials are not about testing critical safety mechanisms, they are for fine tuning a host of other things (predicting traffic flow, optimising road positioning and so on). Do you really think letting 2 tons of metal travelling at 50mph on public roads weaving through traffic and pedestrians is a good way of testing basic safety systems?

author: omooswald
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 01:00:26 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on March 28, 2018, 01:55:23 amindeed it is, they tested different integrated systems, and Volvo and Lexus were the ones that could prevent an accident with a kid appearing from behind another car.mobileye gets mentioned, but only for upgrade kits ... which are useless.another interesting thing is: Mercedes had the most cameras and sensors in the car, but didn't get the best results... so more isn't always better

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 01:10:29 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 28, 2018, 11:42:14 amIt's not really relevant here. Also at close range stereo works a lot better. So LIDAR at range with stereo for the blind spots makes a fair amount of sense.

author: CoffsHackerSpace
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:03:34 pm
content: i found this very fascinatingknow i want to understand more about the volvo camerathankyou for sharing

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: ChrisLX200 on March 28, 2018, 12:46:51 pmNo. I never said anything like that.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:13:05 pm
content: The other videos of that bit of road show a well lit building, it is fairly certain that the building was there before and during the indecent so why is it not in the uber dash cam video. Was the camera really that bad or was the video hurriedly tampered with in order to try and shed blame.If the equipment was faulty why did the car not stop, surely the prerequisite of any moving machinery is that in the event of any failure it safely stops.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 03:04:51 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 28, 2018, 08:21:02 amIn this case it wasn't important though, since that cyclist wasn't anywhere near that car. Modern image analysis software is very impressive, but not yet good enough that you could rely on them 100% as far as I can tell (might get there soon though). But that is why companies like Waymo still rely on lidar since then you don't have to try to interpret 2d images.For collision avoidance it doesn't matter if it's not perfect though, it's there as a backup to stop the car when the driver makes a mistake, so even if it only detects and prevents some accidents its still a win.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 04:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: apis on March 28, 2018, 03:04:51 pmI completely disagree. The cyclist is much closer than some of the other pedestrians that the system did detect and highlight. By the color of the boxes it appears that the system priorities each pedestrian but it appears to have completely overlooked the cyclist. The only reason that he was "unimportant" was that he didn't pull in front of the automated car and get run over. I don't know who's car this was but if someone had looked at this video sooner and realized that there was a problem with the system not recognizing cyclists then perhaps the accident in Arizona would have been prevented. (And hind sight is always 20/20 as they say!)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:18:08 pm
content: Quote from: apis on March 28, 2018, 03:04:51 pmRight, and the cyclist hit by the Uber car wasn't important either, not until the very last second...I really can't understand your answer. How is the cyclist not worthy of a blue rectangle?Even worse: The cyclist "blocks" the car's view of the van as he passes in front of it.

author: oldway
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:32:35 pm
content: Here is what I posted on EEVblog #1066:Quote

author: tzok
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 06:22:13 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 28, 2018, 08:21:02 amSame at 6:47... but this is even worse as the cyclist drives towards the car on a collision course.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 07:15:37 pm
content: Seem like Waymo are still going full steam ahead. They've ordered 20k Jaguar iPace EVs for delivery over the next 2 years.

author: mattinson
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 07:26:48 pm
content: Maybe the programmer hated bikes

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 07:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: tzok on March 28, 2018, 06:22:13 pmI only found a short newer video, but it detects the cyclist ok here:youtube.com/watch?v=jKfwHsHUdVc

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 08:25:07 pm
content: Quote from: mattinson on March 28, 2018, 07:26:48 pm"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 11:01:51 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 28, 2018, 10:22:16 pmI noticed that too.I suspect that the bike didn't get detected because it did not appear in the field of view for long enough - and when it did, it was off to the side and heading away from the area of interest.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 11:48:54 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 28, 2018, 04:51:14 pmQuote from: Fungus on March 28, 2018, 05:18:08 pmThis video is NOT from a self-driving car, it's from a collision avoidance system only intended to act as a backup system if the human driver fails to act in time. There is a big difference.This system is supposed to break in the last second if an object is directly in front of the car, when the human driver does not react in time. This system will not cause any accident if it misinterprets the video. (Actually, it might cause an accident if it believed there was something in front of the car when there really was not, and suddenly break. So in this case it's better it detects too few than too many.) Every time it breaks where the human driver failed to react in time it prevents an accident that would otherwise have happened. So even if it fails to detect some things in front of the car, the net result is that this system saves many lives. Naturally, the more the better, but failing to detect someone doesn't cause an accident here. If you don't use that system, the accident would have happened anyway. There isn't any downside to using it even if it's much less than 100% accurate (as long as it doesn't cause false positives). No one is 100% accurate though, certainly not humans. And in this case that bicycle was never in imminent danger of being hit by the car so it made no difference if the system saw it in this case.The situation is very different for a self-driving car though. If a self-driving car does not realise something is in front of it, it will very likely crash into it. It's not the backup system, it is the primary driver (and the human "safety driver" is the backup). A self driving car not only tracks things in front of the car but everywhere around it, it's much more advanced. So my point is that such a system, using video only, while impressive, isn't good enough for a self-driving car (by itself). That's why e.g. Waymo also uses LIDAR since it's much easier to interpret the data from such a sensor than it is to interpret 2D images.The fact that this much simpler collision avoidance system detected the victim in the Uber accident by only using the very bad video that was released by the police shows that the Uber car really should have had no problem to detect that person in time.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 01:00:10 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 28, 2018, 04:31:08 amOr told so by the governor

