Saturn Sky Forum banner

41 - 60 of 111 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
I'm going to assume that the agreements/contracts that cities sign in order to allow autonomous vehicle testing will also be scrutinized as it relates to lawsuits? Also, even though it's being reported that it was a homeless person, I have no doubt that some lawyer is vigilantly looking for any relative, regardless of how far removed for the possibility of a lawsuit. Just as I have no doubt that autonomous automakers (and the cities that allow it) made sure their asses were covered before the first autonomous vehicle was allowed to move on a city street. The fact that officials are already blaming the victim before an investigation has even started tells me they knew this was going to happen eventually.


Perfect timing! https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/21/self-driving-cars-will-kill-people-opinion/
Self-driving cars will kill people: Count on it With autonomy, like other technologies, we will learn from our mistakes (Mine; At your loved ones expense.)

But there are concerns about how self-driving vehicles will interact with unpredictable human drivers and pedestrians — in the case of Sunday's fatality in Tempe, Ariz., the woman who was killed is said to have walked suddenly into traffic out of shadows at night. There are also concerns about how the technology will handle unmapped hazards such as temporary road obstructions.

There are also fears about how self-driving vehicles would cope with hacking or widespread disruption of their communications systems. Bloomberg recently reported that even solar storms could disrupt the navigation systems of autonomous vehicles.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
Let's put these things on the road and figure out liability later is just the wrong approach.

If someone else's ****ty code caused or chose a consequence, that company should be responsible, not me. I'm not in any way interested in paying for Tesla's (et al) liability insurance.

Note the headlines on the CNN RSS feed from the day this happened...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,354 Posts
Let's put these things on the road and figure out liability later is just the wrong approach.

If someone else's ****ty code caused or chose a consequence, that company should be responsible, not me. I'm not in any way interested in paying for Tesla's (et al) liability insurance.

Note the headlines on the CNN RSS feed from the day this happened...
Let's use stats...computer driven kills - 1 person
human driven kills = how many thousands p/yr.

Figures don't lie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,991 Posts
Uber victim stepped suddenly in front of self-driving car

Police 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.
From: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-shows-woman-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,302 Posts
semi-autonomous. They are a stepping stone in the development of that tech though.
Didn't you start this thread in response to an incident with a Tesla that was operating semi-autonomously? Never mind.

The latest report I read stated that the Uber car was traveling 40MPH in a 45MPH zone. So assuming an accurate report the vehicle was not speeding.

Temporary halting the testing of a new technology is absolutely normal when an incident happens so that it can be determined if there is a problem that requires correction, even when there isn't a risk of lawsuit, so too much shouldn't be read into that. I see this as a minor hindrance, unless a defect in the system is actually found.

As a side note: 10 pedestrians were killed by human-driven vehicles in the Phoenix area (which includes Tempe) last week.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
I think the question is, would you or I have hit the person while driving? Sorry to hear about it, only for the person. I can not imagine going thru what some of these people go thru. It really is a problem in the warmer cities it appears. I am not for the autonomous vehicles, but have been involved with building towers to house their control modules for the last year or so. We have many areas that they want towers in, that have zero population for miles. They are building them for something and it is not testing.

I would assume that we are not the only company involved with this. I would guess hundreds accross the country are building, and all are solar towers that we are involved with. No chance of electrical failure seems to be the idea behind them. Overkill would be the lessor term of what they want.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,302 Posts
I think the question is, would you or I have hit the person while driving? Sorry to hear about it, only for the person. .........
Interesting question, and I agree with the sentiment.

The thing is you have to ask a more complicated question to get the real answer, because "you and I" don't always drive the same way. Your passenger says something and you glance that way. You hear a horn or siren and look to see what it is. You check your rearview mirror, or your gauges. You adjust the radio. You've been working for 14 straight hours and just want to get home. You ........ get the idea.

An autonomous car is always looking at everything, never gets distracted, and has vision that you can only dream of. Maybe not today, but I think it will be soon, most of the time it is going to do better than you would.

If this sort of thing happened to you when you were hyper-vigilant and looking in the right direction you maybe could have avoided it. Any other time? Not a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,991 Posts
I think the question is, would you or I have hit the person while driving?
Did you see my post on the previous page? ...

