First pedestrian death by autonomous car... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:10:31 am
content: Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam...Then on Sunday night, an autonomous car operated by Uber — and with an emergency backup driver behind the wheel — struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Ariz. It was believed to be the first pedestrian death associated with self-driving technology. The company quickly suspended testing in Tempe as well as in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto.The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.......Above quoted from:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:16:21 am
content: One question not directly answered in the article was WTF was the backup "safety" driver doing?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:41:20 am
content: Supposedlythisis a picture of the actual point of impact, all the way on the right side of the road. Meanwhilethis storysays she came from the median. Which would mean she came from the path from the left seenhereand crossed two lanes, almost making it across before the thing hit her ... and it didn't fucking brake.I don't think the camera images will ever see the light in court and I think billion dollar interests coloured the description of the accident we got from the cops just a bit.

author: ed_dingle
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:46:45 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 20, 2018, 04:16:21 amI wonder what legal ramifications the backup driver could face...?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:50:09 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 20, 2018, 04:41:20 amOn the contrary, the vehicle would have been seized by Police for examination. The photos and videos will form part of the report to the coroner. Money has little to do with it. If need be, Police have the powers to rip that vehicle to pieces to gather evidence and the manufacturer will probably be compelled to assist.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:01:21 am
content: "Tempe police chief says early probe shows no fault by Uber""Herzberg was crossing Mill Avenue from west to east, according to Elcock."Crossing two lanes and getting hit on the right side of the fucking car without the car even braking? Either Sgt. Ronald Elcock got it all wrong in his press conference or I stand by my assertion that billion dollar interests probably played some part in police chief Sylvia Moir so quickly exonerating Uber.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:04:39 am
content: Quote from: ed_dingle on March 20, 2018, 04:46:45 amMust be negligence, as they are are in legal control of the car. Uber won't save them.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:06:52 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 20, 2018, 05:01:21 amNo one here knows the facts. I speak on experience after investigating fatal vehicle crashes before.However it seems that based on early reports the pedestrian suddenly crossed in a place she shouldn't have been crossing. Take away the autonomous car for a moment and put you behind the wheel. At 60 km/hr on a typical dry road using a typical car, it takes about 20 metres from the start of braking to come to a complete stop. Add to that the reaction of a driver and you're looking at 40-50 metres minimum.Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the pedestrian was at fault?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:38:33 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 20, 2018, 05:06:52 amWe know what reporters told us the police told them and we know for a fact she was hit on the right side of the car.QuoteOne of the thing the reporters told us the police told them is that the car didn't brake before impact, so that is neither here nor there.QuoteAt fault yes, almost certainly avoidable by a human driver paying attention, also yes. Hit on the right corner after crossing nearly the entire road and the car couldn't nudge left a little in time to avoid her?Brilliant self driving cars which can react in milliseconds couldn't manage that?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:45:43 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 20, 2018, 05:38:33 amBased on what? The word of one Police boss? I doubt very much that the ECU had been extracted at that point and the footage viewed, I'd say the comment was probably a bit premature. I have my doubts. Firstly, cars fitted with ABS don't leave long tyre marks, there is barely any mark. Secondly, I'd expect more damage to the vehicle higher up the bonnet and/or windscreen in a crash at that speed. Of course I'm going on nothing more than the wide shot photograph, but there seems to be a bit of Chinese whispers going on here."Autonomous vehicle kills pedestrian" sells more papers and clicks than "Pedestrian did the wrong thing, run over by car".I'm not taking one side or another, but having been in the position of investigating crashes, it normally takes days or weeks (sometimes months) for the facts to become known. The fact that Uber is a multi-billion dollar company, has nothing to do with it.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:57:20 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 20, 2018, 05:45:43 amNo the "boss" Sylvia Moir was the one who quickly exonerated Uber. The one who said the car didn't slow down was the spokesman who made a prepared presentation at a press conference ... not exactly an off the cuff remark. He also avoided talking about innocence.QuoteThey've also said they have already viewed camera footage.QuoteThe age of the dash cam makes some things easier.QuoteSomething moved Sylvia Moir to declare Uber innocent so quickly.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:09:20 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on March 20, 2018, 05:39:02 amBut suing Uber maybe a tougher task, because they weren't driving. Anyone with a license should have have by law third party personal injury insurance (at least in this country you do). So suing the person and their insurance company would be a more standard legal case. i.e. higher chance of getting a payout.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:15:42 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 20, 2018, 05:57:20 amYep, that smells fishy. Although there is a lot at stake.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:18:02 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 20, 2018, 05:06:52 amCould very well be. But all the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the driver was not paying attention at the time, and bam, sure fire negligence conviction.Legally, I'm sure that the autonomous mode would be no different to cruise control. You can't put on cruise control and take a nap, same with an autonomous car.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:20:11 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on March 20, 2018, 06:16:22 amNo doubt.Doesn't mean they will settle though. They could decide it's more important to them as a legal test case to remove culpability from "drivers" of autonomous cars, otherwise they could simply face this same problem again and again...

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 07:02:14 am
content: The human driver probably zoned out, unable to react in time, as usually happens in self-driven cars.Here's an interesting article:http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/16646/waymo-engineers-disturbing-confession-highlights-ignorance-at-heart-of-self-driving-lobbyQuote

author: alan242
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 07:48:10 am
content: I live about 10 miles (about 16 km) from where the accident occurred. It is a dark area at night. (Although, I thought the self driving cars did not entirely rely on light.) The area borders some office parks, some recreational parks and the Phoenix zoo.Here are some local links with additional information and some video of the scene.https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/tempe-police-investigating-self-driving-uber-car-involved-in-crash-overnighthttp://www.azfamily.com/story/37757581/self-driving-vehicle-strikes-and-kills-pedestrian-in-arizonahttp://www.azfamily.com/story/37757233/tempe-pd-uber-self-driving-vehicle-hits-kills-pedestrianOh and I'm sure this one will get some wound up on Uber's hiring practices again...https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/19/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-killed-pedestrian-felon/440501002/

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 09:06:24 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 20, 2018, 04:10:31 amThe accident was a reminder thatself-drivingtechnologyis still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.FTFY

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 09:15:08 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 20, 2018, 04:10:31 amNow that is jumping to conclusions!There was someone behind the wheel and that person was not able to brake as well. Remember that automatic braking for pedestrians is a very common feature on new cars so the technology to do that is mature. If a car equiped with a human driver AND an automatic system and someone still gets killed there is only one conclusion: the person who died litterally jumped in front of the car. There is nothing you can do about such situations.I've had it happen with cat myself during driving lessons. A cat jumped in front of the car and both the instructor and me (both with access to a brake pedal) where unable to react in time. I've also seen footage from an accident where a cyclist crossed a street after a truck passed by. The cyclist overlooked a car from the opposite direction and got hit. For the driver the cyclist appeared out of nowhere. I'm pretty sure this accident is similar.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 09:31:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2018, 06:18:02 amYes you're right, but negligence can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. I know the "negligent driving" ticket gets thrown around quite a lot as a "catch all" offence, but I've said this many times before, there is almost always a more appropriate offence. I reckon if you copped a neg. drive, you'd have a good chance of getting off in court.Short of footage showing the driver asleep, reading a paper, eating a meal etc... I think they'll be hard pressed trying to prove negligence, especially if it's found out that the pedestrian broke the law and there was little to no time for a reasonable person to react in those circumstances. It's not a popular decision among the public when a pedestrian ends up dead and are found at-fault, but it happens more often than most people think.There have been several cases where pedestrians have been killed by buses or garbage trucks in Sydney, almost every single instance was the fault of the pedestrian, either they were not paying attention and crossed in the wrong location or against a red light or they were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.From the articles I've read so far, it seems as though the pedestrian crossed in the wrong place and was distracted and didn't notice on-coming traffic. Lack of braking directly before the incident could simply mean lack of reactionary gap.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 09:42:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2018, 06:09:20 amAt least in WA, where the Compulsory Third Party Insurance is paid with the Registration, the person who registered the vehicle is the one who will be sued, not the driver, if they are not one & the same.If the same rules apply in Arizona, Über ( or perhaps,whichever body is testing the vehicle) would be the registered owner.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 09:48:07 am
content: Pedestrian crosses road in unexpected place in pitch black conditions, even human driver does not react. I have to say, some pedestrians have zero care for their safety, and seem to assume that because they can see the car, the car driver can see them. When the conditions often make the pedestrian virtually invisible. And then there are those people deliberately trying to get run over - commonplace in Russia... but then anything goes in Russia.It's sad that this person was homeless and recently out of jail, I wondered who would be walking around there late at night. The road layout was obviously designed for cars not pedestrians, a sidewalk meets the highway, a small sign says "Use crosswalk".The news reports eventually get around to some salient facts : Uber robot cars have been driving for nearly a year before this accident. One person gets killed on Arizona roadsevery 9 hours. Yup, humans killed 962 people (2016), robot car kills 1 person. So ban robot cars?This is the question I raised before : will people accept robot cars, even if they kill a lot less people than human driven cars, but still kill a few?