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 08:17:12 am
content: Quote from: apis on March 28, 2018, 11:48:54 pmnitpick: the word is "brake"Quote from: apis on March 28, 2018, 11:48:54 pmRed herring.There's something wrong in the software if it can't see that bike.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 10:56:46 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 29, 2018, 08:17:12 amNo, not something wrong, just not 100% correct. You can never get 100% accuracy here, humans can not either. How good it has to be depends on the application. If that collision avoidance system manages to prevent even 5% of all accidents that means it's saving many lives every year (i.e. even if it fails to trigger 95% of the time it's still beneficial).For autonomous cars where the system replaces human drivers, you want the new system to perform better than humans (still doesn't have to be perfect though). As long as robot cars are safer than human operated cars it means lives will be saved.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 11:01:18 am
content: Uber have settled with the victims family:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/29/uber-settles-with-family-of-woman-killed-by-self-driving-car

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 11:31:11 am
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 28, 2018, 09:01:25 amSome human drivers are not fit to drive, and should be banned from the roads. This technology is claimed to improve safety - if it fails under what should have been a relatively trivial test case then it's not living up to its claims.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 02:27:08 pm
content: Quote from: apis on March 29, 2018, 11:01:18 amThe Guardian article seems to have bought the story that the road was unlit and that was the reason for the collision. So it looks like ubers media management is largely working.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 03:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 29, 2018, 02:27:08 pmNot sure about that. Two states have tossed them out and they quietly settle with the family who are likely under NDA now. Sure seems like the blame is pointing to Uber, which is surprising. I would have thought they tossed the safety driver under the bus for being distracted.Still waiting to see if AZ is going to press charges. Paying off the family might make the state less interested in charging anyone and dealing with a case that will have tons of publicity and set precedents.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 11:06:55 pm
content: Perhaps it is a good design decision to have multiple systems on the car - made by different teams, so it doesn't repeat the same mistaken assumptions and broken implementations as the primary system?Having a separate system to detect "Oh, crap, things are going out of control" is just as good a feature for an AI driver as it is for a human one.Instead of catching human failings like getting distracted or getting drowsy, it would catch AI problems like design flaws or hard to detect sensor errors...Certainly this present case is a very strong argument in favour of that approach. It should be a requirement to have at least one working secondary collision avoidance system (made by a different team!) in order to be allowed to test on public roads...

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 11:37:37 pm
content: Quote from: mikerj on March 29, 2018, 11:31:11 amOkay, so it should be banned for failing to live up to its claims then? In that case, Uber could simply stop claiming it's safer than humans and get back on the road.Again, I personally think they failed miserably here and need to fix what went wrong. But I'm interested in the logic of what should/shouldn't be allowed. As Dave pointed out, people tend to hold machines (ie. something that was designed) to a different standard than humans. Get that standard wrong and it's either exploited by manufacturers, dangerous stuff goes out on the road (or in homes etc. this isn't specific to cars) and people are hurt,orit gets held back from a mass rollout even when it's slightly safer and could save lives but isn't yetperfect.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 12:58:15 am
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 29, 2018, 11:37:37 pmWell isn't that the point ofanytool? To do things BETTER than a human can? What else is a wrench for? Or a volt meter? Or even a common hammer? If they can't performbetterthan a human then they're useless.That's really the unlying argument regarding self driving cars.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:04:00 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 30, 2018, 12:58:15 amDefine "better".I am being quite serious about that.One could argue using a hammer is "better" - until an improperly programmed hammer misses the nail and hits your thumb. Is it still "better" in that case?

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:11:03 am
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 29, 2018, 03:27:04 pmThat will NEVER happen IMO. If Az presses charges it would have to be based on the argument that the self driving car was inherently dangerous or were reckless. A machine can't be reckless so that leaves dangerous. But if Az goes with that argument then the State and the governor could/should be considered complicit (ieinvolved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing) and as failing to do their sworn DUTY by allowing the cars on the public roads in the first place. Remember the governor of Arizona issued anexecutive orderallowing Uber to drive the cars on Arizona's roads. A public trial is thelastthing that the Governor and state officials want.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:22:18 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 12:22:07 amThat's an interesting point.

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:32:05 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 30, 2018, 12:58:15 amNot necessarily. It's like any form on automation IMO. Even if it only worksas wellon average, it can still free up people to do other things, so it's not useless.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:34:54 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 30, 2018, 01:04:00 amSo do you think that it's better for you to drive nails with your bare hands instead of using a hammer and hitting your thumb once in every, umm, let's say 1000 strikes? Oh and yeah, "serious" because that's what your argument is.Define "better".In this case; cheaper, smaller, faster, more accurately, more reliably, sooner and without constant human monitoring. There are other arguments in favor of an ideal automated driverless car but those will do for a start. In Uber's case in Arizona, the system failed on ALL of those counts.For crying out loud, they (Uber) even disabled the built-in safety system that came standard on the car! That's about like taking the brakes out of a car and then allowing a test driver to drive it on the public highway "just to see what might happen". That's not a test, it's deliberate recklessness. Ask yourself, what would happen to you as a private citizen, in your own country, if you took the safety system out of your own car and then took it on the highway and ran over and killed a pedestrian because the built in system had been disabled? In this country and I think most countries, you would be facing felony manslaughter charges and likely jail time; at the very minimum. Bad enough that Uber's system failed miserably but there was NO excuse for them disabling the standard built in system.

