First Driverless Car Death

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › First Driverless Car Death

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1981639 22-Mar-2018 16:20

MikeAqua:

Rikkitic:

Since only one boy is needed to impregnate a car full of girls, I would say that the girls win.

that would be quite an afternoon's work ...

and each girl still needs one boy for spider management services

Or, as can be seen in the AirNZ thread, the boy would be able to charge a fortune for spider management whereas the girls would be forced into heavily discounting playtime inless they formed an illegal price fixing cartel.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981644 22-Mar-2018 16:27

Batman:

networkn:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43459156

It was inevitable.

Of course, there will be plenty of commentaries that humans kill people in cars as well.

The difference is, people can be held accountable.

Uber has suspended it's driverless operations whilst it investigates, a logical and smart thing to do.

Interestingly, there was a human monitor in the car. The person killed was not on a ped crossing.

I don't believe computers are ever and will ever be infallible. Humans design them. I'd trust an experienced human judgement more than a computer when decisions are to be made. Computers are very good at assisting though.

I disagree. In this driverless scenario, I would ask what would a human do in any situation. Then I would ask is that the best decision? Once we had agreed on the best decision, let the computer at it, it will do the same that we decided, and that we would do, except faster. The computer avoids the 3/4 second reaction time to begin with. Doesnt have tiredness, or mental detractions to get past. Instant human reaction for what we would do, is what the computer will do.Car accidents are usually a sudden thing, time is of the essence

MikeAqua

7767 posts

Uber Geek

#1981659 22-Mar-2018 17:07

tdgeek:

I disagree. In this driverless scenario, I would ask what would a human do in any situation.

In this particular situation I would have braked and swerved. The vehicle never seems to brake ad it never changes course. It's as if it didn't detect her at all even when she was directly in front of the car and shouldn't have been in any LIDAR shadow.

Mike

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981666 22-Mar-2018 17:39

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

I disagree. In this driverless scenario, I would ask what would a human do in any situation.

In this particular situation I would have braked and swerved. The vehicle never seems to brake ad it never changes course. It's as if it didn't detect her at all even when she was directly in front of the car and shouldn't have been in any LIDAR shadow.

Yes, and for a public test, that seems to be pretty poor. Unless its capability is not to detect everything but to warn the driver. In which case it seems a bit of a waste of time. Car is on cruise control to a limited set of capability and the human needs to basically partially drive as as well in as far as watching is concerned??

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1981684 22-Mar-2018 19:03

That woman should definitely be held culpable. Absolutely useless as a ‘msafety Driver’ when she’s obviously reading a book or looking at her phone 80%+ of the time that interior camera shows 😳

FireEngine

1223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1981956 23-Mar-2018 11:04

mclean:

networkn: The difference is, people can be held accountable.
...and the manufacturer will be culpable.

The manufacturer is a what, not a who - I seriously doubt any manufacturer personnel will feel as personally at risk of prosecution as if they were personally operating the car that was involved. That is partly why Airbus and Boeing still require pilots.

Regards FireEngine

FireEngine

1223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1981962 23-Mar-2018 11:12

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

I disagree. In this driverless scenario, I would ask what would a human do in any situation.

In this particular situation I would have braked and swerved. The vehicle never seems to brake ad it never changes course. It's as if it didn't detect her at all even when she was directly in front of the car and shouldn't have been in any LIDAR shadow.

My thoughts exactly, the vehicle didn't seem to react whatsoever - which implies either a detection failure or a gross systems failure. Even if detected at the last minute it should be possible for the engineers to see if any kind of braking or even power reduction had been triggered even if the momentum would have ensured the collision still occurred. Images after the collision show the vehicle stopped with the bicycle still ahead of the vehicle which implies the vehicle stopped as a result - even if only as a result of the actual impact being detected.

Regards FireEngine

lchiu7

6460 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1982164 23-Mar-2018 14:57

I watched the video a few times and the cyclist suddenly appears out of the dark. Even if the car had not be self-driving would anybody been able to avoid the cyclist?

But I agree even if it was too late, an alert driver might have slammed on the brakes and/or swerved (even though they might not have missed) but it seems the self-driving car did neither.

Staying in Wellington. Check out my AirBnB in the Wellington CBD. https://www.airbnb.co.nz/h/wellycbd PM me and mention GZ to get a 15% discount and no AirBnB charges.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1982165 23-Mar-2018 14:59

The pedestrian seemed to be moving very slowly. She only came into visible light at the last second but I don't understand why she wasn't picked up in plenty of time by radar or IR?

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1982166 23-Mar-2018 15:00

Looking at the video - I have to wonder why the LIDR didn't pick her up - its clear and obstacle free and while human visible light might not work IR, UV or other radar waves should have been all over this.

If I was driving I would have run her over - the lights were so dim that unless you traveled at 10kph there was no time to react and stop. THe lights were really really dim. Didn't pick up on the white shoes.

FireEngine

1223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1982190 23-Mar-2018 15:40

nunz:

If I was driving I would have run her over - the lights were so dim that unless you traveled at 10kph there was no time to react and stop. THe lights were really really dim. Didn't pick up on the white shoes.

I think that must be a combination of the dash cam and video processing - after all the lights are stock Volvo SC90 which are normally pretty good.

Seems one of two things must have occurred - either the car didn't identify her as a threat to avoid, or it did and couldn't/didn't take action.

Either way the minder/driver must now be in a difficult legal position I would have thought as I would think the Arizona law would hold her responsible for the fatality. Unfortunately it seems as she was homeless and technically jaywalking (although as she was with a bicycle that may be debatable), the police may take no action but the technical failure exhibited is quite serious IMHO.

Regards FireEngine

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1982321 23-Mar-2018 17:53

lchiu7:

I watched the video a few times and the cyclist suddenly appears out of the dark. Even if the car had not be self-driving would anybody been able to avoid the cyclist?

I was doing 90 in a semi between Shannon and Palmy Nth at 2am and had a dude wearing black step onto the road out of grass.

If another truck had been coming the other way, we'd both be dead. But I reacted in the time that car should've... in a truck. Didn't even roll.

nunz:

Looking at the video - I have to wonder why the LIDR didn't pick her up - its clear and obstacle free and while human visible light might not work IR, UV or other radar waves should have been all over this.

Even Volvos standard "reindeer" avoidance should've prevented that.

I love the early comments about Tesla and self drive as a defence of autonomous vehicles ...

Amazed nobody brought up how many Teslas have crashed in "autopilot".

mclean

581 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#1982328 23-Mar-2018 18:13

blakamin: Even Volvos standard "reindeer" avoidance should've prevented that.

Not at that speed - automatic braking in the XC90 turns off at 30 mph.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1982336 23-Mar-2018 19:13

mclean:

blakamin: Even Volvos standard "reindeer" avoidance should've prevented that.

Not at that speed - automatic braking in the XC90 turns off at 30 mph.

Jeez, that's a bit pointless then!!!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29675 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1982398 23-Mar-2018 23:20

lchiu7:

I watched the video a few times and the cyclist suddenly appears out of the dark. Even if the car had not be self-driving would anybody been able to avoid the cyclist?

But I agree even if it was too late, an alert driver might have slammed on the brakes and/or swerved (even though they might not have missed) but it seems the self-driving car did neither.

When a camera captures a scene, it cannot show everything (ie poor dynamic range compared to human eye). So in a properly lit urban road, the human eye would have seen everything.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12