This was only a matter of time :-\
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
So..... who's at fault? The safety person in the car? The software engineer? Uber?
I'm sure the NTSB investigators will be trying to determine that.
I'd also add the jay-walking pedestrian to the fault list....
Quote from: Barthheart on March 19, 2018, 01:35:38 PM
I'd also add the jay-walking pedestrian to the fault list....
Sure, but even human drivers aren't allowed to run down jaywalkers (as much as one might want to).
Quote from: mirth on March 19, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Barthheart on March 19, 2018, 01:35:38 PM
I'd also add the jay-walking pedestrian to the fault list....
Sure, but even human drivers aren't allowed to run down jaywalkers (as much as one might want to).
True, but you still have self-absorbed idiots stepping into moving traffic....
Oh, I well know it. And it may be the case that the pedestrian was at fault in this incident.
Sad, but there will be unfortunate incidents like this. Go back and look at when cars first starting hitting the 'roads'. Traffic signs, lights, etc. didn't appear at the same time and were created for a reason.
Its the first sign of AI taking us out
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3WP0cuhwT5U%2FUiLZSqu1gLI%2FAAAAAAAAlas%2F9MmkdkGPf9o%2Fs1600%2FMaximum%2BOverdrive%2B17.jpg&hash=bb8e2b3e9fdeddd685290e11be573d7486c07324)
When I worked for the Army, I developed some sensors for autonomous vehicles. I am absolutely not surprised that this happened.
It just makes you wonder if the technology has been tested under all possible conditions. You would THINK they would consider a wayward pedestrian a contingency to be considered.
I'm guessing they have a legal fund factored in for just these contingencies. Hard to imagine you could jump into such technology without knowing there will be lawsuits and wrongful death checks to be paid.
Wait until the self driving aerial vehicles are deployed.
I just don't want technology taking away from me the fun of driving! I do not want a self driving car :tickedoff: And I think the argument that they'll be safer has just been disproved :-\
I don't see the option of driving being taken away from us. Consumerism is all about choice!
Gotta agree with Barth...the pedestrian tried to cross the road, not at a crosswalk, and the road looked pretty straight to me, so if you step out in front of any car, driverless or not, that's just good Darwinism at work, there.
Fully driverless traffic is decades off, and going to be long past when I am dead. I am all about it though if it can be made to work. People are too stupid to be trusted with proper vehicle operation.
Screw that! You can pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands. :knuppel2:
Couldn't agree more! I want to run-down my own pedestrians dammit! >:(
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 20, 2018, 10:44:03 AM
Couldn't agree more! I want to run-down my own pedestrians dammit! >:(
(https://i.imgur.com/5bMQe.gif)
Quote from: Gusington on March 20, 2018, 07:39:46 AM
I don't see the option of driving being taken away from us. Consumerism is all about choice!
I bet that's what all those people in the 1800's said , as they were sat in their horse drawn carriages ; those new fangled horseless carriages will never catch on or make our horse drawn carriages obsolete :hide: Then everything changed , and everyone was driving model T fords ! And even if they wanted to stick with driving a horse and carriage , they couldn't because all the infrastructure changed .
And that's my point really , advancing technology forces change whether you want that change or not #:-)
I like my car the way it is ....dammit ! ;)
Quote from: Emeraldlis on March 20, 2018, 07:37:35 AM
I just don't want technology taking away from me the fun of driving! I do not want a self driving car
Meh. I spent 4 hours in the car yesterday, and about the same amount of time in the car today. You can have it. A lifetime of working a clutch in LA and DC traffic has given me a seriously strong left leg.
A couple more thoughts on this incident. I've read all sorts of things, such as: she was not in the crosswalk, it was night, she was walking a bicycle. Here are my thoughts on this:
- So what if the pedestrian was or was not in a crosswalk? Not sure if the algorithm takes that into account, but even if it did, I'm sure that it would be looking for pedestrians outside the crosswalk. If they are blaming the pedestrian, then that's just not right.
- Walking at night may or may not have been an issue. A common sensor for autonomous vehicles is a LIDAR, which is an active system which will work day or night. If the vehicle was using a passive sensor, many of the commercial systems in cars use an IR sensor, which should work at night.
- The part that interests me is that she was walking her bicycle. Having that in the scene along with the human might've confused the algorithm. Some of the algorithms I developed looked for specific human traits, such as the motion of legs when walking, or aspect ratio (height:width ratio). Having two wheels overlapping the image of the person could've confused the algorithm.