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 11:35:12 am
content: The backup driver is useless IMO. If the car is fine 99% (well maybe in AZ where the climate is perfect) of the time, the driver will be used the car driving itself and off in lala land day dreaming. When that 1% comes, they are simply not going to react fast enough. Certainly not faster than if they where driving the car 100% of the time.Don't these cars have lidar, radar, etc that should have detected an object even if it was dark? Supposed to be "safer" than a human driving right? Seems pretty shitty if it didn't attempt to slow down or move out of the way slightly. Should be interesting to see who comes up at fault.Would like to see these AVs tackle snow covered roads...

author: FrankE
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:01:07 pm
content: Automotive machine vision isn't particularly adept at telling the difference between a grey sky, grey car, grey buildings, grey suit.I can't see them working particularly well in Aberdeen TheGraniteorSilverGrey City.We grew up not knowing what colour was until the BBC started broadcasting it.

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:03:30 pm
content: We know that it's impossible to pay attention 80% of the time (a number I made up based on my own driving) when your attention is required 0.1% of the time. People get bored. This is why the big boys are pushing for 100% autonomy.But who's running the numbers here? How many deaths would there have been if shitty humans had driven all of America's autonomous hours?People die. Sometimes in bad ways for no reason (insert mother pleading with congressman to ban swimming until you can swim) but anyway... The computer pays attention all the time, even if it isn't quite as good as an attentive human, it's already better than a drugged/tired/distracted one.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:07:58 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 20, 2018, 11:35:12 amI was driving home one night right across Sydney. It was torrential pouring rain, and as is normal in Sydney, roadwork galore, chopping and changing contraflow lanes, weaving in and out of stuff, stopping and going at lollipops, and dodging people in the city etc. And I was thinking, no 'effing way any autonomous car is going to do all that on a mass scale, not for a very long time. And here people are saying in only a few years time we'll all be driving fully autonomous cars. Rubbish.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:11:14 pm
content: Quote from: apelly on March 20, 2018, 12:03:30 pmAnd a drugged/tired/distracted human is still going to be way better at reacting to random unforseen anomalous events than some AI algorithm that thinks it knows and can handle any situation.

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:28:35 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2018, 12:11:14 pmNo argument from me.I'mguessingthat despite that, inattention in "easy" situations, think freeway cruising, causes more injuries than those few complicated situations.I want to see autonomous hours driven with no serious issues compared with human hours driven with no serious issues.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 12:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: apelly on March 20, 2018, 12:28:35 pmComparing all human hours, which would cover ALL road conditions to AV hours which are only in the best cases...bogus stats. Your not going to find anything meaningful until AVs have alot more hours and how do you account for "disengagements"? Is that a failure in the comparison, or its designed for that so that's perfectly acceptable no negative points? Humans sure as hell can't tap out when the crap hits the fan.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 01:38:03 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 20, 2018, 09:48:07 amI agree. It's quite likely there was nothing the driver could have done.QuoteThat doesn't mean anything. The question is: how many human drivers are there vs automated cars?QuoteI'd accept that. One big advantage is all the automated cars can learn from every single accident.I'm still cynical that autonomous vehicles will ever take off. There are plenty of places where driver-less technology is already advanced enough, yet isn't widely implemented such as: guided bus ways and trains. Here in the UK there have been a few accidents due to excessive speed on guided bus ways, which probably wouldn't have happened, if they were automated.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 01:51:56 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 20, 2018, 12:28:05 pmYep, all these issues and more will hinder widespread adoption of fully automated humanless cars for general use for a long time.All people need is one bad experience in a driverless Uber "Johnny Cab" and they'll likely never use one again, and they'll tell their friends about it.Heck, I'd like to see an autonomous car figure out how to drive up to my office building and pick me up, it's a kinda complicated environment out the front. Simple stuff like watching people's faces and manerisisms to see if they are headed to their car to back out so you can get a spot is just one of countless examples of something that is trivial and natural for a human, but stupidly complicated for an AI car.Just the two buildings I'm in alone have enough variability and complication to warrant their own rules. And visualising other buildings and carparks in my business park alone, I"m struggling to think of one that would be easy.Maybe I'm underestimating the smarts of the latest AI cars and sensors, but I'd bet money that I'm not.

author: mdijkens
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 02:20:07 pm
content: Fully agree.Because cars seem to be able to drive autonomous under 'normal' 'expected' conditions, everyone talks like we're 90% there...I think it's not even 10% yet.How about al those situations that should not exist, but we encounter (unnoticed!) every day?pedestrians and bikers in the city who behave 'at random' while we anticipate without even realizing because of facial expression or a small move of the head or arm?In most big cities, if you wait with driving until the crossing is empty/safe, you'll still be waiting 3 days laterWhat if an accident blocked the road; we will without a doubt look for a way around it over the sidewalk or through the grass ...what if road-signs are not placed correctly, we realize and act smart, creatively and responsibleetc.

author: TK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 02:44:26 pm
content: self driving cars are not programmed with if-then algorithms. They are based on ML (Machine Learning) software. I live in one of the Uber cities and I see lots of Uber self driving cars around, day and night. They are mapping the driving experience. Recording every single sign, road condition, pedestrian movements. They collect tons of data that is used to feedback the ML algorithms. The backup drivers also provide important feedback at the end of the shift about any abnormal situation, any observation and it is also recorded and used as feedback. Current AI is not what it used to be...

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 04:53:58 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 20, 2018, 05:45:43 amIn AU and other more civilized countries perhaps not but in US hell yes.Quote

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:39:17 pm
content: QuoteUber apparently needs a backup to the backup.QuotePeds using crosswalks lol, welcome to the typical city. I see bikes blowing traffic lights and people walking out from between two parked cars daily as well. Frankly maybe we need Uber AVs out here to cull the herd a bit.QuoteWhy do we "NEED" to get there exactly?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 05:47:04 pm
content: Quote from: TK on March 20, 2018, 02:44:26 pmThe vision system isn't, but I am 100% certain that there is an expert system in there too. Trying to train some half assed neural net for it to obey traffic rules would be insanity, they are far too brittle and unpredictable.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:03:30 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 20, 2018, 09:48:07 amThe car has headlights and as far as we know she almost made it across before it hit her (ie. she crossed left to right and got hit on the right side of the car). Not exactly an olympic sprinter, so she must have been in the headlights for a bit.QuoteA human driver doesn't see in IR though. As far as the car is concerned it's not much different from daylight.

