First Driverless Car Death

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

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983375 26-Mar-2018 12:12

Rikkitic:

I wonder if the autopilot includes an instruction Do NOT land on water.

I doubt it. An Airbus autopiloted into a forest I think it was France, all killed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

FireEngine

1217 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1983377 26-Mar-2018 12:16

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

I wonder if the autopilot includes an instruction Do NOT land on water.

I doubt it. An Airbus autopiloted into a forest I think it was France, all killed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

Paris airshow, not under autopilot but the GPWS was deactivated (as the wheels were down), and the systems didn't know about the trees, that combined with the delay on engine spool-up caused the impact, prime example of CFIT.

Regards FireEngine

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983384 26-Mar-2018 12:33

FireEngine:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

I wonder if the autopilot includes an instruction Do NOT land on water.

I doubt it. An Airbus autopiloted into a forest I think it was France, all killed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

Paris airshow, not under autopilot but the GPWS was deactivated (as the wheels were down), and the systems didn't know about the trees, that combined with the delay on engine spool-up caused the impact, prime example of CFIT.

That's right I googled and it reminded me. They got confused over this airport, a fly by wire demo. But while they undertook a missed approach procedure, the plane did not allow enough nose up as it was protecting against a stall, so engines spooled up but no gain in altitude. The engines filled with tree parts and shut down. And just a few killed

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#1983557 26-Mar-2018 15:22

I happened to be listing to radio live last week. Myles Gazley was on for his regular car section and was talking about this accident. This was before the details of the accidents emerged and he made two comments that stood out to me.

1) He thought it likely the car was not at fault and the accident would be shown to be physically unavoidable

2) He quoted some stats on self driving cars ( missed the reference) which showed they actually have more accidents than humans drivers (without necessarily being at fault).

Mike

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1984144 27-Mar-2018 10:59

My $0.02:

Maybe one day, when driverless vehicles have been around for 20 years and are well tried and tested, you'll be able to get into your car after a night out and say "OK Toyota, take me home" and recline the seat and fall asleep, until the car stops in your driveway and wakes you gently by turning on the sound system at a low, gradually increasing volume. But nobody thinks we're there yet, do they? So the human occupant of the vehicle must be ready to take over, grab the wheel, stomp on the brakes, whatever, if necessary (I'm sure there are rules/laws about this for autonomous vehicles on public roads) and this means they must be paying attention.

In the in-car video of this incident, the occupant of the vehicle is obviously not paying attention. My assumption is that as this is a test vehicle, there are digital displays showing what various systems are doing, and the occupant is looking at those. But being Uber perhaps he is checking his phone to see where the next fare needs picking up - who knows? But IMO what's happenning here is no different to someone who is texting while driving and hits a kid who dashes into the road after a ball.

TLDR: I think it's the "driver's" fault.

wellygary

7378 posts

Uber Geek

#1984156 27-Mar-2018 11:30

MikeAqua:

1) He thought it likely the car was not at fault and the accident would be shown to be physically unavoidable

The dash cam footage does not appear to show any breaking or swerving action by the car, which is pretty damning

While we only can visibly see the deceased for an instant as she is illuminated by the headlights, these cars are supposed to have LIDAR that works in the dark??

I think this will end very badly for UBER...

FireEngine

1217 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1984162 27-Mar-2018 11:37

wellygary:

MikeAqua:

1) He thought it likely the car was not at fault and the accident would be shown to be physically unavoidable

The dash cam footage does not appear to show any breaking or swerving action by the car, which is pretty damning

While we only can visibly see the deceased for an instant as she is illuminated by the headlights, these cars are supposed to have LIDAR that works in the dark??

I think this will end very badly for UBER...

Indeed - and even subsequent video's posted of the scene at night appear to indicate the victim would have been human-visible under the ambient street lighting way in advance of the time the Uber dash cam seems to indicate due to its poor nighttime recording ability/settings.

That means both the vehicle AND the safety driver should have been able to detect and react, the safety driver appears to have been distracted.

Regards FireEngine

wellygary

7378 posts

Uber Geek

#1984164 27-Mar-2018 11:40

Yip, and the LIDAR manufacturer is now throwing UBER under the bus,

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/lidar-maker-velodyne-fatal-uber-crash/

"Certainly, our lidar is capable of clearly imaging Elaine and her bicycle in this situation. However, our lidar doesn't make the decision to put on the brakes or get out of her way."

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1984165 27-Mar-2018 11:41

I would expect/hope all this would be available in the tracing/diagnostics.

cruxis

437 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1984468 27-Mar-2018 19:33

Rikkitic:

The problem with code is it's not intuitive. It is all based on if this do that. The precision can be increased by breaking actions down further and further, but ultimately it is still if this do that. I wonder if any conceivable AI would have made the decision to put that plane down in the Hudson river.

Yeah it all seems based on superior sensors and reaction speed the cars will have to me too. I see no true intuitive AI on top of that being available anytime soon in cars like a human has. That be the where it needs to go.

I done some Defensive riding courses and you taught to look for clues, to predict others actions based on body language and where their eyes are looking. Their head movements, where drivers hands are on the steering wheel. Is that pedestrian paying attention, have they made eye contact of your approach. Does that body language on that pedestrian look like hes gonna try to dash across ? Is that kid throwing a tantrum on the footpath about slip free from mums grip and run out onto the road ?

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1984493 27-Mar-2018 20:45

I'm sure we will find out soon enough what the true cause of the accident was. Air crash investigations don't take two weeks!

If even a small % of cars on the road these days were self driving, but lets say a majority, you would assume the death rate would go down on average. Is it possible for the overall rate to go down while your own personal risk of death (being in a self-driving car) goes up because of the programming unknowns?

It's not just about deaths though. Self driving cars are better drivers than humans - a study found adding just a couple of self-driving cars to traffic will even out traffic flows as they are not stop-start like many human drivers are.

gzt

15199 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1984499 27-Mar-2018 20:49

An entirely hypothetical study.

debo

296 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1984503 27-Mar-2018 20:54

I went to street view to look at accident site. The red arrow shows the path of the cyclist. The blue arrow shows a bike / pedestrian pathway. The green arrow shows a sign indicating cars to "yield to bikes". I guess Uber cars can't read road signs either.

debo

296 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1984506 27-Mar-2018 21:02

Here is a close up of the pathway. There is a sign saying to "use crosswalk". How can one use the crosswalk, if there is no pathway to get to the crosswalk? Looks like a poorly designed road.

itxtme

2050 posts

Uber Geek

#1984529 27-Mar-2018 22:07

Debo, I believe the yeild to bikes sign indicates dont pull into the right turning lane (20m up the road)without giving way to bikes that are in the inner "cycle" lane, it is not related to someone walking across the road with their bike.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12