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:48:33 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 12:22:07 amI agree that people think that way. It's very unfortunate. The intervening period between "self driving cars have a lower accident rate" and "people trust self driving cars" could last for many, many years.I suspect if you asked the average person "do you prefer 500 people dying to software bugs or 1000 people dying to drink driving", they would respond "I prefer 0 people dying", and continue to support the status quo.

author: sakujo7
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 03:12:20 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 30, 2018, 02:34:54 amI don't think that's entirely fair. It's more like removing the brakes then replacing them with your ownsupposedly-more-sophisticated brakes....and then not releasing the data when something goes wrong.I expect their excuse is that the existing system would have interfered with their own.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 08:43:25 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 30, 2018, 01:04:00 amEven if the hammer hits your thumb it is still a better tool for putting nails in, try knocking six inch nails in with your bare hands, any tool is better even a rock compared to a human alone in this case.As for comparing human drivers to machine drivers, the difference here is just because one human in ten thousand drives dangerously does not mean they all do, mass produce a machine that drives dangerously and every single one will do the same so a machine has to be of a higher standard as the results will always be the same or they should unless you have the engineering wrong, is that not what this discussion is all about engineering standards.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:20:55 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 12:22:07 amWe are talking about different things I believe, you may have to read the previous posts I made as well to understand it.The 5% refer to people that are saved by a collision avoidance system if it was only 5% accurate. The 95% that are not saved by the collision avoidance system will probably not care if it's installed or not since they would have been hit by the car either way. I.e. a collision avoidance system does not have to be perfect to be beneficial.A collision avoidance system is not the same thing as an autonomous car. The standard for autonomous cars would have to be better than that of a human driver (in terms of accident statistics).I'm convinced you can achieve much better performance from an autonomous car with today's technology, but it remains to be proven. Waymo have driven over 4 million miles on public roads without any fatalities so far though.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:53:59 pm
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 30, 2018, 02:48:33 amVery good point. The question if people will accept autonomous cars has more to do with human psychology, politics and economics than the real benefits or performance of them.There is always resistance to new technology, especially when it is perceived as a threat to peoples livelihood. E.g.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite. But whatever you think about people being replaced by robots, it's not a problem with the technology but rather with how society is organised.No doubt there will be people living today who never accept them, but people are programmed by evolution to be lazy and penny-pinching so most people will probably use AV taxis if they are cheaper and more comfortable than the human operated taxis. The generations who grow up with autonomous vehicles will think it's natural and not give it a second thought.Even more so when it comes to logistic AVs since then it will be some bean counter who makes the decision what company to use and not the people who have to deal with the actual autonomous trucks.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:56:32 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 12:22:07 amThat is a good point which has crossed my mind as well. However the fact is that if you can't make eye contact with the driver you shouldn't walk/drive in front of a car. This is something I have told my kids over and over.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:12:08 pm
content: Quote from: apis on March 30, 2018, 01:53:59 pmI suspect there'slargesegments of the population who see driving as a chore/problem and they'll all buy self-driving cars overnight if it lets them do other stuff instead.I don't just mean people who'll sit there texting; Imagine being able to send the kids to school automatically, etc. Plenty of people would want that.Then there's all the people who'll see it as a good way to drink more alcohol. There won't be any shortage of those.etc.None of those people will give a rats ass about pedestrians making eye contact.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:24:25 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 30, 2018, 08:43:25 amConversely, once you have proven that the autonomous car drives (hopefully much) safer than the average human, that means all cars will drive safer than the average human.Another benefit from this is that if an accident do happen it will be added to the database of test cases and future revisions of the cars/software will (should) never make the same mistake again. I.e. the robot cars will just keep getting better and better (more experienced) with time.And a robot is never tired, bored, drunk or playing with it's smartphone. They always perform at their highest capacity.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 30, 2018, 02:12:08 pmHmm, probably true, so then it will be up to policymakers to make sure the autonomous cars actually are safer than human drivers.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 02:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 02:19:27 pmI agree with the need for better city planing. However you could also make busses autonomous for example, it doesn't have to be only cars.There are those who claim that PRT systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) are the most efficient form of mass transit available. A city with mainly autonomous taxis would be very similar to a PRT system.And then there's the need for transportation outside of cities as well.Also, in general, having robots take over boring and dangerous jobs means those people will be able to work with other (hopefully) safer and more stimulating things, so that's another benefit. If nothing else it means a more productive economy.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 05:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 12:22:07 am"cannot" is a strong word... These days, most cameras recognize eye contact in order to focus more accurately.Is it impossible to imagine an AI driver noticing it is being looked at, and perhaps signaling back to the pedestrian somehow (a flash of the lights, a little blip of the horn, or some other way we haven't thought of yet)?

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 05:32:09 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 30, 2018, 02:12:08 pmYou forgot old people. Also I never heard of them being a "market" for the AV market.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 05:35:24 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder link=topic=106881.msg1466134#msg1466134....if you sit right in front of it. Useless for the purpose being discussed.

