Why I think an autonomous vehicle won't be able to reliably guess what a pedestrian will do next

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Why I think an autonomous vehicle won't be able to reliably guess what a pedestrian will do next

1 | 2

tripper1000

1600 posts

Uber Geek

#2192020 6-Mar-2019 11:09

wellygary:

The problems with Autonomous vehicles are not the situations were they need to follow to rules, its the situations where they need to break the rules...

Having an algorithm to work that out is hard.... really, really hard...

Boeing made the same argument back in the day when arguing that their old-manual systems were safer than Airbuses new-fangled fly-by-wire, but the statistical fact is more deaths are cause by pilot/driver error than machine error, and today Boeing makes fly-by-wire aircraft.

The only time the machine needs to "break the rules" is when someone else has violated the rules. The solution is therefore to get the 200lbs gorilla out from behind the steering wheel.

The hypothetical question about who to kill, is not a paradox and is very simple to answer - the car protects the customer. Alive customers buy more cars, dead customers do not. We already see a version of this attitude in people today with SUV's - people commonly believe SUV's are safer (for the occupants) and don't give a damn that they're more dangerous to everyone else on/beside the road.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

fearandloathing

496 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2192027 6-Mar-2019 11:14

tripper1000:
wellygary:

The problems with Autonomous vehicles are not the situations were they need to follow to rules, its the situations where they need to break the rules...

Having an algorithm to work that out is hard.... really, really hard...

Boeing made the same argument back in the day when arguing that their old-manual systems were safer than Airbuses new-fangled fly-by-wire, but the statistical fact is more deaths are cause by pilot/driver error than machine error, and today Boeing makes fly-by-wire aircraft.

The only time the machine needs to "break the rules" is when someone else has violated the rules. The solution is therefore to get the 200lbs gorilla out from behind the steering wheel.

The hypothetical question about who to kill, is not a paradox and is very simple to answer - the car protects the customer. Alive customers buy more cars, dead customers do not.

Wellygary comment about breaking the rules is not about to kill or not to kill, it’s about when to cross the centreline.

tripper1000

1600 posts

Uber Geek

#2192028 6-Mar-2019 11:16

Yeah, the kill line wasn't directly in response to Gary, but another poster further down - I should have quoted better.

fearandloathing

496 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2192035 6-Mar-2019 11:29

tripper1000:
Yeah, the kill line wasn't directly in response to Gary, but another poster further down - I should have quoted better.

I think the concept of to kill or not to kill, won’t ever be a thing for autonomous vehicles. In these situations where people feel a vechicle to make a moral discision, in reality it wil be a pull over and stop decision.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2192039 6-Mar-2019 11:38

Benjip:

kobiak:

No human drivers, no problems ;)

I think driver-less cars should be allowed on motorways and special designed areas at the moment to mitigate the risk AI vs human stupidity.

Perfect start points would be airports vehicles, they could communicate to aircrafts, ground end-points, etc. So all of these baggage delivery, passenger buses, fuel delivery, etc, etc

+ build motorways or just dedicated lines pure for AI cars, no human traffic allowed there. or AI powered trams, trains, etc

That sounds fabulous for the 10–20 people who would buy cars specifically for those AI-only motorways. Not quite sure who would pay for the construction!

that's why I pointed out airports would be best example to try autonomous vehicles. there're rules, slow speeds, etc.

and also there're EV only lines in the world, T2-T3 lines here, we all contributed but never drive on these (I drove hand full of times on T lines).

So allow driver-less/autopilot cars on these only for now. when not on the right lane - driver has to take control.

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Batman

Mad Scientist
29674 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2192191 6-Mar-2019 14:04

PDAMan:
In 2016, Volvo ‘promised’ that we would have ‘Deathproof Cars’ by 2020.

That’s next year!

You may also recall that about this time last year, an Autonomous Uber Volvo crashed and killed a pedestrian. According to the NTSB the car spotted the pedestrian 6 seconds before it hit and killed her. Volvo then said that their system relied on the ‘driver’ who was watching a movie on the entertainment system, to apply the brakes in an emergency situation. Is that reasonable when they are 'allowed' to watch TV. I often don’t hear someone (my wife) speaking to me when I am engrossed in something.

