sort of OT autonomous car fatality

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by Tony T

CNN?
The 24/7 "Stormy Daniels" channel?
They'll spend 10 minutes on the news and then get back to "Stormy"

I feel bad for you dude.

[Tony T]

Why? Because I've lost faith in CNN to report the news?

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

We as a society have to decide on what cost/risk vs. benefit we are willing to accept for autonomous vehicles, but no matter how hard engineers try, the risks of autonomous vehicles can never be zero - although they may be made much less than for human drivers.

This is precisely it. If you lose someone because of a drunk driver, you blame the fact that he was drinking, not the precise situation that led to the actual accident. It is easier to parse that way. If an autonomous car kills someone you love, even if in aggregate they are safer for everyone, there is still a question of what caused it. Oh, our neural network algorithm, told the car it was safe to merge. Why? well, because our training data set that the algorithm learned from didn't have this particular situation, and did not recognize the danger...

[merckxman]

The following from LAB:

Act Now: Require Automated Vehicles to See Bicyclists and Pedestrians
On Sunday night, an autonomous vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, AZ, as she was walking her bicycle across the street. While the details of the crash are still forthcoming, the League of American Bicyclists is concerned that these vehicles are being deployed without having to first prove their ability to recognize and respond to people biking and walking in our streets.

When human drivers apply for a driver’s license we have to pass a vision test. The League believes that all automated driving systems should first have to pass a “vision test” as well — requiring a safety performance standard — proving their ability to recognize and respond to people bicycling and walking, before they are on community streets.

Right now the Senate is considering S. 1885: AV START Act to set guidelines for automated vehicle manufacturers to test their vehicles on our streets. Please join the League of American Bicyclists in asking Senators to require automated vehicles to pass a vision test by going to : http://p2a.co/Oy2UjKv

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

This is precisely it. If you lose someone because of a drunk driver, you blame the fact that he was drinking, not the precise situation that led to the actual accident. It is easier to parse that way. If an autonomous car kills someone you love, even if in aggregate they are safer for everyone, there is still a question of what caused it. Oh, our neural network algorithm, told the car it was safe to merge. Why? well, because our training data set that the algorithm learned from didn't have this particular situation, and did not recognize the danger...

Every self driving accident should be reviewed and learned from - something that is uniquely possible with a driver that has a hard drive.

But every accident involving a robot isn't because the robot's programming is deficient.

[MattTuck]

The video has been released. I don't really feel like posting it here, because it feels a bit gratuitous and tragic.

Three things jump out. First, the human sitting in the driver seat that is supposed to be supervising the driving appears to be texting or looking at his phone. Second, the person crossing the street does seem to come into view pretty suddenly. I have no idea if this is a function of the camera's resolution and low light abilities, and that perhaps a human eye would have identified the pedestrian sooner. and Third, the pedestrian appears to be walking at an angle to the road, away from the oncoming car. Which certainly doesn't help with situational awareness.

[Kontact]

I saw the video, and she looked reasonably perpendicular to the road to me.

The video probably doesn't have the same night vision as a human driver as it is just a lowish resolution dash cam.

Regardless of what was visible in video, the Uber vehicle uses radar, lidar and a video camera that is probably able to see past the visible spectrum and intensify low light images (like most camcorders do nowadays). It is inconceivable that the victim and her metal bike could have been invisible to such a layered system crossing left to right on a straight 3 lane road.


It appears Uber has really screwed the pooch.

[Louis]

Lots of blame to go around on this one:

1) Pedestrian crossing in an unsafe manner. (color of clothing, low light, right in front of an oncoming vehicle etc)

2) "Safety monitor" clearly distracted by smart-device, probably texting. Why bother having a monitor there if they aren't going to watch the road?

3) Vehicle systems (hardware + software) - it sure as heck looks as if they were not able to sense the pedestrian and/or react in time. And surely that's an expected and typical situation (where something suddenly crosses the road in front of the moving vehicle). I don't know if here the sensors were visual only, but if they weren't, the non-visual (e.g. radar) didn't do a good job.

Finally, there are plenty of cases where neither the best drivers nor the best machines could possibly avoid an accident. It's probably too early to say if this was one of them. Driving can be hard and dangerous, depending on the conditions.

[ripvanrando]

The run over cyclist was walking perpendicular to the road with no parked vehicles and no vehicles coming the other direction. The throw on the Uber vehicle lights looks well short of my cars. Looks misadjusted but that does not excuse or explain this manslaughter.

What? How?


The ex-con Rafaela Vasquez should go back to prison.

Uber is screwed.

Poor lady who was killed. It was probably a prius and she relied upon sound to cross. Pedestrians walk out on my all the time when riding my bike.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Poor lady who was killed. It was probably a prius and she relied upon sound to cross.

I'm pretty sure it was a Volvo.

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Poor lady who was killed. It was probably a prius and she relied upon sound to cross.

It was a Volvo XC90 SUV.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

It was a Volvo XC90 SUV.

Senseless death.

Uber should have stopped

[Louis]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Uber should have stopped

I've hit deer crossing in front of me at night. I've tried to stop, but in both cases wasn't able to in time.

It's easy to say "should have stopped" but in reality it doesn't always happen.

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by Louis

I've hit deer crossing in front of me at night. I've tried to stop, but in both cases wasn't able to in time.

It's easy to say "should have stopped" but in reality it doesn't always happen.

Do you have radar, lidar and electric nerves?

The Uber didn't even attempt to stop or swerve.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by Louis

I've hit deer crossing in front of me at night. I've tried to stop, but in both cases wasn't able to in time.

It's easy to say "should have stopped" but in reality it doesn't always happen.

Uber did not even react. The ex-con was not even looking

It looks to me that there was at least 100-120 feet, which was plenty of distance to stop from 50-60 mph in a car with good brakes. From 30-40 mph should have been routine.