However, there are many other factors that could have led to the failure. Image processing is complex, and dynamic urban scenes are extremely complex. Humans are very good at processing scenes (although not perfect, of course). Teaching a machine to do that, and to work in every possible situation, is extremely challenging.
Quote from: trailrunner on March 20, 2018, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: Emeraldlis on March 20, 2018, 07:37:35 AM
I just don't want technology taking away from me the fun of driving! I do not want a self driving car
Meh. I spent 4 hours in the car yesterday, and about the same amount of time in the car today. You can have it. A lifetime of working a clutch in LA and DC traffic has given me a seriously strong left leg.
A couple more thoughts on this incident. I've read all sorts of things, such as: she was not in the crosswalk, it was night, she was walking a bicycle. Here are my thoughts on this:
- So what if the pedestrian was or was not in a crosswalk? Not sure if the algorithm takes that into account, but even if it did, I'm sure that it would be looking for pedestrians outside the crosswalk. If they are blaming the pedestrian, then that's just not right.
- Walking at night may or may not have been an issue. A common sensor for autonomous vehicles is a LIDAR, which is an active system which will work day or night. If the vehicle was using a passive sensor, many of the commercial systems in cars use an IR sensor, which should work at night.
- The part that interests me is that she was walking her bicycle. Having that in the scene along with the human might've confused the algorithm. Some of the algorithms I developed looked for specific human traits, such as the motion of legs when walking, or aspect ratio (height:width ratio). Having two wheels overlapping the image of the person could've confused the algorithm.
However, there are many other factors that could have led to the failure. Image processing is complex, and dynamic urban scenes are extremely complex. Humans are very good at processing scenes (although not perfect, of course). Teaching a machine to do that, and to work in every possible situation, is extremely challenging.
I get what you're saying, when I lived in the UK I was always in some kind of traffic jam or heavy traffic. And at the time driving a landrover, their clutches are fairly stiff, and my leg would be aching when I got out the car... So I do understand where you're coming from. But still, I don't want all of that decision making being taken away from me, and putting into a mindless programmed piece of machinery. A machine can't account for every sort of weird situation that might come up when you're driving, I'd sooner rely on myself to get myself out of a tricky situation, I might still have an accident, but at least I would know I was in control. If I crashed in a self drive car, I'd be thinking, could I somehow have prevented that if I'd have had full decision making over the situation.
Plus, I like to actually drive my car, not just steer!
it would be good if cars that have a drive assistant had a -lets say a glowing green LED- below the turn signals front and rear
or one in the middle of the bumpers so that all other traffic participant see that car is actual in a kind of AI-mode and so act a little less reckless them self when in a tricky traffic situation with those robots
(same like when you see a car with a driving school sign, or a windshield sucking teen at the wheel, or a very old senior... )
even in bright daylight if a person jumps out behind an obstacle with the wrong timing a human driver cant avoid the collision also.
the real tricky part come when the AI has to make an ethical decision for you whom to sacrifice in a no way out situation
do you want your cars AI have maximum selfpreservation for you, or are you willing to take injury risks and so maybe safe someone ...even so it was that person who fucked-up
like a collision is unavoidable so does AI run a pedestrian down and lower risks of injury to yourself or do you dare to steer in the approaching traffic or in a hard obstacle to maybe spare the pedestrian but totally have to rely on the build in energy absorbers of your car and the airbags to suffer non lethal injuries then, or there is group and one person will get effected, so emergency break and sliding left or right...
It's still being investigated, but sounds like whether the car was self driving or it was being operated by a person, the results may have been the same as it seems the pedestrian stepped out in front of the car.
I was in downtown Minneapolis last week. I was amazed at how many people stepped out into the crosswalk and never looked to see if there was a car coming. I get it that they have the right away, but that doesn't always mean the driver sees them or doesn't try to go first.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/uber-victim-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-car/ar-BBKtjOI?ocid=spartanntp
Bloomberg story
QuotePolice say a video from the Uber self-driving car that struck and killed a woman on Sunday shows her moving in front of it suddenly, a factor that investigators are likely to focus on as they assess the performance of the technology in the first pedestrian fatality involving an autonomous vehicle.