author: mdijkens
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 06:20:19 pm
content: Quote from: TK on March 20, 2018, 02:44:26 pmML = if-then algorithms but then on premisses with probabilities. By feeding/learning it gets 'better' but not more 'creative' in unexpected situations.ML is not HL and AI is not HIThe human brain rules big time!ML is is very valuable and used in more and more domains, but it's not the holy grail; it has is place amongst everything elseDon't be fooled by the latest greatest hypes: We see them coming with big buzz and they go silently or find the humble place they deserve.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 07:24:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2018, 12:07:58 pmTrue, however one could argue that you're still safer with an Autonomous car as opposed to some (many?) drivers out there. There are certain populations of Sydney and without being racist, are just awful drivers, beyond awful, absolutely abominable. I've seen some shit you just wouldn't believe unless you witnessed it yourself. Then there are taxi drivers... for someone who spends their day driving, they ought to be some of the best, well practised drivers on our roads... they are not.I'm finding as intelligence among the human race drops, so does their driving ability. In Australia, you don't even need to be able to read English to hold an unrestricted driving licence.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 07:42:14 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 20, 2018, 07:24:51 pmI agree with that. Some people suck bad at driving through less than optimal circumstances. A fleet of self driving cars at least has the ability to share information about the road ahead so the cars behind don't have to re-analyse the entire situation. Having written that... in one occassion a Telsa in front of me nearly went full stop when coming up to road works. I'm pretty sure the driver had the auto pilot on because a human driver would never bethatstupid.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 08:51:04 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2018, 12:11:14 pmI don't know about that ... since the autopilot is looking at several cameras, radar, lidar, and also ultrasonic sensors it tends to have a vastly great situational awareness than a person. That and the fact that the processing power available greatly exceeds the typical distracted human driver. To be sure, when encountering something unexpected humans are infinitely superior to AI, but in order to properly respond you need to see it first. Given the info we have it seems that had the car been driven by a human the outcome would have been the same.I would like to know if the Uber car have infrared cameras as that would be particularly useful in seeing a human or animal in darkness like that. The advantage AI has is being able to process input from many more sensors and 100% concentration. Again, I think IR is key and without it AI is not going to fair much better at night.Brian

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2018, 08:52:45 pm
content: It has a greater array of inputs, it has zero awareness.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 01:22:04 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 20, 2018, 08:52:45 pmOK, perhaps you can explain what you mean by "zero awareness". Seems to me that if it had zero awareness it would not work at all, but again, perhaps you can clarify you comment.Brian

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 07:23:01 am
content: Quote from: mdijkens on March 20, 2018, 02:20:07 pmAccording to this article, self driving cars need special parking spaces at the time being:Quote

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:09:44 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 20, 2018, 09:48:07 amI got 1 minor issue with that comment, how many cars are on Arizona's roads VS how many autonomous cars.Now, of course, there is not yet a large enough sample set to do a proper evaluation, but, things are looking horrible for the autonomous cars.Accidents/deaths will fall into my little 3 categories:1. Death in a situation where neither a human driver or a computer driver could have prevented a death.2. Death in a situation where a human driver would have not caused a death.3. Death in a situation where a computer driver would have not caused a death.Unfortunately, leaving life in the hand of a computer technology, especially when new, will always get the thumbs down compared to when a human caused such an accident. To be human means to make errors. Having a machine do the work, it must be foul-proof.Worse, the programming of these cars is basically trying to drive by rules. They are not designed specifically to watch out for human lives, and if a pedestrian's life is in danger where braking isn't enough, are these computer drivers programmed to turn off the road into the sidewalk if it is clear of pedestrians and if it is low enough to drive up on, or turn to the on-coming traffic lane if no cars are coming from that direction to avoid the pedestrians? Is it programmed to recognize a cliff or ditch on one side to turn the other way to avoid the pedestrian & not kill the driver by driving off a cliff? What about slamming on the park brake or run the transmition in reverse on dry pavement where there is enough traction to stop even faster? What about honk the horn and flash the high beams if the computer sees a beginning to cross the street to stop them and save the day?What about me as the passenger of the self driving car? How would I feel if I chose to buy one of these full self driving cars, and I'm sitting there & my computerized car just killed someone in front me where if I owned a normal car, I could have prevented this loss of life? How do you think I would feel? I bought a machine which just mowed over a mother and/or child... For now, self driving technology is to be avoided like a plague until AI reaches the kind of nuance decision human pedestrian avoidance capabilities of my above paragraph. Sadly, I know that the amount money involved means there will be a lot of crap exponentially growing for around 2 decades before the cars get that smart.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 02:01:59 pm
content: There is the issue of sharing of the road between autonomous vehicles (AV's) and regular human-driven vehicles, and the mixed type of traffic (pedestrian, bike, light cars, light trucks and heavy trucks) all using the roads which is bound to create numerous problems as well. While I think AV technology will eventually find a place in the future, I don't think it will take off until there are dedicated lanes or roads for it (with higher than normal "protections" in place to avoid non-AV's from using the same areas) or until almost all vehicles on the road are AV's and have the ability to talk to each other and regular speeds and follow strict rules, spacing, distancing and so on.Once you throw in unpredictable humans who would like to "cut off" an AV, or signal last minute (or not at all) or introduce all sorts of surprises into the equation, we will end up with much confusion on the part of AV's and bloated algorithms that probably will have flaws and miss situations.I can see AV technology working well when you want it to take over driving on long boring routes on highways, where you may need to drive on a designated "AV lane" and you put it on auto-pilot until you are ready to take control and drive through less predicatable situations. I can see urban driving with AV where speeds are relatively low and using small light compact cars that will buzz around, again along certain lanes and routes, to get predictably and safely around a city. However, the number of potential objects that such a car would encounter in an urban situation is also going to create many situations where accidents can occur especially when mixed in with unpredictable aggressive human drives, pedestrians and bicyclists in urban environment.I'm thinking for now at least, AV will find it's place in certain niches but I cannot see it taking over the masses. Even if the technology is perfected, there are legal issues and who to blame with accidents and the human trust factor that needs to be overcome.I'm sure we can design airplanes that can take off, fly and land completely autonomously today. There is no need for a human pilot right? Will flying be safer having a completely computer-run airline handling everything from start to finish? Don't many of the accidents involving planes boil down to human error? How many are mechanical and how many are pilot related? Yet we would still be happier having a flawed human pilot flying us than a "perfect" computer algorithm.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 02:16:55 pm
content: It's terrible of course!!!!... but what was not delved into too much... yet......is that this unfortunate victim was walking with, (wheeling) this bicycle along side themselves,on the sidewalk at walking pace, and suddenly walked out in front of the traffic as if to crossthe road... The "Vehicle" did not spot such danger ahead in the 1 sec it had to react.....The brakes were immediately applied, and although a collision occurred, the bike ended upbeing located/knocked about 10 feet in front of the now stopped vehicle......Yes... a 'real' person was also present "behind the wheel", but even HE could not react faster....Is there room for improvement?.... YES.... Different result with purely human driver... no.....

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 02:24:19 pm
content: Was there a report that the brakes where applied? I haven't heard anything other than it plowed right in. And with all the sensors strapped on top, shouldn't it have detected the object even in complete darkness from some distance??Hard to say without seeing the video. Myself anytime I see someone walking on the side of the road I'm moving over to on top of the center line or into the on coming lane if possible. We have ass clowns down here that will ride bikes on snow/icy roads. They could slip and fall over at any minute. Is the AI smart enough to do the same? Can it sort out a mailbox from a child standing on the side of the road and do the same?

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 02:29:39 pm
content: According to this she walked right in front of the AVs path of travel and it never slowed down.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.htmlBeing equipped with both lidar and radar, it shouldn't have had much trouble spotting her. Especially since she cross right in front! Looking at it more, there are street lights on that portion of the road. You can see their shadows on the road in their picture. Given that, the headlights...even the damn person behind the wheel should have noticed her. Again, if your used to the AV driving 99% of the time...how vigilant are you really for the 1% when the unexpected comes into the equation?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 05:08:48 pm
content: Only thing NYT missed was the photograph showing evidence of impact about 20 meters back from where the car stopped. Still props on them for actually doing some journalism, best of the bunch.My hypothesis, the programmers made the same mistake drivers often make. Leaving next to no margin for error for vehicles moving at right angle to themselves slowing down. A human driver will tend to be a bit more apprehensive of a squishy target though, and are aware that people slow down to get a bicycle up a curb.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 07:17:07 pm
content: gotta be a nightmare to sort out nonsense from something that may move in the path at any minute.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 07:49:05 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 21, 2018, 02:29:39 pmYeah thats a bit strange, cars already have anti-collision features but I guess they don't work as well as we think.Although they are still massively beneficial (rear end collision reduced by ~50% or something).youtube.com/watch?v=zAeEnLr3WYk(similar event to what seems to have happened here)youtube.com/watch?v=ooOz69CEtJ0(test which seems to show it not activating)

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:01:37 pm
content: There have been some good points raised about safety stats. I'd still like to see some apples to apples comparisons.We know where all these AVs have driven, for how long, and at what times. Can we compare average incidents for people driving in the same places for the same amount of time at the same times of day?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:44:32 pm
content: I just gently wonder if the software coders for autonomous diesel cars trucks etc have included runaway enginesparticularly those who does that while transporting someone? Measuring RPM and throwing in neutral and brakeshure but turning off the engine? Some robot arm throwing in old socks into the turbo inlet?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:53:50 pm
content: And what about famous Swedish moose test is that in the software as well? Well it applies to Canadians too... and Russia but they cant drive anyway..