author: t_i_t_o
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 06:10:08 pm
content: Volvo system fails too:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 07:56:47 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 30, 2018, 02:19:27 pmThat would be excellent because AVs will talk to eachother and not cause so much traffic jams. Traffic with human drivers has many similarities to turbulence of liquids or gasses flowing through a tube. If you take some time to sit next to a highway you'll notice traffic moves in pulses / groups. There is no continuous flow.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 08:00:51 pm
content: There's a good point made in the comments in that Volvo video:What if a gang of bad people* attacks your autonomous car?You won't be able to drive away - the sensors will refuse to run them over!(*) Or zombies, or whatever...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 08:12:35 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on March 30, 2018, 08:00:51 pmI believe you can turn off AEB on all current production cars. There are special cases where you want your car to be able to touch or push on something.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 09:53:50 pm
content: Quote from: t_i_t_o on March 30, 2018, 06:10:08 pmThe people in that video failed and deserve honorary mentions at the Darwin awards. As I've been saying, those collision avoidance system aren't perfect, but they do prevent many accidents. (And it is NOT the same as a self driving car which should not fail in that situation.)Here are some (supposedly) independent statistics showing the general performance of collision avoidance systems:http://www.iihs.org/media/3b08af57-8257-4630-ba14-3d92d554c2de/68O-Nw/QAs/Automation%20and%20crash%20avoidance/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits-0218.pdfFor example: 56% less front-to-rear crashes with injuries. That is pretty impressive imo. Would be nice if that figure was 100% of course, but even so it's still a very good safety system that saves lives.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 11:31:39 pm
content: I see a natural extension of the AV to be one of "co-operative" traffic flow.From simple things like ensuring freeway entrance lane traffic merges into the main stream, without the odd "nervous Nellie" who slows everything down and risks accidents - to lane balancing and eliminating the slow down from "rubber neckers" gawking at an incident on the opposite side of the road.Eventually, I can easily imagine swarm technology getting involved with route optimisation and traffic balancing across a whole city road network. The existing roads may, in fact, be quite capable of handling a lot more traffic - if we can just get those pesky humans out from behind the wheel.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 03:29:52 am
content: Quote from: Bud on March 30, 2018, 05:35:24 pmHere is a video that shows where facial recognition is heading... hint, achieving eye contact is probably the least of its capabilities...https://videos.posttv.com/washpost-production/The_Washington_Post/20171222/5a3d5cd1e4b0330b121d744b/5a4fd674e4b0cb2c842a15d3_1439412153584-wn5qra_t_1515181698375_640_360_600.mp4

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 08:23:07 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 31, 2018, 03:29:52 amNow that really is Big Brother 1984. Does any one really want to go that far although I am sure it will get foisted on us all eventually.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 12:32:26 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 31, 2018, 08:23:07 amHmm, isn't the UK pioneering that kind of system. It's 20 years since I was in London but already then I couldn't help to notice there were cameras everywhere. Since then I've learned they are networked and used by the UK government to track people, and they use facial recognition software as well. At that time they said the facial recognition wasn't good enough, it caused too many false positives to be truly useful, but that was many years ago and I couldn't help think that maybe they wanted to downplay the effectiveness a bit. I'm sure the system have and will continue to 'improve' though.Of course it's more terrifying if used by a totalitarian regime, but as history shows liberal democracies can turn totalitarian rather quickly and then you already have all that nifty surveillance gear in place.But this is getting far from the topic of the tread.Anyway, detecting eye contact is probably well within the realm of possibility for a neural network, but maybe you just need some way for the car to signal that it believes you are about to cross the road and that it gives you the right of way. That should not be any more complicated than adding the signalling device since the software already keeps track of that.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 03:49:12 pm
content: Terrorism threats are increasing, from multiculturalism, to ease of information (internet) and accessibility of internet technology (RC/UAV).It's inevitable that surveillance will increase too.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 10:14:08 pm
content: A Tesla X with the autopilot engaged crashed last week causing another fatality...https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accident

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2018, 10:52:22 pm
content: Either Apple is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with their engineers or this sounds a bit likea suicide.Quote"Hey this autopilot keeps trying to murder me, lets keep using it."?PS. autopilot is a deceptive name and I hope Tesla gets taken to the cleaners for their continued use of the term.PPS. taking a look at the stock price this was a 8 billion dollar accident, Tesla isn't kidding when they say the level of damage is unprecedented.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 12:10:50 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 31, 2018, 10:52:22 pmAgreed. Tesla's 'auto pilot' is nothing more than a fancy cruise control. If you don't understand that then Darwin has an award for you. Especially if the driver complained a few times about it and KNEW that the auto pilot had problems with this specific section of road.If the latter is really true then the Darwin award is well deserved.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 12:30:10 am
content: I wonder what's going to happen when an handsfree driver on "autopilot" finally kills someone other than the occupants. If it happens in the wrong place and there is some enthusiastic prosecutor I could see things going very badly for Tesla.PS. if it's a roadworker very very badly, if it's a cop ... nice knowing you Tesla.PPS. thinking about it, I suspect Tesla is playing this dangerous game out of necessity. Autopilot is probably what mostly sells their cars at this point, there's only so many rich hippies and value signallers. If it backfires it could really be the end of Tesla.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 01:05:40 am
content: I'm wondering why Tesla's autopilot doesn't steer the car onto the hard shoulder (or the slowest lane) and then just stops (or drives very slow with the alarm lights blinking) when the driver isn't driving the car. IMHO that would be the best (safest) way for the car to deal with such a situation.edit: One more additional remark: what I describe above would also help in case the driver becomes so ill he/she can no longer control the car. We shouldn't rule out that is a possible cause of the Tesla crash last week.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 01:45:59 am
content: Quote from: sakujo7 on March 30, 2018, 02:32:05 am"Better" would include things like freeing up human time. For example, we could use a hand saw to cut wood but a hand held, power driven circular saw does it quicker. That's why we use power saws. The same can apply to a power driven drill vs a hand drill, and dozens of other examples including things like electric mixers that we use in the kitchen. They don't necessary do a better job, mechanically speaking, than a manual power unit but they do it faster.Using a power saw is a apt comparison to the driverless cars. Thousands of people are injured every year with power saws but we continue to use them because we consider the potential danger to be worth the risk because of the time savings. The question regarding driverless cars is how much risk and losses are we willing to accept as a society in return for the time saved by not having to manually drive a car?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 08:21:45 am
content: Tesla was told to stop using "Autopilot" By the German authorities in 2016.http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-tesla-germany-autopilot-20161017-snap-story.html