Uber victim stepped suddenly in front of self-driving car

Police 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.
From: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/a
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
First the police have already come out and basically said, no one could have not hit her the vehicle was doing 40 and she stepped out of a dark area right infront of the vehicle.
That's not what was said. This is the quote:

" "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle after viewing the footage."

Also, this:

"Police have said the Volvo had a video camera that recorded the crash. The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said. The speed limit in the area is 35 mph."

I live in Seattle. It is not *at all* uncommon downtown for people, often people who are unkempt (which leads to an assumption of homelessness) to walk into streets into traffic, ignore lights and crosswalk signals, etc. I, a human, know this. I have learned to look out for them, recognize potential problem behavior, and plan for it. Including not driving over the speed limit, and often slowing down to well under when near them.

Until these dunce-intelligence self-driving cars have achieved that level of sophistication they belong on controlled test tracks, not on public roads killing people.

And no, I don't see it as relevant that human drivers also hit people and get in accidents. Humans have human rights and privileges. Autonomous cars do not.

And this:

"The safety driver, Rafaela Vasquez, appears to look down several times, including immediately before the Volvo came upon Elaine Herzberg."

This is more evidence that the "safety drivers" are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and the cars are not monitoring them, as they easily could. If the "safety driver" is supposed to have their hands on the wheel, have the car stop if they don't. If they are supposed to be looking up, have the car stop if they aren't. Given the level of technology dumped into these cars, this is not a big ask.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
...
I live in Seattle. It is not *at all* uncommon downtown for people, often people who are unkempt (which leads to an assumption of homelessness) to walk into streets into traffic, ignore lights and crosswalk signals, etc. I, a human, know this. I have learned to look out for them, recognize potential problem behavior, and plan for it. Including not driving over the speed limit, and often slowing down to well under when near them.

Until these dunce-intelligence self-driving cars have achieved that level of sophistication they belong on controlled test tracks, not on public roads killing people.

And no, I don't see it as relevant that human drivers also hit people and get in accidents. Humans have human rights and privileges. Autonomous cars do not.

And this:
.

Just wonder if you have seen the video. After seeing the video, it sure looks like a human would have hit her, BUT. I wonder what sensors were on that vehicle, it appears other than a lack of visual lighting, that person should have been identified by the vehicle as a moving object crossing a lane of traffic and headed for a front impact. Oddly this should have been a feel good story of how an autonomous vehicle saved a pedestrian from a bad accident. Will be interesting to see if any of the lidar / or radar images are released. But the video to me pretty conclusively shows no person driving could have prevented it.

https://jalopnik.com/video/3495464?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Jalopnik
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,202 Posts
No question in my mind I would have hit her. My vision is failing, wearing glasses for the first time in life. My eye sight is not bad, but for me it is beyond terrible. My MOS in the Marine Corps required perfect uncorrected eye sight 20/20 or better. I have dropped to 20/40 and I feel like I am half blind. Reflexes are no where near what they were 10 years ago. I lose terribly in Call of Duty on line. lol Damned near every night, KirbyHoover because I really suck. Enough

I think it will point out that she entered at a point of no return. It is sad that she lost her life, but as things are showing (I think) it was going to happen if someone was driving or the car was.

We lose far more lives due to drunk drivers, under the influance of what ever, than autonomous cars could kil in a year. One moving forward in time, the other, there is absolutely no excuse for. They should be charged with murder. The only difference between driving drunk and firing a weapon drunk is the size of the bullet. Sorry on the soap box tonight.

In the LA area, someone dies nearly every night from a hit and run accident. Again why? At least with autonmous vehicles it would tell you if you hit someone and most likely stop. I hope.

I am not on the side of these things by any means, but they are coming and far far quicker than we think I would bet.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,302 Posts
Just wonder if you have seen the video. After seeing the video, it sure looks like a human would have hit her, BUT. I wonder what sensors were on that vehicle, it appears other than a lack of visual lighting, that person should have been identified by the vehicle as a moving object crossing a lane of traffic and headed for a front impact. Oddly this should have been a feel good story of how an autonomous vehicle saved a pedestrian from a bad accident. Will be interesting to see if any of the lidar / or radar images are released. But the video to me pretty conclusively shows no person driving could have prevented it.

https://jalopnik.com/video/3495464?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Jalopnik
Facts? What facts? Don't you know it is always easier to maintain a strong opinion if you don't let the facts influence it?