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 09:37:50 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on March 21, 2018, 02:16:55 pmReally? What are you basingthaton?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 12:39:34 am
content: Seems they have released footageIf Chris Anderson (who is now big into autonomous cars) is saying it's not good, it's really not good.Video link:https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664/video/1

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 01:25:27 am
content: Well at least they have quality people at the wheel of these "safer" AVs. I'm sure the feedback they get on how the drive went is really useful input to the ML.https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/ex-con-was-behind-wheel-of-self-driving-uber-that-killed-woman/Anyone paying attention should have been able to stop. As I said, they get complacent, they don't pay any attention because it works most of time. That driver's eyes are anywhere but the road. Now the fun begins....who's fault??...trying not also point out "she" needs a serious shave in that photo...

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 05:13:03 am
content: Having now seen the video, 4 things are immediately evident to me.1. The human driver wasn't watching the road until the time of impact.2. The pedestrian was crossing in a poorly lit location, where she shouldn't have been, wearing dark clothing, ignoring on-coming traffic (for whatever reason).3. The pedestrian was not visible until she was within range of the car headlights, by which time, reacting and stopping @ 60km/hr is not possible without colliding with the subject.4. The other autonomous sensors (radar, lidar etc...) have failed to detect the subject.Who is at fault? In my opinion 50% the pedestrian, 25% the human driver, 25% technology.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 06:13:03 am
content: Looking at the video, yes, you cant see the pedestrian until the headlights illuminate her.But, if the car had the latest high quality high speed 3D lidar i've seen on a BBC documentary related to the future of self driving cars, that pedestrian should have been easily picked up at 5x-10x the distance, even around that curve, that is also assuming that the AI sees the velocity and direction of that pedestrian and foresees the eminent collision. Though, the particular lidar being demonstrated is just too expensive for now. Human life costs less.We will be stuck with self driving cars which have good technology, and, self driving cars with crap technology. When deaths happen, public opinion wont care if the card used technology A vs technology B.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 06:13:19 am
content: OK, so the video puts this into a much different situation than first suggested. Seems to me any number of sensors should have detected her and with more than enough time to react/stop. The cameras might not have been able to see her given the light level, but radar and lidar must certainly should have. And, I'll repeat, IR is the way to go for detecting people/animals and in my opinion IR needs to be one of the sensors that become mandatory for self driving cars.The safety driver thing is more of a liability provision as a human driver will soon lose attention if they are not in control -- I can not imagine a job where I'm required to do nothing 99.9% of the time yet be ready to grab control and have both situational awareness and an appropriate response within a fraction of a second. Given the time when the woman was first noticeable in the video and the point of impact was not enough time given the speed and reaction time.What no one has said yet as best I can tell is comment on the fact that this is Uber -- one of the if not THE most douche-baggy companies on the planet. They stole much of the tech for autonomous cars from Waymo (Google) and that's hardly the worst of there corporate sins. Waymo is likely to win some kind of settlement against Uber but the damage done because of this death may cost everyone working on this big time. The upside, however, and it's hard saying that given the fact someone died, is that perhaps everyone in this space takes things more seriously. One gets the sense that many Silicon Valley tech types think they are smarter than anyone and should be allowed greater license than others -- perhaps this rests things, I have my doubts.Brian

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 06:18:13 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 22, 2018, 05:13:03 amI might question the human occupant component. I hesitate to call them the driver, since they were not actively engaged in the driving process and, as such, would have not been in a position to have executed any actions of a driver within any useful time frame.My main reasons for this include:1. As a passive occupant of the vehicle, they would not have engaged in any normal driver activity, such as a constant state of situational awareness expected from a "hands on" driver.2. As well as their eyes, their hands and feet were not in contact with or positioned for use of the controls. These conditions simply could not occur with a normal "hands on" driver situation.3. Previous experience of the autonomous vehicle would have trained them in the lack of the need for doing so.There may be some others, but considering only 1. and 2. above - this is what would have needed to happen.....a) The "safety driver" would need to have observed the hazard before impact (which I think they may have).b) They would immediately expect the AV to have responded and they would hesitate.c) When the AV hadn't responded, they then would have had to remember that they had the ability to take control.d) They then would have been challenged by the taking the decision to do so.e) Once they had done that, they would have had to "find" the controls - the steering wheel and brake pedal as a minimum, since their hands (certainly) and feet (possibly) were not in normal driver position.f) They then would apply whatever action they chose.For a normal "hands on" driver, only steps a) and f) are involved - the others are not automatic steps and they will take a finite time to be processed.While a "hands on" driver would have been in a far better position for noticing the pedestrian in the first place, whether they could have been more effective in lessening the severity of the outcome is questionable.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 06:35:09 am
content: You cannot be serious.Don't ever get into the legal profession. A first year law student would carve you up like a Sunday roast.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 08:36:52 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 22, 2018, 06:18:13 amI dare say the law will view that differently, however I'm admitting I don't know the laws in the area where this crash occurred. I'm guessing that because there was a human inside the car, it was required by law and the law will probably view that person sitting in the driver's seat as the "driver", regardless if they were actually physically controlling the movement of the vehicle at that particular time.However that being said, it's clear that most of the blame can be attributed to the pedestrian. I think the only thing the driver could have reasonably done (even if he was paying full attention) would be to swerve in an attempt to avoid the collision.Also, on another point, since this was essentially a "test vehicle", I'm curious whether or not Volvo's own safety systems (city safety etc...) were disabled and the control of the car was relying solely on third-party sensors, cameras, software etc... Volvo's technology (whilst still being a computer and not 100% fool proof) is designed to detect and avoid exactly this kind of collision. Those cars are also fitted with pedestrian air bags which lift the bonnet and deploy around the windscreen. There did not appear to be any evidence of this system activating.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 08:56:33 am
content: The law as written may have clear directions, but I will suggest it has no consideration for the "driver's" particular circumstances. The case may go to court based on that, but I doubt proceedings will follow anything like they would for a normal driver situation.I daresay the items b) through e) I listed would feature strongly - plus whatever instruction and/or direction Uber gave the safety driver. I'm sure you've seen some colourful courtroom calisthenics using less than that.What is of greater interest, though, is why the technology did not intervene. That is the mystery.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 08:58:11 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 22, 2018, 08:36:52 amNow thatisan interesting question.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 08:59:48 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 22, 2018, 08:56:33 amIndeed and you are absolutely correct. This isn't a typical case, but the courts have to apply "typical" law, perhaps with a dash of case law. Will there be changes to come out of this? You bet! Will the human driver be found at-fault? If I were a betting man, I'd probably say no.(And yes, some of my court matters have been... interesting... but mostly hours of boredom.)