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 09:21:12 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2018, 12:10:50 amIt's an intentionally dangerous fancy cruise control. It's build to offer comfort in exchange for risk with Tesla being intensely disingenuous about that fact. When Tesla compares it's safety it doesn't compare it to cars with modern adaptive cruise control, lane drift warning and brake assist ... it only compares it to ye average car.When that risk finally kills or maims an innocent bystander it's going to be Uber v2 and a mere 8 billion in stock valuation vanishing will be a drop in the pond.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 11:52:34 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2018, 01:05:40 amCan it actually change lanes? I thought it was just a fancy lane-follower.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 11:59:37 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 31, 2018, 10:52:22 pmIt's actually a very accurate name. The problem is that joe public doesn't know what an "autopilot" is.Quote from: Marco on March 31, 2018, 10:52:22 pmStock price != real money.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 12:19:59 pm
content: Another thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is how easy these cars are to fool.eg. What happens if a bunch of youtube idiots make some fake "Stop" signs and goes out to the autobahn to hold them up?A human driver will easily ignore them but what will a robot car do? Emergency braking?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 01:43:18 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 01, 2018, 11:59:37 amThey are selling to joe public, they know they are selling to joe public, they know they are being deceptive.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 06:48:46 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 01, 2018, 12:19:59 pmRumor says that if you place a beautiful naked woman beside a busy street, it won't be long before there are multiple crashes. (How will the Mythbusters test that in a safe and ethical way?) The self driving cars will probably recognize her as just another person.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 07:03:22 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on April 01, 2018, 06:48:46 pmOn a more practical level, autonomous cars should largely eliminate the regular pileups on motorways caused by people looking at an earlier pileup on the opposite carriageway.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2018, 11:24:10 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on April 01, 2018, 06:48:46 pmI've also heard that billboards with ads for underwear increase the probability for crashes!How easy it is to fool an autonomous car is an interesting question. I don't think anyone can answer that except people who actually work with it since I assume it's not something the companies divulge freely.I think someone mentioned that in the early days the google cars would think a life-size cutout of a person (i.e. ads) next to the road were real pedestrians, and if they were standing next to a zebra crossing, it would cause the car to think they were about to cross and slow down/stop. But these days they can tell the difference apparently.There was also a demo of a facial recognition program in the tv-segment about Chinese surveillance technology that was posted above. In that example the software was able to tell that a life size printed image of a face was not a real face of a living person. What it takes to fool that system wasn't clear though. But if it was not a problem that some facial recognition systems are easy to fool with just a picture they would not have featured that technology I guess.It will probably be possible to fool robot cars to some extent, but I assume they prioritise safety over traffic rules at least. So if following a law would cause a crash, or conversely if breaking a law means it can avoid an almost certain crash, the car would choose to break the law. But to program such behaviour into the software sounds a lot like the developers are planning to break the law. That kind of issues are probably giving them and their lawyers a headache.I've heard that they have to bend the rules a little just to be able to drive normally. For example if a traffic sign just turned yellow you should stop if possible, but when they did that other cars behind them often did not keep enough distance and would sometimes crash into them because they wouldn't expect anyone to stop suddenly in that situation. Another problem was getting onto a busy freeway or traversing a busy intersection, if they followed the rules perfectly they would have to wait forever which is not what human drivers do.If it meant avoiding a serious accident I think most would agree it is acceptable to break the law (sometimes even the law itself says so). But what about less serious accidents, or when both actions could cause an accident but breaking the law is less likely to do so. etc. It's not an easy problem to solve.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2018, 08:16:29 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 01, 2018, 12:19:59 pmSeriously?

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2018, 09:19:52 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on April 03, 2018, 08:16:29 pmThat doesn't actually address the question does it?

author: fsedano
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 08:42:48 am
content: Hi, Tesla owner here so I can offer some insights.Yes, system is a a glorified fancy cruise control, but it uses two sources of info: Edges/lines to learn about the road and tracking other cars via cameras/radar. I.e. it tracks cars around you and moves inside your lane or brakes if it detects any of them is moving into your way.For cars you're following, it does bounce radar signal underneath the car next to you so it can detect when the car which is 2 position ahead of you starts to brake.I've experienced this on my own car, and it's a big saver. My personal experience using this is I'm way less tired when doing a long trip. Yes I still pay attention, always have hands on the wheel, but it removes you the need to do all small corrections you're doing in the background, and after a long trip you feel more rested.Regarding what the car does when you don't pay attention, it brakes slowly, put the warning on and then stops.If instead of this case (not reacting at all) you react after some time, after the 2nd time you do that, it does not allow you to engage autopilot until you fully reset the car.Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2018, 12:10:50 am

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 09:03:36 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on April 03, 2018, 08:16:29 pmYes, seriously.I can't imagine how anybody might think that throwing stuff off bridges might be fun butthey still do it.Icanimagine people messing around to see how the dumbass computers react, eg. walking around town in a stop-sign t-shirt and filming it, etc. ("Not my fault, officer, I was just wearing a t-shirt")

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 08:24:07 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 05, 2018, 09:03:36 amIf someone is going to wave around a fake stop sign, they are breaking the law as it is, for example:Quote

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 08:56:36 pm
content: I wonder if that would apply to a t-shirt with a picture of a stop sign on it? What if it didn't actually say "Stop" but some clever word that resembles it at a glance? The law is obviously intended to prevent people from putting up fake traffic control signs.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 09:18:16 pm
content: Haven't you seen those little plastic kid figures placed at the edge of neighborhood roads that may be holding a flag and say SLOW! on the side?Not sure how school crossing guards are viewed.roadtrafficsigns.comPrivate drive no entery...fartkontrol

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 09:18:51 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 05, 2018, 08:56:36 pmI get 127 million hits for "stop sign t-shirt" so that means there must already be people walking around wearing them:https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=stop+sign+t-shirt