The Uber had a forward-facing video recorder, which showed the woman was walking a bike at about 10 p.m. and moved into traffic from a dark center median. "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode," Sylvia Moir, the police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," Moir said, referring to the backup driver who was behind the wheel but not operating the vehicle. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."
The chief's account raises new questions in the investigation that holds importance to the future of the burgeoning autonomous vehicle industry. Uber Technologies Inc. halted autonomous vehicle tests in the wake of the accident and officials in Boston asked that similar tests in that city be suspended as well.
It's too soon to draw any conclusions from the preliminary information that has emerged, said Brian Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who has studied autonomous vehicle liability.
"It's possible that Uber's automated driving system did not detect the pedestrian, did not classify her as a pedestrian, or did not predict her departure from the median," Smith said in an email. "I don't know whether these steps occurred too late to prevent or lessen the collision or whether they never occurred at all, but the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision."
Police later said in a statement that the department would defer to county prosecutors on whether to bring charges, but didn't dispute any of the information released by Moir.
No Conclusions
In a news conference Monday, Tempe Police Sergeant Roland Elcock said local authorities had not come to any conclusions about who is at fault. Decisions on any possible charges will be made by the Maricopa County Attorney's office.
Neither the victim nor the backup driver showed any signs of impairment, Elcock said.
The driver, Rafael Vasquez, 44, served time in prison for armed robbery and other charges in the early 2000s, according to Arizona prison and Maricopa County Superior Court records. Uber declined to comment on Vasquez's criminal record.
The victim, Elaine Herzberg, 49, was walking her bike outside of the crosswalk. The car was most likely going about 38 miles (61 kilometers) per hour, Moir said. The speed limit where the accident occurred is 35 mph, police spokeswoman Lily Duran said.
The department expects to give a further update later Tuesday but has no plans to release video footage while the investigation is underway.
In Boston, self-driving startup NuTonomy Inc. halted its tests after city officials requested a pause following the Arizona crash.
"We are working with City of Boston officials to ensure that our automated vehicle pilots continue to adhere to high standards of safety. We have complied with the City of Boston's request to temporarily halt autonomous vehicle testing on public roads," a NuTonomy spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.
Pittsburgh has not suspended testing programs there, according to a spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto.
Sensors on self-driving cars -- which may include laser-based technology, radar and video -- are designed to sense pedestrians and other obstructions, even in the dark.
The National Transportation Safety Board is opening an investigation into the death and is sending a team of four investigators to Tempe, about 10 miles east of Phoenix.
The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration dispatched a special crash investigation team.
The NTSB opens relatively few highway accident inquiries each year, but has been closely following incidents involving autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles. Last year, it partially faulted Tesla Inc.'s Autopilot system for a fatal crash in Florida in 2016.
If someone's phone is more interesting to them than their life, well...nobody should be shocked when they lose the latter because of that.
So tired of idiots on their phones while they drive.
Quote from: Barthheart on March 20, 2018, 07:45:11 AM
Screw that! You can pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands. :knuppel2:
Not commenting on your driving, but there or plenty of people that should never be allowed to operate a vehicle again, unless it's a self driving vehicle.
Last month I was coming home on Saturday morning from dropping my son off at basketball practice. The state highway I was coming down is two lanes but has a lot of out of town/state traffic with both cars and trucks. An out of state vehicle decided to go around me, even though I was doing 60 in a 55 zone. What he didint' see was the car coming from the other direction at the bottom of a samll hill. Instead of getting back behind me, he decides to go for it. He came within 2 feet of hitting the other car. He did cause me to hit my brakes, through my dog into the windshield and cracking it.
The state route that the above happened is the same road that my wife and kids take to school every day. I worry a lot more about the shitheads that are on the road and don't give a fuck about anyone else, because their time is more valuable then someones life.
I travel enough to see more than a few people acting like they don't give a shit about anyone else on the road, it's all about them. But those are the same assholes that think they don't need a self driving car.
There are a lot of companies that will welcome self driving vehicles. I worked a job that had be on the road fours a day a couple of days a week. If I had a self driving car, then I could work on my paper work, or even log into a customer site and work on an issue while in route to that site or another site.
Quote from: BanzaiCat on March 21, 2018, 07:14:28 AM
If someone's phone is more interesting to them than their life, well...nobody should be shocked when they lose the latter because of that.
So tired of idiots on their phones while they drive.