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 09:40:15 am
content: What I see is the pedestrian isn't looking in the car's direction right up to the point of impact. If that wasn't the case, she would have seen the car and stopped in the middle of the road.The car's headlights would have been visible to her, long before she was visible to them.Here is the first view from the camera that gives a hint there is something on the road.This is 2 second before impact.Was it possible to stop the car given this visual informationhttp://www.peterblight.com/Documents/eDS%20Stopping%20Distances.pdf40 mph (64 km/h)thinking distance: 12Mbraking distance: 24MStopping time for ABS car is 2 seconds, add 50% for a human driver to react (+1 second).If this wasn't a self driving car, the headline would be "Cyclist killed after walking in front of car". There is nothing a human driver could have done to prevent this accident, only reduce the crash speed.So why didn't the autopilot software detect her using Lidar ? I'd guess they did, but are trained to accept cyclists as other road users that obey road laws. Perhaps the concept of bike + human walking it isn't in the software. What could be done to improve the software, basic face recognition to detect when fools aren't looking before crossing the road. I'd also think if the Lidar did see something moving, it should switch the headlights to highbeam so the camera can get a closer look.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 10:05:08 am
content: Quote from: station240 on March 22, 2018, 09:40:15 am1. That's the dash cam, not the higher quality camera shots from the AI's overhead cameras.2. Even with Dave's video he just posted, turn up you monitor's gamma control, the pedestrian is visible far earlier, if the image was electronically analyzed. The screenshot image you shown here has the black level crushed out compared to the youtube video. Not only that, but after 2 generations of compression, the original most likely has a slightly mode detail, not to mention the onboard AI cameras are operating raw uncompressed.Here is when we first see the pedestrian.Since she is already in the middle of the right lane and this far back, you can steer to the right. If you look at the car in the NYT images, she was struck on the right hand bumper of the car, from this far back in Dave's video screenshot, it may have been possible to turn left and miss her, or, not make a killing blow.Even further back going 1 mpeg generation earlier (twitter source):If it wasn't for the .mpg maybe even further back, except, the pedestrian is already getting fairly tiny even at this distance...Though, that pitch black long sleeve shirt in the middle of the night isn't the smartest attire for night cycling.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 10:37:03 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 22, 2018, 09:03:06 amIt certainly was. Your argument is idealistic. It completely ignores the practical circumstances.You are no doubt going to stand by your opinion, no matter what I think, so I'm not going to say anything more about it. You have just as much right to be wrong as I.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:04:38 am
content: Dash cams are total crap in the dark like any other cheap camera. Its going to look much darker than it really is.The road had streetlights at regular intervals. Hit google street view. They are all along both sides of the road. That area is peppered with them. Look at the news photos of the car that night and the shadow under the car. Sure there are red/blue lights from the police, but there sure looks like a far bit of orange glow from street lights there... The speed limit was 45mph, not sure why some of the stories say 35mph. Took 2 min on street view to spot the sign right before the overpass...Also focusing on just stopping distance is nonsense. That person hit the right side of the car. 12" could have been the difference of life or death. Any human in full control would have had an instinctual reaction to turn left and stop. Both of which likely would have saved this women's life. It was a two lane road and the AV was the only car there, giving plenty of room to safely avoid her without leaving the roadway.The concept of the "safety" driver is totally BS. No human is going to pay attention in this role. The AV needs to be 100% or its crap.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:47:41 am
content: And to get an idea how far away she is in the crap video....AZ center line striping appears to be 6" wide strip 10' long with 30' spacing. So she's got to be around 60' away when her shoes appear in the grainy video.https://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/signing-and-marking-standard-drawings/current-test

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 09:48:46 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 22, 2018, 11:04:38 amActually I think the data indicates that most people, if they react by turning at all will tend to turn into the direction the object is moving and increase the likelyhood of impact. Human nature is weird that way. Similarly, something like 70% of people being passed tend to increase there speed while being passed when they should keep the same speed or even slow a bit. Again, human nature is weird.That said, it is certainly true that if the driver had been paying attention and turned even a little to the left they could have avoided impact even without slowing. I was driving my Nissan 240SX pretty fast one night on a country road down a small mountain and just after turning into a right hand turn I found a large Deer in the middle of the road with it's head to the right -- I managed, barely, to swerve left then hard right to make the turn and just missed hitting the Deer by angstroms. I was going too fast with too little distance to stop in time so swerving was the only option -- thank goD no one was coming the other way.Expecting a human driver to remain 100% attentive behind the wheel of a self driving cars is folly and I'd bet the percentage of cases where a human driver might react to prevent a problem and actually does is less than 30%. The fact that the driver appears distracted will likely cause that person legal grief and sadly few people will give a damn about him. Again, the reason there are humans in the car has more to do with liability insurance and convincing regulators that its not just tech. In other words, a bit of legal slight of hand...Brian

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 10:01:03 pm
content: Can't be bothered to read every page but try making a statistics of deaths in traffic by human drivers and shut the fuck up. That was all. Thanks for your attention.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 10:59:00 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 22, 2018, 11:47:41 am60 feet is 20 meters. The camera lense makes it look much further than it is in reality. With the car travelling at 40mph=17.8m/s means the time from 'visual' to 'impact' is little over 1 second. A human driver won't be able to do anything in that time anyway.

author: mdijkens
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:06:55 pm
content: probably haven't seen better video in the other thread of the lighting situation there:Quote from: sunnyhighway on March 22, 2018, 07:44:28 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:21:37 pm
content: Quote from: mdijkens on March 22, 2018, 11:06:55 pmEven if a better camera would be able to 'see' the pedestrian from twice as far away that still leaves little over 2 seconds to react. Assuming the LIDAR has a similar range. Before anything can be done the direction and speed of the 'object' needs to be established. Meanwhile time is ticking away. Neither human or autonomous driver can do much in these kind of situations where the time to react is extremely short. One thing to keep in mind is that in hindsight it is easy to say the car could have moved left or right. But if you have ever been in a similar situation then you'd know that swarfing to the left or right needs time to check in order not to create an even bigger accident. If you only have a couple of seconds to check AND do something the time simply isn't enough.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:35:42 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 22, 2018, 05:13:03 amMy guess is since Uber hires felons to test their cars, they put in their contract that the drivers are 100% responsible (the felons need the job and probably will sign anything) and will try and say so. I think the courts will rake them over the coals and Uber will be 100% at fault.

author: mdijkens
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2018, 11:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 22, 2018, 11:21:37 pmtwice?This looks more like 10xA slow reacting human could have easily stopped

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 12:12:12 am
content: Quote from: mdijkens on March 22, 2018, 11:40:28 pmNo, they wouldn't have.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 02:36:39 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 23, 2018, 12:12:12 amFull stop was not needed to avoid collision. Possibly even 0.5 secs of extreme braking with avoidance steering would do the job. Most sane drivers tend to stay on the road during obstacle avoidance - they possibly would steer into left lane. Quick search shows that accident experts use 1.5 sec as average reaction time. Well ok, ok. Olderly ppl reach 3 secs or even worse, young and alert - around 1 sec. I would say plausible to save her with 50% or better chances in case of human driver - if time to impact was 2secs or more.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 03:27:05 am
content: Quote from: ogden on March 23, 2018, 02:36:39 amYour original comment stated "A slow reacting human could have easilystopped". No one disputes that any amount of breaking would have reduced the speed.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 10:09:06 am
content: The level of black crush on that video is quite amazing. It doesn't look like that on a mobile phone camera.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 10:35:19 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 23, 2018, 03:27:05 amWell... it was notmycomment.QuoteReduction of the speed?I talk about - pedestrian could be saved by human driver compared to robot, or not.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:19:34 am
content: I suggest you are probably making an incorrect comparison: Comparing a properly functioning human to an improperly functioning "robot". I would also think a properly functioning robot would outperform an improperly functioning human.Be careful the component attributes of your comparison are properly identified.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:28:26 am
content: Quote from: ogden on March 23, 2018, 10:35:19 amMy mistake, you are correct (as in, you weren't the author, the comment itself is still incorrect).Quote from: ogden on March 23, 2018, 10:35:19 amWhy *palm* ?What point are you attempting to prove?All things being equal, I still am of the opinion that the pedestrian is mostly to blame for the collision, based on what I've read, observed and my own training and expertise.Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2018, 10:09:06 amGreat, so now morons are going out to the same site, driving illegally with a mobile phone in their hand... what could go wrong?You can't assume that a camera's sensor is equal to or worse than a human's sight. Eyesight varies. Cameras can be both more or less sensitive to light. My dashcam for example reproduces dark scenes better than I can view them in certain light and my night time vision is above average. I would argue that the original (darker) footage is more representative of an average, middle-aged persons eyesight in those conditions.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:34:35 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 23, 2018, 11:28:26 amI *palmed* because you refused to comprehend that I did not talk just about full stop (or reduction of the speed) but: pedestrian can be saved by human driver or not.QuoteWell, indeed. Anyway such conclusion does not disqualify discussions about other related to particular accident, topics.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:41:15 am
content: Quote from: ogden on March 23, 2018, 11:34:35 am"Refuse" and "comprehend" together do not form part of my thought process... ever. Everything to me is evidence-based.Referring back to your earlier comment, you are actually correct regarding reactionary gap. But in this case, from what I can see, if you were to apply brakes at full braking pressure at the moment an average person would have seen that person crossing the street, coming to a stop before collision would be difficult if not impossible. Swerving (in the correct direction) would probably have avoided the collision as those cars handle exceptionally well in those kinds of circumstances, but that does not reduce the pedestrian's liability. It's easy to be an armchair critic when presented with the evidence, but if you were that driver in that situation, you probably have less than a second to identify, consider and react.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:44:45 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 23, 2018, 11:19:34 amAgreed. I was talking about "particular robot that failed", w/o intent of generalization.QuoteIndeed - properly built and functioning robot can outperform human (in situations like this).