This page from the New York Times illustrates the situation pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.html
It also has an illustration of what appears to be the sensors used on the Uber Volvo, although I didn't see that specified.

The fact that human drivers also kill pedestrians will be relevant when it turns out that autonomous cars are less likely to kill them.

Some drivers are certainly 100% attentive to what is going on outside their vehicle, never speed, and always slow down to compensate for possible problems, but if we are honest with ourselves most of us don't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
Facts? What facts? Don't you know it is always easier to maintain a strong opinion if you don't let the facts influence it?

This page from the New York Times illustrates the situation pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.html
It also has an illustration of what appears to be the sensors used on the Uber Volvo, although I didn't see that specified.

The fact that human drivers also kill pedestrians will be relevant when it turns out that autonomous cars are less likely to kill them.

Some drivers are certainly 100% attentive to what is going on outside their vehicle, never speed, and always slow down to compensate for possible problems, but if we are honest with ourselves most of us don't.
Uh... not sure what your point is or why you quoted me. Pretty sure I never used the word fact in whats quoted.

It looks like the system used only 1 Lidar can. Still seems it should have seen her. The safety driver is looking to have to do some explaining why was he looking down etc... I have no clue what training these safety drivers have or what is down where he was looking, is it possible something had set of a code and he was trying to figure it out (sure at this point absent facts most anything is possible).

It will be very interesting to see why the system did not identify her and take precautionary moves.

Interesting to see the different amount of sensors used by competing companies.


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
Appears there is some confusion about the vehicle speed and road speed limit.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/something-went-seriously-wrong/556004/

The Uber vehicle, which was in autonomous mode with a backup operator behind the wheel, was going 38 mph at the time of the crash (some stories stated the car was speeding, but it was in a 45 mph zone), and the driver made no attempt to slow down or brake, according to police reports.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
Just wonder if you have seen the video.
Video cameras have to make aperture/exposure choices that are relatively fixed; our eyes are much better able to quickly change as we glance around. So something that is entirely obscured on a dashboard camera may very well have been much more apparent to a human. If, of course, that human wasn't looking down at his cell phone as it appears that the "safety driver" was. Decided what a human would have seen/done based on a dashcam is a large leap fraught with assumptions.

I'm not saying that autonomous cars won't someday be a good choice. I'm saying that the technology does not, to me, seem ready for testing on public roads. And the only reason I can see that we're doing so now is "because it's cool". And, I guess, so corporations can avoid paying humans to drive vehicles.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
Just wonder if you have seen the video.
Video cameras have to make aperture/exposure choices that are relatively fixed; our eyes are much better able to quickly change as we glance around. So something that is entirely obscured on a dashboard camera may very well have been much more apparent to a human. If, of course, that human wasn't looking down at his cell phone as it appears that the "safety driver" was. Deciding what a human would have seen/done based on a dashcam is a large leap fraught with assumptions.

I'm not saying that autonomous cars won't someday be a good choice. I'm saying that the technology does not, to me, seem ready for testing on public roads. And the only reason I can see that we're doing so now is "because it's cool". And, I guess, so corporations can avoid paying humans to drive vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
http://thumbnail.newsinc.com/33458054.sf.jpg

Mayyyyyybe if the big flat panel (where the 42 is painted) was what the car's radar was hitting... I MIGHT buy the radar not getting a solid return. The back side of that truck has TONS of surface faces that would give a great return signal. Plus... everything on fire trucks is nice and shiny and HIGHLY reflective. If the Teslas radar missed that entirely it is NOWHERE NEAR ready for full autonomy.

Besides...

Tesla's new vehicles are equipped with multiple cameras, ultrasonic sensors, a long-range radar sensor, and other hardware to enable its semi-autonomous system, Autopilot. Musk has claimed that the new hardware suite, which was rolled out in new vehicles last October, will eventually enable full autonomy once the software is ready.
Where were the visible and ultrasonic sensors??? Heck, even we humans don't rely SOLELY on the visual input of looking for large objects. Why can't the dang cameras see the strobes and go into a hyper scan mode? Where are the skid marks? (I kinda doubt the antilock brakes are THAT good, lol!)