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 09:49:08 pm
content: A person wearing a stop t-shirt wouldn't fool neither human nor any half decent computer program. And I'm not sure the google cars care about that at all or if they just use their internal map data? There might still be ways to fool autonomous cars though, but the important questions are these:* Would it be a big problem?Probably not. Certainly not something that significantly compromise safety.* Is it better than humans? How easy is it to fool humans by placing fake signs and pedestrians. Are the autonomous cars worse than humans?This is a little trickier to answer because humans and computers will have somewhat different strengths and weaknesses here.* Should you not adopt autonomous vehicles because of it?If autonomous vehicles are much safer (as in causes significantly less accidents) the benefits far outweigh any minor annoyances caused by such pranks.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 10:08:56 pm
content: Quote from: metrologist on April 05, 2018, 09:18:16 pmYou mean something like this:I guess that could be difficult to handle for an autonomous car if it was placed on the road or at a zebra crossing. If it's a common phenomena like this particular sign they could teach the cars to recognise them and treat them as a warning sign though. I'm pretty sure it would be possible for malicious people to create dolls that would fool the cars, but such dolls could probably fool people as well. What would happen is the cars would stop or slow down needlessly, whereas a less cautious human driver would not.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2018, 10:42:04 pm
content: There was a case where they updated the software to identify speed limitations on the back of trucks in EU that replicate road signs to not trigger any more after an update.We can imagine that the t-shirt problem can be handled the same once identified.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 10:00:16 am
content: They might want to focus on identifying and avoiding people and concrete barriers first...

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 03:07:39 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on April 06, 2018, 10:00:16 amI'm sure Tesla and Uber are doing just that. But there are many other companies/teams, including those who have driven longer than Uber, who haven't had any fatal accidents yet. It is counterproductive to hold the other teams responsible for Uber's failure.If this tech means a significantly reduction in the number of traffic related accidents and deaths (as all evidence indicate it will) everyone is better off the faster we can have autonomous cars replace human drivers on the streets. Even the Tesla autopilot (which is just an advanced cruise control) is preventing more accidents than it is causing. According to Tesla even the drivers who misuse the autopilot (like the drivers involved in the fatal accidents) are better off if they continue to use it compared to if they turn it off.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 09:11:14 pm
content: Personally if I don't get to drive the car myself I'd rather just take the bus or a cab though. The primary reason I own a car is that I enjoy driving it, otherwise I couldn't justify the expense.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 09:13:42 pm
content: that's the idea, nobody needs to own a vehicle. it comes and gets yous...