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 12:07:56 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 23, 2018, 11:41:15 amRight. Don't even try to draw me into discussion about how bad myenglischactually isQuoteDo you ever read whole posts or just few out of context words that suit your agenda?Quote1) I have enough prior knowledge and driving experience to not receive "armchair critic" label. 2) I said "I would say plausible to save her with 50% or better chances in case of human driver". Please pay close attention to fact that I leave possibility of humanfailureerror.

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 12:15:34 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2018, 10:09:06 amThanks. I came to post this video, only to see you had already posted it.The street is perfectly lit. An attentive human driver would have absolutely no problem seeing the woman from a great distance and brake in a safe manner.There's zero excuse for both the human driver and the autonomous system.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 12:59:30 pm
content: I would like to see the source video file from the camera. This video was edited and re-mpeged by the police to blotch out the stats at the bottom of the screen. The severe black-crushing and extra low res may have happened here, as some video editors and re-compressors do this, and there might be a lot more detail in the original source.Or as those who delve into conspiracies, the footage was purposely degraded to hide how visible the pedestrian really was. We are talking about the type of money here where this may be the case.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 02:36:56 pm
content: So, I think I heard the annual death rate for autonomous vehicles now is around 1 in 4 million miles traveled and for humans it's around 1 in 120 million miles.source: armstrong and getty text in

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 04:43:44 pm
content: 1: The deliberately darkened video is why i asked forSwedish Moose avoidance software.2: Time between pedestrian hit by car and Swedish Moose test shows Moose test is due.3: Swedish Moostest should be a industry standard even if your country dont have Mooses.4: Toyouta Hilux and other cars of the like is particularly vulnerable to moosetest as proven.5: Swedish moose test is because of moose at night move from oneside to the other, at daylightmoose test is not due since moose is out in the bush feeding.6: With Swedish moose test avoidance software the pedestrian would have been alive.7: Fault are at Uber software just like Tesla so called autopilot software that rear ends Firedepartment truck andthey thought Tesla car in orbit will do the sun but in reality will rear ending earth in future due to faulty autopilot.8: If the honorable NTSB does as they usually do they are not going to be fooled away by Uber and the local Policeclownery.Typical Swedish road sign who Germans enjoy stealing as souvenirs!However Sweden has other signs as well:Australia , well,, is just Australia!Canada is best!

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 06:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2018, 10:09:06 amMaybe the first accident recreation. What I like about this is I can re-create it also, so next time I go out at night I will use my phones to record and see what it looks like. Because I never thought about this. Just curious.Thanks Marco

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 06:35:11 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 23, 2018, 11:28:26 amThat's why I only said it didn't look like that, mobile phone cameras have much more competitive pressure for quality due to the importance of reviews than dashcams. They are the state of the art. Regardless, the black crush on the dash video is quite amazing. It's not just how dark it is, also how it's quantized. Part of that is compression, but it also has the look of a faulty range conversion (which is really easy to do with video, because of the soup of standards).

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 08:09:07 pm
content: Here's another video:https://twitter.com/LaurenReimerTV/status/977077647543955458NTSB and NHTSA are conducting tests at the accident scene. They are using the same vehicle that was involved in the accident, the dent in the bumper is visible.The street looks adequately lit.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 08:33:12 pm
content: Quote from: fubar.gr on March 23, 2018, 08:09:07 pmThe victim's name -> Elaine Herzberg. It is reported that her daughter has hired a lawyer.https://twitter.com/LaurenReimerTV/status/975877179924819968

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 09:02:32 pm
content: For all the excuses about "it's impossible to keep paying attention in an autonomous car" they do make it awfully easy for the driver not to even have their eyes on the road.Hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road ... all this can be detected and should be the standard behaviour of a safety driver. Any deviance should be punished, in real time with a loudspeaker and offline with performance metrics. This will make being a safety driver incredibly annoying, but it's a job.PS. as for all the autopilot systems in existing cars, just ban them for the moment. In the end anything which diverts your vision below dash range for even a moment, or not having your hand/feet on the controls at speed is irresponsible. Their vigilance systems allow a lot more than that before annoying the driver, which is understandable because they want to sell you the ability to not pay attention.PPS. a huge pay out in the mentioned lawsuit might ban autopilots through economics, but that will take a while.

author: Tedro
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 09:20:23 pm
content: Quote from: fubar.gr on March 23, 2018, 08:09:07 pmMost if not all street lights in the Phoenix Metro area are not always all on at the same time, usually just a few minutes at a time depending on the time of day. They turn off and on with usually more than one or more off than on in a row. You get used to it after a while and most people don't notice it because the lights themselves turn on and turn off so slowly.fake edit: just throwing that out there

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 09:23:08 pm
content: What if hacking was cause of particular accident? Are there any computer safety regulations for (autonomous and not only) cars?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2018, 11:20:00 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2018, 09:02:32 pmSo the mind numbing, soul destroying nature of the job isn't enough for you. You want to torture the poor sucker, too?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 12:25:59 am
content: Torture does keep you awake. Still better than Amazon warehouse worker and the surveillance potentially saves lives instead of just money

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 01:08:27 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 24, 2018, 12:25:59 amUnfortunately job of most testing engineers is more or less torture. Some likes it

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 05:16:29 am
content: Quote from: ogden on March 23, 2018, 09:23:08 pmI doubt the cars are "connected" in a way that would expose them to hacking, but I can't say that for sure. I'd guess that if they are connected then they had better have encryption and non trivial passwords...Brian

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 05:48:52 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2018, 09:02:32 pmYou have restated something which hasn't been shown to be the case... and that is thedefinedrole of a "safety driver". You have put a definition against it which, I believe, could be rather inaccurate.I refer you to the discussion thread on the topic:EEVblog #1066 - Uber Autonomous Car Fatality - How?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 08:25:54 am
content: The role of Uber is to take reasonable measures to minimize risk during their testing. Making optimal use of the human component goes towards that ... part of optimal use is hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road. Not making them do that to meet some semantic definition of their role is rather silly.Uber cars were running red lights frequently in San Francisco, they could have killed more. At some point the attention of the safety drivers will make the difference between life and death, better make them keep attention as much as possible. Regardless of how you want to define their role.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 10:30:30 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 24, 2018, 08:25:54 amA company, such as Uber, can only do so much. Ultimately the responsibility for adhering to the road rules and driver attitude comes down to the person who (voluntarily) sits in the driver seat. Sure, Uber can offer training, guidelines etc... but the buck stops with the driver.If the human driver in this instance was negligent in some way, then I expect the law to come down on him. However in this particular case, the pedestrian shares some, if not most of the blame.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 10:40:20 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 24, 2018, 10:30:30 amThe question then becomes: Who is the driver? The autonomous system that has been given the primary driving role, or the person sitting in the "traditional" driver's seat?The answercannotbe an automatic reference to the person (as you might, traditionally) because the role of driver is no longer defined in the traditional sense.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 12:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 24, 2018, 10:30:30 amIf it's less than what I suggest, they aren't doing enough.QuoteVigilance control systems are more of a necessity in these cars than in trains ... did they have any vigilance control system at all?