I love Elon. I love how Elon loves to dream big. I even love how he sent a car into space because... why not? This crap is so not ready for regular streets/highways (not in full autonomy mode anyway). It's just not robust or redundant enough :/
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,194 Posts
Discussion Starter #59 (Edited)
Didn't you start this thread in response to an incident with a Tesla that was operating semi-autonomously? Never mind.

As a side note: 10 pedestrians were killed by human-driven vehicles in the Phoenix area (which includes Tempe) last week.
The title of the thread also doesn't include the prefix "semi". Hence the reason why when I talk about semi-autonomous it is with, what I perceive, a necessary step towards full autonomy. To clarify, a failure of the automation system in a semi-autonomous vehicle would lead to the delay of a full autonomous vehicle.

All I'm saying is that people seem to believe in 10 years self driving cars will be a regular thing everywhere in the nation. I'm not saying that this will never happen, I know it will, what I'm stating is incidents like these will push that time line back quite a bit.

Look at this accident investigation compared to a human piloted investigation. Were all human driven cars halted because 10 pedestrians were killed? No, because the investigation process and the reasoning for those deaths are fairly easy to determine due to the technology involved. This accident is different because the technology isn't something that is tried and true like in the other cases. More questions have to be answered even though it appears that the only fault here was that of the pedestrian. That difference is why I stand by my statement that the development and application of this technology is further out than some are leading us to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
Been waiting 50 years for the cars at this uTube link.

Report out of Tempe shows that the novelty car involved was moving slightly faster than the posted speed limit. However, the woman who was reportedly homeless was at also at fault as she stepped off of a median into an active traffic lane. One more unintended consequence of driverless toy car testing and high-tech pipe dreams, putting countless lawyers' children through law school.
Been covered already... 38 in a 45. What I wanted to comment on here was even the Jetsons are driving in semi-autonomous mode. :p XD You see George handing stuff to the boy (was it Elroy?) but in the next frame his hand is back on the control stick.

Any one on the form ever had a deer jump out of the bush? I have and there was no way a driver or autonomous car could ever avoid that collision just no time to react at all it's just there the same can be said for a pedestrian who gets in front of a car by 2 feet they are going to be hit.End of story
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5173339/ vs Braking Factors

Code:
Driver Reaction Times 
0.7 sec	-- about as fast as it gets
1.0 sec	-- old standard
1.5 sec	-- common use
2.0 sec	-- common use
[B]2.3 sec	-- AVERAGE[/B]
2.5 sec	-- used in a few states
3.0 sec	-- NSC and UK Standard
The average for autonomous vehicles tested in the 2016 article (as in, they're BETTER now) is .83

So, automated systems are already AVERAGING as good as the BEST that humans can possibly pull off.

<snip>

Self-driving cars will kill people: Count on it With autonomy, like other technologies, we will learn from our mistakes (Mine; At your loved ones expense.)

<snip>

There are also fears about how self-driving vehicles would cope with hacking or widespread disruption of their communications systems. Bloomberg recently reported that even solar storms could disrupt the navigation systems of autonomous vehicles.
As a side note: 10 pedestrians were killed by human-driven vehicles in the Phoenix area (which includes Tempe) last week.

CARS kill people. It's a losing battle. Tons of metal vs flesh and bone.

Sure, a faulty autonomous system is dangerous. In all honesty though, probably MUCH LESS dangerous than MOST human drivers. :|

---

In the Uber incident... the lady had somewhere between a 45-70% chance of death with the vehicle going 40. Most people don't understand how quickly a vehicle becomes deadly over 20mph. Visit any mall or Wal-Mart parking lot for an example of that :banghead:

Also... this NY Times article says the lady was WALKING HER BIKE across the street?!?!? So there was METAL involved and the LIDAR/RADAR didn't get a good return??? The fact (if true) that she was walking a bike across also smashes the "darting out" and "unavoidable" comments.

Sigh.

Truthfully, I'd prefer automated systems over the HORRIBLE drivers I encounter every day on I-5 (from Kent to Tacoma). Everything from not yielding right of way, to ridiculously zipping from lane to lane in a traffic jam. I stopped counting at around 20 times I avoiding hitting people where it would have absolutely been their fault. I thought Cali was bad :| Oh, and not using their headlights in the dark and in the rain! I can forgive the older vehicles where maybe folks forgot. But the newer vehicles you have to intentionally turn off the DRLs :banghead:

:rant:

:cheers:
 
41 - 60 of 111 Posts
Top