Unfortunately, it's more often others that pay the price. Same as those that DUI.
I can't even count how many accidents I've avoided because some asshat gets into my lane without a signal, and when I get around them they've got their phone to their head or are looking down in their lap, obviously texting or doing something else.
Before bluetooth I could hold a phone to my head, look over my shoulder to see if anyone was there, and - gasp - use my turn signal, too! I don't do that anymore as BT and hands-free calling (also OnStar) are all pretty amazing.
Quote from: BanzaiCat on March 21, 2018, 07:14:28 AM
So tired of idiots on their phones while they drive.
This, a 1000 times.
I don't drive that much anymore, but when I do, whenever I see someone driving slowly, it's because they've got their head down doing something on their phone. They're not talking on it, but doing something else - texting, looking at a map, checking out FB - and completely clueless that they are driving amongst a bunch of other cars. Quite often, a few minutes later, they'll zoom past me because now they are done with their phone and are now actually paying attention.
Back to the autonomous car -- if the pedestrian truly jumped out in front of the car, then that's on the pedestrian. That's unavoidable even if there had been a driver in control and even if the driver had been alert.
I love my car, but even going 5 minutes down the road is a chore because dumbasses. I can't go through one intersection without seeing a dozen idiots not signal. Admittedly not using a turn signal is one of my biggest driving peeves - it's just such a simple f*cking thing to do, if someone can't do it they're either too lazy or too stupid to remember to breathe. And in Texas, it's state law that you have to use a signal even in an obvious turning situation, but cops don't pull anyone over for doing that. Hell, most cops don't even bother with turn signals either. It's an $89.50 fine here in this county - I would think they could pull over 5,000 people a day easily for failing to signal a lane change or turn and earn a sh*t ton of money.
What gets me is if some asshole hits their brakes and turns without signalling, I lay the horn on them. I usually get the finger in reply, which mystifies me - they're the dumbass. They just didn't like getting called out for being stupid. Usually I just smile and wave, which of course means I give them the finger.
Then this one is for you, BC. And hell, the rest of us too since it's not an isolated issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMO4nyZ9xG8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMO4nyZ9xG8)
^ LOL yeah I saw that before. There's quite a few snarky YT vids that take that tack.
^I have discovered people lately that don't know how to even use the signal, never mind not using it all. They push it up and go left, or the opposite.
Defensive driving saves!
I've been thinking of starting an Etsy site offering faux vacu-form Claymore mines (with the the words 'THIS SIDE TOWARDS ENEMY' highlighted in reflective paint) that one can attach to the cardinal points of one's car.
Mayhaps traffic etiquette in the surrounding area will improve...
https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664?s=19
The link works. So video of accident.
Oops
Quote
But the system couldn't activate the brakes, the NTSB said.
"According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior," investigators said.
The responsibility for hitting the brakes was left with a safety driver, who sits behind the wheel monitoring the autonomous test vehicle. Even though Uber's computers concluded the car would hit the pedestrian 1.3 seconds before impact, or about 82 feet (25 meters) away, it also didn't alert the driver and she was looking away from the road at the time, according to NTSB.
Quote
The Volvo XC90 SUV was also equipped with a separate set of sensors that could activate an automated braking system, which the company calls City Safety. It is also capable of detecting driver awareness. However, the systems were disabled whenever the SUV was being operated in self-driving mode, according to NTSB.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self-driving-system-saw-pedestrian-killed-but-didn-t-stop (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self-driving-system-saw-pedestrian-killed-but-didn-t-stop)
Ok ,that's just stupid. They deserve to have their asses sued off... >:(
Quote from: Emeraldlis on March 20, 2018, 07:37:35 AM
I just don't want technology taking away from me the fun of driving!
Pedestrians are by and large idiots from my observations, particularly the ones who seem to purposely defy traffic. Too many forces working against you here though. Drivers are becoming too dumb to drive properly. New big money autonomous car $ales to everyone forcing all old vehicles off the road, insurance companies who will make it impossible to afford insurance it you drive it yourself. It's going to be safer for your average idiot. Scamming with accidents will decrease. The odds or you and I getting hurt will probably go up instead, but that's small potatoes compared to "the boon of interfering with survival of the fittest" or "the creed of it's for the children". We'll all have nice big car loan$ to pay, hurray economy. Care for some Brawndo? ;D
I think we can all agree...idiots abound.