The insurance industry is very interested in risk with driverless cars, especially given the same brand, Volvo, said in 2015 that they would indemnify drivers of AV’s. That’s pretty cool because imagine if, for the lifetime of the car, you didn’t have to pay any insurance. That’s a pretty good saving on the premium you will pay for these vehicles.

So back to pedestrians. While I’m waiting for approval for my back fusion surgery from ACC, I go for a daily walk. I have found a fairly flat walk to our local beach, which is part of my core strength fitness regime.

In New Zealand we drive on the left hand side of the road so you would think that pedestrians facing others would also make way for them by keeping left. Not so in my experience. Some think that way, but most just walk where they walk, it may be that they want to be farther away from traffic or they just don’t think about it at all. Today, almost everyone I faced on my walk, took to the right.

In busy urban environments many solo walkers have developed a system where they can avoid bumping into other people. They often make eye contact, make an almost imperceptible move towards the left or right and monitor to see if the other person has likewise recognized this and moves the other way. Usually this works so well we are almost unaware of the communication. You can see it every day at the major diagonal crossings in the cities.

It works a large percentage of the time, but if a hundred people are at a busy crossing, I bet that at least 2 people will do that St Vitus’ Dance where they both go to the left, then they both go to the right and then they stop in front of each other and apologise, like ants sharing information as they march to the food store.

On my walks I find people who are oblivious, deep in thought, or perhaps listening to something through their headphones or noise cancelling earbuds that were recommended on GZ.

There is the Alpha Male (I have fun with them, maybe there is a little alpha in me too). They want to show their domination by deliberately not moving even after that eye connection. They want me to move, but I don’t. That confuses them because it works most of the time. I often find that if I look them firmly in the eye, they will grudgingly move at the last possible moment.

There are the directionally challenged people who can’t walk in a straight line.

There are people who suddenly change their mind. You see them all the time in supermarkets and shopping malls. They are walking in a certain direction as you walk behind them, then they suddenly turn around and walk smack into you, perhaps thinking that they are the only person in their little world.

In those malls you also have the person facing you who hasn’t moved for 5 seconds, pondering their next purchase. Suddenly they remember where they are and why, and march straight into your face.

The same happens with people crossing the road. I think I’ve seen everything.

People step on the road and step off.

They go half way across the road and change their minds.

They go all the way over and change their minds.

They stand and move as if they are going to step and don’t.

They run across the road.

They ‘silly walk’.

They stop in the middle of a lane waiting for someone else.

I’m sure you get the point by now. I keep going back to Dan Ariely. People are predictably irrational. How do you train a car AI to understand how people will behave, when the people don’t understand themselves?

Marc Hoag of the Autonomous Cars podcast had an interesting thought about the insurance topic in Episode 83. There are more elements to the human problem. Humans programmed the computer algorithms. People installed the sensing equipment. Someone has to make sure that firmware upgrades are installed (Some want to lay that on the same customers who never updated their car navigation devices). I wonder if Volvo thought of those things when they made their ‘promise’?

So if humans will bump into each other more than 1% of the time and they create the ‘intelligence’ to stop cars bumping into each other; and in an autonomous vehicle crash, they still want to blame humans for the fatality (if I recall correctly they blamed both the pedestrian as a first reaction and then the hapless TV watching ‘driver’). Then there is a risk of human fault inherent in the system, and I haven’t even mentioned the people who built the computer or the LiDAR system as an OEM for the car manufacturer who installed it after having an argument with the boss, leaving it slightly out of alignment, or the dense fog or ambient light that stopped it from sensing effectively.

Bottom line? There are many unresolved issues that need to be addressed before insurance companies are prepared to cover driverless cars. I wonder if they will consider them more risky than human driven cars for a time?

So humor me and try this exercise when you get the chance. When you see someone walking the other way on the footpath next. Walk on the same side as them and don’t veer. See what happens. Of course don’t do it when they are supervising children and don’t in any way risk that anyone could hurt themselves, or get tangled between the dog owner and the leash, who didn't win the GZ dog sensor competition. Most of the time we do have a pretty good human radar guidance system, but it takes two to tango and I bet you will do a dance with someone in the near future if you try this.

I welcome your comments.

Put the Volvo here and see what happens

1 | 2