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 09:16:55 pm
content: But I want to own a vehicle, and I want to drive it myself, and so do millions of other people. For just moving people around autonomously a mix of buses, trains and taxis makes more sense, and once you reach that point the gains of eliminating the human driver are less.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 09:53:51 pm
content: If manually driven cars ever disappear completely it won't happen in our lifetime. Autonomous cars will slowly become more and more common, it's not like they will replace human drivers over night.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 10:59:33 pm
content: Quote from: metrologist on April 06, 2018, 09:13:42 pmI doubt that. Think about the holiday season where millions of people go on a holiday at the same time. There will have to be enough cars for that and those cars will sit mostly idle for the rest of the year. Someone will want to get a return on investment on the cars, maintenance, parking space, etc. And who is going to clean the cars? These things will make (basically) renting a car more expensive than just owning one.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2018, 11:05:58 pm
content: Quote from: metrologist on April 06, 2018, 09:13:42 pmPerfect for rush hour, eh?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 12:08:26 am
content: Buses and light rail are perfect for rush hour, large numbers of people going from one place to another at roughly the same time. It's a far more efficient method of transportation than personal cars for that situation.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 12:15:55 am
content: Quote from: james_s on April 07, 2018, 12:08:26 amIn a dense place like Hong Kong public transport can be fantastic. Most western city residential areas are too spread out for frequent public transport runs to reach close to each home. Its hard to see how public transport will ever be satisfactory for the high percentage of homes not close to a good public transport stop.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 12:20:05 am
content: Well the way it works here in my corner of the US is there are park & ride lots in most suburbs with direct bus routes to and from the major cities. You walk, drive or bike to the local park & ride, bus to work and then bus back to the park & ride in the evening. When I worked downtown for a while I did that and it worked pretty well, the majority of my travel was on the bus taking up a fraction of the highway capacity of all those people in individual cars.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 12:28:23 am
content: Quote from: james_s on April 07, 2018, 12:20:05 amPark&ride schemes can help with city centre congestion, but do little to reduce driven miles, car ownership, etc. They also require considerable space for the car park at the park&ride terminals.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 04:51:24 am
content: There would have to be enough cars to be able to handle peak load, but that would still be much less than what we have today. Autonomous cars also help a lot with congestion for various technical reasons. Having mainly autonomous taxi services could in theory help with car pooling as well.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 08:22:24 am
content: How well will autonomous cars work in the little country lanes we have where I live, lots of bends some sharp others not but most blind due to hedges and banks. Legally these roads are open to the maximum speed limit for single carriageways in the UK 60mph 97kph you would have to be an absolute idiot to do anywhere near that (there are a few) but on the long curving bend it is possible but they are blind and you cannot see more than about 25 meters sometimes less ahead and radar wont work due to embankments etc. Around these corners you can come accross horses, cyclists, pedestrians, farm machinery or even trucks that cannot be seen until the last moment, and as this is a holiday area we do get people from towns who do not realise that just because it is possible to drive fast on the bend that it is not safe to do so, it keeps the local recovery teams busy in the holiday seasons. But how will self driving cars handle such things.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 08:48:21 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 07, 2018, 08:22:24 amThey won't. Americans have very little experience if such roads. There are roads near here in the Dublin Mountains with all the above, plus deep ditches along the sides and a very steep gradient. They are barely wide enough for two cars to pass with one of the cars stopped and pulled into the side. In places not even that. Yet you can meet a double decker bus coming along. Will the car be able to reverse back a 100m to allow a larger vehicle pass?The worring problem is drivers skill levels will drop the more they rely on the car.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 09:50:08 am
content: I already see that with the big BMW 4X4's with drivers from London who do not realise that their car can drive on the verge in order to pass.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 01:17:46 pm
content: As someone pointed out, at least Googles cars rely heavily on detailed maps, which means you could just mark a good meeting spot on the map, and where you can drive on the verge. To allow for the cars to reverse back you would only need to add a rule that doing so is acceptable on this type of road. Enabling driving on narrow British country roads are probably far down on the to-do list though.Worst case is that the car stops and asks the occupants (or a remote operator) for assistance.One thing the cars really can not handle today is snow though, so no autonomous vehicles in the north for a while, at least during winter.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 05:20:09 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmI believe both models with and without manual controls are being developed. In a taxi there will likely be none, I doubt the taxi company would like the passenger to start driving the cars manually. For privately owned cars there would probably be manual controls.For the most part you wouldn't need driving controls, just a hint what to do. E.g. the car would say the road is blocked and give the occupants of the car some options on how to solve the problem: reverse to previous intersection, wait for someone to clear the block, pull over and park, call for assistance, switch to manual controls etc.If the person in the car cannot answer that or the car has no human passengers, it could be handled by an operator at some other location who could see what had happened based on the sensordata and then help choose an action that solves the problem. Then they could tell other cars to avoid that road so other cars didn't get into trouble.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmThere are many advantages:* Safer driving. Self driving cars will drive more comfortably and much safer than your average taxi driver.* No BS. You know the robocars will pick the best route. Not make detours and not charge you extra.* Safe from crime: You don't have to fear being robbed, or if your a girl, to be raped.* No driver you have to pay a salary. That is no doubt the highest part of the cost of a taxi journey. Unfortunately that probably won't matter much for the passengers since the companies will keep charging the same rates, but it's a huge incentive for the taxi companies at least.* 1 extra seat for passengers in every car.* Probably many other advantages i haven't thought of.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmThat is a fair point. The manufacturers and operating companies have a huge economic incentive not to kill their customers though.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmIn February Waymo had driven over 8 million km (5 million miles) autonomously on public roads without killing neither humans or dogs. I think it's safe to say human drivers kill more animals (humans and others).Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmYeah, that is a scary thought. You can make hacking prohibitively expensive/difficult but it also means an added cost for the manufacturers/developers, and they might skimp on that. Still a few hacked robocars will be better than the countless number of human idiots that drive today.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmTechnically it's not a problem for the car to steer around it, it controls the car better than a human and has much better situational awareness. Would the sensors detect it? I believe the LIDAR would see a puddle of water as a flat surface for example, so you would have to rely on the cameras to detect such things. However, since the cars today rely on detailed maps they could have such road features annotated so the car knew in advance it should avoid them.No one thinks robocars will be perfect, only that they will be a lot safer than human drivers. Even if it can't avoid every single type of danger as well as you would have, it can still prevent far more accidents that you wouldn't/couldn't have. So statistically it will be a much safer bet to ride with a robocar than a human driver (most likely yourself included).Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmI'm almost certain no autonomous car today can tell the difference of a mattress and a bookcase so the car would have braked and/or swerved to avoid collision. But again, robocars will never be perfect but a ride with a robocar will still be the safer bet.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmIt doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. As long as they fail safely (e.g. pull over and stop) and it happens very rarely it won't be a showstopper. Don't forget they have many advantages to human drivers. E.g. they don't fall asleep or get a stroke, etc, etc.Quote from: wilfred on April 07, 2018, 02:19:45 pmWell, as I said, Waymo alone has driven over 8 million km autonomously on public roads without any such problems (billions of km in simulator). So doesn't look like there will be a lot of accidents, but time will tell. If one model of robocars did cause more accidents than humans then they shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads obviously. The standards for robocars can hopefully be set much higher than that of human drivers, but what regulations there will be is ultimately a political decision.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 05:39:59 pm
content: People have always underestimated what can be automated, not long ago lots of people said computers would never be able to beat a human at Chess, (much less Go). If you suggested computers would soon be automatically translating languages (not to mention automatically adding translated subtitles to video) people would either yell or laugh at you. But lo and behold: computers are way better than the best human players at both Chess and Go by now. To make a really good translation you need a lot of contextual understanding which computer translators lack at the moment, but google translate and such programs are already good enough to be very useful.Humans are just a biological machine (although a very complex one) that have been shaped and programmed by evolution, there isn't anything magical humans can do that a machine can't.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 05:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: apis on April 07, 2018, 05:39:59 pmNonsense. People have badly underestimated what can be automated in some areas, and massively overestimated what can be automated in other areas. People typically find it hard to believe that anything they do can be easily automated, yet find it easy to believe that the activities of others can.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 07:09:14 pm
content: Quote from: apis on April 07, 2018, 05:20:09 pmWait... What?!How is someone safer from attack in an autonomous car? Is the car going to magically come to your defense somehow if you're being attacked?!I would think that having another human around would make travel significantly safer than a lone person traveling in an autopod...