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 12:12:40 pm
content: As for all the comments and arguments here, forget the BS dashcam, which may have been deliberately crapped up, until the accident scene is replicated by forensics, IE an equally dressed pedestrian, in the same place walking at the same speed. With an equivalent car & headlights, traveling at the same speed as well, same location, and a real human eye-quality camera + the same camera from the self driving car's AI are re-filmed properly without heavy compressing by a investigating third party with no ties to Uber or any self driving car firms, absolutelyeverythingobserved to date, and every other driver doing their own filming on the same road posting it on youtube only serves to spread BS and we will never be sure of anything about the true visibility from that accident.If proper third party replication isn't done, this accident will get buried away with time, which is what I expect to happen.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 12:36:51 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 24, 2018, 10:40:20 amIn the case of Australia, then the human is ultimately the driver and has overall responsibility of that vehicle. I suspect the laws will be pretty similar in the US.There can be more than one driver. For example, if you were to control the steering wheel as a passenger from the passenger seat, you are technically a "driver" according to the law.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 12:45:28 pm
content: Australia's approach at this time is certainly one where the human driver is given the responsibility.While I admit I haven't done the requisite research, it seems the legislation in a couple of the states in the USA has moved towards supporting autonomous vehicles.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 12:37:09 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on March 24, 2018, 12:12:40 pmAgreed. People should also realise that an autonomous car likely isn't using the camera information at all or if an autonomous vehicle does use information from a camera, the image quality will be much better than that from a crappy dash cam. The dash cam is just there to get some clues on what happened during driving so people have some visual clues along with the data from all the sensors (LIDAR, camera, ultrasonic distance, etc, etc).

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 01:37:48 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on March 22, 2018, 08:03:06 PMI'm not sure if your post was directed at me.Reply from 'Brumby'....It certainly was. Your argument is idealistic. It completely ignores the practical circumstances.You are no doubt going to stand by your opinion, no matter what I think, so I'm not going to say anything more about it. You have just as much right to be wrong as I.You say you are...."not going to say anything more about it.".... but you did.., with....."You have just as much right to be wrong as I"...Conversely.... HE has as much right to be RIGHT, as you....At times like this, there is 'no' ultimate, (yet to be determined), right or wrong, but simply the 'best' people we know, at the time, to attempt the hardest problems of today, in the hope that human kind will prosper from it, if not today then tomorrow.....It's called 'progress', and as always mistakes will be made. But we learn.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 07:42:04 pm
content: Number of accidents per driven miles/km, Uber is on very low counts according to Don MacKenzie athttp://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/2018/03/19/are-ubers-autonomous-vehicles-safe/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 07:56:54 pm
content: Quote from: MT on March 26, 2018, 07:42:04 pmWithout dividing accident statistics per road type the numbers in that article say nothing. In the NL the chance of an accident on a highway is 20 times less compared to driving in a city. So if the majority of the distance driven by autonomous Uber cars is in a city (which given the purpose of Uber is likely) and a significant part of the distance driven by other cars is on highways then the numbers in the article are way off.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 07:58:16 pm
content: I don't really see how you can draw any comparisons in the crash / mile driven rate between humans and AVs.Are AVs driving in snow? How about in pouring rain with high wind? Dirt roads without lane markers? AVs are only driving in ideal locations, under ideal weather, aka perfect conditions. This isn't the case for human drivers that still need to get to work when its snowing.These comparisons are rubbish.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 10:08:50 pm
content: While a pedestrian killed is a very big thing... The thing that scares me as much or more about AV is it's lack of common sense. Even with machine learning, it will be hard for it to reach the level of a normal 17 year-old.I know what to expect out of a human driver. What would an AV do if:- A very pregnant lady got in the car, frantic and can only scream "the water just broke."- I (the passenger) open the window and start shooting- I am molesting a girl in the back as the car goes- The girl sitting next to me is blind-folded and hands tied- Something got into the car on Halloween, that something looks even puzzling to a human- Toilet paper all over the road way (on Halloween or in some areas, typical college graduation season)- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass as if he is about to jump- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass with a frozen turkey (a driver was killed by a kid's practical joke in my State some years back - the turkey more then went through the windshield. Twelve years ago (approx), a lady in NYC/Long Island was nearly killed by the same prank.)Common sense allows us to deal with uncommon situations in a reasonably way. An average 17-year-old would probably have enough common sense to handle any of those situation and the many many others scenario we have yet to imagine. An AV? No one knows but the programmer. For machine-learning type of AV, even the programmer doesn't know.I think, proper operation of a deadly device requires a bit more than just knowing when to turn and when to brake.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 10:22:26 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 26, 2018, 10:08:50 pmWhy would an AV have to deal with that? Can your phone do anything useful by itself in those situations?

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 12:26:46 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 26, 2018, 10:22:26 pmYou really think a guy would have time to make a phone call while he is in a car molesting someone? A human driver would know to do something. An AV car, may be not.That reply you quoted was not intended to say that we rely on the car to do law enforcement. It was intended as an illustrate how simple expectations we have from common sense go out the window when we are deal with a machine without common sense.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 05:42:16 pm
content: The three times I've woken up in a bus garage before suggests that a human operator doesn't necessarily possess the skills for inferring what is going on very well...This dude has far more clue:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 06:13:22 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 27, 2018, 12:26:46 amThere is no reason why an AV should be any smarter than a hammer. After all an AV is a tool. A sophisticated tool but a tool nevertheless. An AV should stick to the traffic rules and (if possible) don't hit anything. Still want common sense? Put a monitoring device inside an AV so a (human) call center operator can deal with 'situations'.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 07:22:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2018, 06:13:22 pmWe are actually on the same page. My argument is not whether AV should have that capability or not. Instead, I was arguing about our expectations.You know to not to expect (in your words) AV smarter than a hammer, where as, many others expect AV to be rather smart, perhaps even smarter than human.My point is, we should expect it to be a rather dumb tool lacking common sense. That deficit in turn makes it to be lacking the real intelligence of a real driver. It will therefore will make mistakes that human with our common sense could easily avoid.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 10:05:10 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 27, 2018, 07:22:39 pmWe are not on the same page. Common sense is different between people. Also many people don't react at all in a panic situation. I used to work at a research institute for human behaviour and it is mind boggling how many people lock up or do the wrong thing in life threatening situations. An AV OTOH will always do as it is programmed. It cannot get distracted or do stupid things like humans do and that is a big win. You are putting way too much confidence in the ability of human drivers. It doesn't take a sophisticated AV to drive better than the average human driver.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 01:43:54 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2018, 10:05:10 pmI thought we both felt AV is not as smart as some expect... Our reasons may differ, but we are both thinking that. Are we not?