author: TheAmmoniacal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 08:06:14 pm
content: Quote from: drussell on April 07, 2018, 07:09:14 pmI assume it refers to being attacked by the driver.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 12:11:37 am
content: Quote from: coppice on April 07, 2018, 12:28:23 amThey help greatly around here where the freeway/motorway is the choke point along with the roads and limited parking downtown. Many thousands of cars stay in the suburbs and those people take a bus to downtown, keeping thousands of cars off the freeways and out of the crowded downtown core.Autonomous cars that are not privately owned don't solve the issue anyway, all they do is eliminate the taxi driver, it's a fancy way of replacing another relatively low skill job with automation. Autonomous cars that are privately owned don't solve any problem except laziness and/or inattention. If they can take themselves somewhere without anyone on board then I imagine we'll see hundreds of them clogging the streets circling the block while their owners eat lunch or conduct business once they figure out that driving a few miles is cheaper than parking for a half hour.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 09:26:10 am
content: Quote from: TheAmmoniacal on April 07, 2018, 08:06:14 pmYep. All those fake Mexican taxis that drive you to quiet place where the rest of the gang is waiting. They'll be out of business.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 03:06:46 pm
content: Quote from: drussell on April 07, 2018, 07:09:14 pmTaxi drivers are much more at risk of being robbed by the passengers of course, but the opposite also happens. And apparently it is much more common for women to be sexually harassed or raped than what most people believed (before the metoo thing), so a young lady who've had a few drinks might prefer to take a robocar taxi home. That humans won't have to do the risky job of driving taxis is another bonus.There will also be a way to contact a human operator at the taxi company in each car, so you could use that to call for help if the car was attacked by people on the outside I suppose.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 03:30:25 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 08, 2018, 12:11:37 amAnd you could have the same system with robocars, you just take your (or a taxi) robocar to the park&ride area and then you switch to robobus/train.Quote from: james_s on April 08, 2018, 12:11:37 amIn a functioning free market the price of taxi travel would go down significantly compared to today, however there is a risk there will only be one or a few very large companies offering the service (as is so common these days), and then you no longer have a working free market so the prices will not 'magically' reach the optimum value. But that is a political problem, not a problem with the technology.Quote from: james_s on April 08, 2018, 12:11:37 amOperating a car today costs about $20/hour, which is much more than any hourly priced parking. If you have a robot car you could just let it drop you off at the restaurant, etc, then it checks online for the cheapest free parking lot nearby and drives there directly and parks. So it will probably mean less driving compare to humans driving around looking for a free parking spot. Robot cars also have the potential to park much closer together (if there is no one inside that has to get out) so you can utilise the available parking space more efficiently.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2018, 04:41:38 am
content: Their department responsible for the R&D could probably learn a thing or two from B&R, these fellows had it all sorted out and working a treat fifty odd years ago from what I remember.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2018, 05:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2018, 05:49:19 amYes, I am in Phoenix quite often. Phoenix has been the testing ground for a lot of self driving car testing. You can barely drive anywhere without passing them several times a day - I don't know how many are on the roads in phoenix but it's a lot. There are a couple of reasons for it but I suspect the prime one is that Phoenix has an ideal road system - ie the whole city is made up of roads that go east-west and north south - however it is a big city so there can be plenty of traffic to contend with. There are relatively few winding roads anywhere in the city.In my own driving experience I have seen them do dangerous things on 2 occasions. One was they cut me off at the lights as I was right turning and had right of way to move into any appropriate lane. The google self driving car decided it would cross traffic and enter into the centre lane - the one I was going to take as I had a left turn further ahead. The second case was on a left turn across traffic into a residential street. The green light was given and it sat there jerking for a bit. 2 cars behind it (including me) eventually just drove around it and entered the street. It finally made it into the street before pulling over.I honestly can't say I have seen an Uber self driving car - unless they are using Google's but IIRC they are not Volvo's. I have used Uber here but as a matter of principal generally avoid them as I worry about the quality of driver testing and insurance.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2018, 05:57:28 pm
content: Having ridden in a convention taxi cab a few times, it did not exactly inspire confidence in the driver training and abilities, I'd just as soon hop in a car with a random stranger.

author: Clear as mud
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 12:23:29 pm
content: I just saw this this morning. I'll probably come back later and read the rest of the thread, but I noticed there were a couple of posts on the first two pages saying they could not figure out where the bicycle came from at 6:17. It can be seen in front of the van parked on the left at 6:17.I went back and watched the video a few times and figured out where the cyclist came from. He can be seen at 6:13 heading towards us, just beyond the second crosswalk. He only appears for a second or so between pedestrians and the automatic system does not detect him at that time either, but he's still pretty far away. After that he is eclipsed for about three seconds by the man walking diagonally from right to left across the road. The cyclist is approaching from further down the whole time, but most of the time he's behind that other pedestrian, then after passing the two parked vans, the cyclist turns and goes toward the sidewalk, at which time he comes out from behind the pedestrian and can be seen again (6:17 in the video).

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 03:22:20 pm
content: Quote from: Clear as mud on April 11, 2018, 12:23:29 pmIndeed, I had to go back an watch it again to see it. It's interesting since it's a good illustration of how we humans also fail at this task. And we could watch it from the comfort of our chairs while sipping coffee and pausing and going back and forth in the video. The algorithm has to run in real time.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 05:34:27 am
content: How can you say we humans "also fail at this task"?Perhaps I should get clarification on exactly what the taskis.IF it is the identification of every object within one's environment, then I would challenge that task as not even being reasonable.As far as performing a risk assessment is concerned - a much more pragmatic task - then that bicyclist would have been ignored by most people - as they never really entered the scene as any real risk.Let's not hold the bar so high that we get lost in detail that holds little significance in the whole picture.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 12:17:37 pm
content: I completely agree. We should look at the big picture instead of demanding perfection from every detail.Quote from: Brumby on April 12, 2018, 05:34:27 amIndeed, my point was that demanding that this collision avoidance system can identify every object is unreasonable and that humans can not do that either. What matters is that it can reduce the number of accidents (which it apparently can, significantly so).A robocar must be much more reliable than a collision detection system (which is why they do not solely rely on this kind of computer vision system). But it is also unreasonable to demand that robocars should be perfect before admitting they are useful. What the manufacturers need to prove is that the cars are safer than human drivers, not that they are infallible (which they of course never will be).