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 02:35:11 am
content: Apparently, when Uber switched from the Ford Fusion test cars to Volvo they also scaled back the number of lidar sensor from 7 to 1. The lidar units scan 360 degrees, but the vertical angle is small so there are blind spots.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-sensors-insight/ubers-use-of-fewer-safety-sensors-prompts-questions-after-arizona-crash-idUSKBN1H337QI said it before and I'll say it again ... Uber is a bad company, rotten to the core!Brian

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 03:41:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2018, 10:05:10 pmI've heard this repeated like clockwork every time the safety issue comes up. But an AV system that cost over a billion dollars has killed a pedestrian after roughly 2 million vehicle-miles. Theaveragehuman driver would have to drive half a billion miles to kill a pedestrian (12.5 fatalities per billion vehicle-miles in the US in 2016, of which 15% were pedestrians). All self-driving systems put together have only done 20 million miles or so, with multiple fatalities. Are you calling systems with many billions of dollars of development costs unsophisticated?I think at this point it's safe to retire "AVs don't have to be very good to be better than humans" as a discredited argument.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 10:57:04 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 22, 2018, 08:58:11 amCalled it!I don't know why Uber tried to re-invent the wheel in some ways. Why not work WITH Volvo, considering they have an amazing track record for safety and their technology in their vehicles and had already developed a self-driving truck years ago.

author: Gromitt
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 11:39:01 am
content: Just to make it clear. The Volvo lorries in the video is not made by the same company that makes Volvo cars. They have nothing to do with each other. Volvo Cars is owned by the Chinese company Geely and Volvo Trucks is a company in Volvo Group.Volvo Cars has not belonged to Volvo Group since 1999 when it was sold to Ford.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 03:51:31 pm
content: Quote from: helius on March 28, 2018, 03:41:58 amAgain: you have to seperate the distance travelled by the type of road to compare apples with apples because there are significant differences between the number of fatalities per km depending on the type of road. There is also insufficient data to determine the (statistical) distribution of fatal accidents. Besides that: where do you get to multiple fatalities? The Tesla autopilot crash doesn't count because it isn't an autonomous driving system. IOW: that someone got killed says zero about the chance it can happen again.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 04:06:44 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on March 26, 2018, 07:58:16 pmFrom where do you draw hideous conclusion i made the comparison? Its Don MacKenzie , call him up and tell himnot me. You on the other hand should be upset that you have a uni lab that all day long deals with these issueswho then comes up with rubbish comparisons and get paid for it and referenced all over US Fake media! Are Uberpaying them? This uni have 7 nobel price winners!

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 05:59:07 pm
content: why would it be a rubbish comparison? I understand it's not valid, but does provide some value and insight into the program. The fact that AV are limited to ideal environments and have a significantly higher kill rate would seem relevant.I think AV could work much better if they were limited to more heavily controlled environments - for example, shipping fleets that drive only along certain routes that provide adequate separation from pedestrians.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 07:39:13 pm
content: Quote from: Gromitt on March 28, 2018, 11:39:01 amI'm fully aware of this, and despite being independent entities, it would be naive to think that technology and design aren't being shared or co-developed. Volvo (as a whole) have a vested interest in building and maintaining the "safety" image in their vehicles. Whether it's driving one of their trucks or passenger cars, they are designing their vehicles so that no pedestrian is killed by a Volvo in the future.

author: Gromitt
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2018, 07:44:04 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 28, 2018, 07:34:58 pmYes, but you put up a video about self drive Volvo lorries developed by Volvo Group and Volvo Cars does not belong to Volvo Group any more.There are no co-development between Volvo Trucks and Volvo Cars, the only thing in common between them is the name/trademark Volvo, which Volvo Cars uses under licence from Volvo Group who ones it.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 05:54:38 pm
content: Shocked I say, shocked. Someone massaging the numbers?https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107109_teslas-own-numbers-show-autopilot-has-higher-crash-rate-than-human-drivers

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 06:18:45 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 16, 2018, 05:54:38 pmWow. The author of that article clearly knows jack about statistics. Clearly nothing about the inherent foolhardiness of gross extrapolation. The arguments are just as vague and hand wavy as the data they try to poo-poo. The authoer doesn't even touch on the mentality of the people who can actually afford these cars and the immense false sense of security they get because they think it's driver-free. Don't believe me? See this act of stupidity and reckless endangerment of others:Tesla driver who activated autopilot, hopped in passenger seat banned from driving(Peeve alert: there's no such thing as a green car)

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 10:07:55 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on May 16, 2018, 06:18:45 pmYet we are constantly told they are safer, and who is putting these BS stats out there to begin with??

author: RenThraysk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 10:47:20 am
content: Arizona Uber crash driver was 'watching TV'The police report suggests the car's driver was streaming an episode of talent show The Voice rather than monitoring the car's progress.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44574290

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 12:30:01 am
content: Quote from: RenThraysk on June 22, 2018, 10:47:20 amBiased as hell. According to Dave's video, she was watching the console monitor.Keep in mind it was dark and hard to see and according to Uber themselves, their system not only has NO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WHATSOEVER, no emergency brake, no emergency alarms...NOTHING!That would be like a bar manager getting sued for using a third party robot to serve drinks and it starts throwing glasses at people."you should have been serving for it, it can't serve drinks!" (despite being advertised as so)"What can it do then?""Uhhh...no comment!"

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 01:02:05 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on June 23, 2018, 12:30:01 amArs technica also had an article on that watching hulu until the accident. Vehicular manslaughter is what this was and charges should be pressed. Possibly more since I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to watch tv on your phone while you're operating a vehicle.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 07:20:11 pm
content: If they gave her prior warnings that the car is not totally functional and has no emergency braking or alerts then it was her fault. If they misled her to believe the car would do anything at all if it sensed danger than it's totally Uber's fault for pedaling their stupid failure technology.

author: Dr. Katzenfritz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 24, 2018, 06:28:56 am
content: I develop automated driving functions for a living and have been extensively trained in driving this kind of vehicles. I find the whole media discussion about the case really bizarre, the weirdest was the US lawyer who claimed that here we'd seen the first case of the train car dilemma and that the vehicle would have clearly decided that it's the safest to run over the pedestrian.The point is: The car was in development stage and thus (generally speaking, local law may vary slightly here and there) not a true autonomous car, but it was driven by the safety driver. Period. IIRC Google is now planning to ditch the safety driver, but as long as he/she's behind the wheel, there's no question about responsibility. Zero.How the lady driving the vehicle could watch a TV show on her cellphone is totally beyond me. Our test vehicles are specifically designed to be operated without having to take the eyes off the road, like having single button measurement triggering and stuff like that. Even a short glance at the measurement screen is absolutely forbidden here, no one of my colleagues would even dream about taking out their cellphone...Another point that the media misses in the whole debate:One has to keep in mind that there is no big leap in the development of these systems which brings you from "normal car" to "Level 5" in one software release, but everything is sequentially tested and developed. The vast majority of test drives I did were with only very specific functions under test actually activated - in simplified terms, imagine you're working on keeping the lane, and while you're doing that you switch of any collision mitigation functions so they don't interfere with what you want to look at. That's not a safety issue at all because...*you* are driving the car!In that context also, the media outrage that Uber deactivated the Volvo's own assistance systems is totally bewildering to me. Of course you do, the last thing you want is two different functions which don't know about each other interfering and sending the car off the road!

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2019, 02:13:35 am
content: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/11/19/20972584/uber-fault-self-driving-crash-ntsb-probable-causeUber was determined to be at fault. Finally.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2019, 10:15:04 am
content: Get in front of a car expecting it to brake.Die.Imagine my shock. Some people have clearly never heard of things like drunk driving, texting while driving or plain old brake failureI guess we can now add software bugs to the listQuote from: maginnovision on November 20, 2019, 02:13:35 amNot exactly, and rightfully so.Quote

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2019, 12:04:32 pm
content: Quote from: magic on November 20, 2019, 10:15:04 amA lot of drivers seem to take it for granted that the rest of the world will stop for them as they cheerfully poke their noses into the traffic without bothering to wait for a gap.Pedestrians are generally more careful...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2019, 12:43:02 pm
content: Quote from: magic on November 20, 2019, 10:15:04 amOnly an idiot knowingly walks in front of fast moving traffic, but everyone does something that dumb from time to time. If one side of the interaction is alert there is a good chance of them saving the day. When one side is a dumb machine, the other side has little room for error. The reasonably low accident rate on modern roads has a lot to do with one side frequently taking evasive action. Its one of the reasons side impacts are such a problem - there is very little defensive or evasive behaviour you can use to mitigate them.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2019, 12:47:39 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on November 20, 2019, 12:04:32 pmIn Italy it is mandatory to drive like that unless you want to die of old age right there in your car. IOW: it greatly depends on the local driving style.