0
gowlerk

Self driving Uber fatality

Recommended Posts

OK, I found a thread on bikeforums.net where a local Tempe cyclist has explained it.

Here is an overhead view with the red map pin at the point of impact.
The car was traveling North, and the woman was crossing toward the East: https://www.google.com/maps/place/33%C2%B026'10.6%22N+111%C2%B056'32.9%22W/@33.4362404,-111.9424543,97m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d33.436275!4d-111.9424606

Note that X-shaped pattern made of red pavers in the wide median;
Looks like a sidewalk, right?
No, it is just "landscaping" and not intended for use by pedestrians.
Here is the POV of the car at impact on Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4362167,-111.9423812,3a,75y,251.88h,80.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPpo9rKyKSc6nzIT_nkVAyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The crosswalk the sign is referencing is at the next traffic light North of there.
Now look at the overhead view again, and what do you see on the East side of the street?
A well-worn path in the desert: https://www.google.com/maps/place/33%C2%B026'10.6%22N+111%C2%B056'32.9%22W/@33.4362404,-111.9424543,97m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d33.436275!4d-111.9424606


Here is a suggestion for the fools that designed the landscaping in the median:
If you don't want people walking in the median, then don't put sidewalks (that aren't supposed to be used) in the goddamned median!!!>:(

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you spin the one map and play with it a bit it even pops up "Shortcut from Mill Ave to Lave View Ave" on the worn paths in the desert. :S Its clearly getting a lot of use!

Thats one of those situations where you are coming out from under a bridge at night and then someone steps out from the pillar and into the road way - you are not expecting it at all and its essentially something you would have a really hard time preventing.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wan2doit

Trolley Problem - ???



It's an old thought problem, like whether or not to toss someone off the lifeboat. In this case, if I remember correctly, there's a runaway trolley heading for five people who can't get off the track. You see this and there's a lever nearby, but if you pull the lever and divert the train it will kill one person who can't get off the track you diverted it to.
Do you let things go on as they were? Five people die but you didn't kill them. Or pull the lever. Now only one dies but you killed them.
Now cars will have to be programmed to deal with stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So, the car that is supposed to be safer because there is no human controlling it is programed
>to speed?

Perhaps. There's been a fair amount of work done that demonstrates that it's safer to be going approximately the same speed as traffic than significantly slower (or faster.) The car's AI may well take that into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

Dude — you’re talking to BV!

Wendy P.



Eh... I'll let it slide... :D

It sucks what happened to her, But Darwin takes what he takes.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The Trolley Problem becomes reality.

Eh, not even close. "I didn't see her" isn't an example of the moral dilemma posed by the trolley problem, whether the driver is a person or an AI.



That doesn't change the fact that with self-driving cars it will be something the programmers and designers will have to deal with. The post I was responding to had mentioned "short end of the stick."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That doesn't change the fact that with self-driving cars it will be something the programmers
>and designers will have to deal with.

No more so than drivers have to deal with. Drivers are not currently trained on whether to kill the lady with the bike to avoid killing the two people on the sidewalk; no one makes such decisions. They try to avoid hitting ANYONE. When they do hit someone, it's not because they decided to kill the lady with the bike to spare anyone - it's because they made a mistake.

Nor will programmers be making value decisions on who to kill. They will be working to accurately identify people and then avoid them - and if they can't, make a best-effort attempt to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

They will be working to accurately identify people and then avoid them - and if they can't, make a best-effort attempt to stop.



It is interesting to wonder what type of avoidance algorithms are in place, or eventually should be in place. There are tons of hypotheticals:

1. Person steps in front of car, but far enough ahead that car can avoid them but not stop before hitting them. Avoiding them means:
a. driving onto the sidewalk and (optional scenarios) hitting a parking meter and a small / large tree, or possibly (with varying certainty) hitting sidewalk pedestrians.
b. driving into a brush filled ditch with unknown depth
c. driving off onto the shoulder.

Should the car leave the travel lane?

One could argue that since the pedestrian is in the wrong, protecting the vehicle occupants and sidewalk pedestrians should be paramount, and taking the car out of the travel lane should only be done when it can be done safely.

It would be an awesome display of pro-automation to see an incident where a car manages to very deliberately just miss everything, the jaywalking pedestrian, the tree and the sidewalk pedestrian, in a way that is obvious few humans could.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may sound radical but maybe lawmakers should be in control of programming scenarios about who or what an AI vehicle hits.

Regarding privately owned vehicles and if possible all vehicles - Legislators need to generate a framework for AI vehicles operate within that protects the driver 1st "no matter what" since they own the vehicle. Legislators won't need to be experts but layout rules of the road that allow all of us to weigh in with our representatives otherwise a bunch of self serving interests of industry will prevail and when shit hits the fan we will hear the data is private. Fuck That.

Yes, political ethics is a problem but this is one time citizens better wake up since their lives may depend on it every day.This new AI technology has , can and will kill many and that needs to be kept to a minimum preferably this one lady only.

This ought to start a bonfire. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That a person was hit by a self-driving car is a tragedy. I’m sure that the people who continue to be hit because of drunk and texting drivers (just as examples) don’t mind keeping things as they are to save that person.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wan2doit

Very likely you R correct since legislators have kept their stupid heads in the sand so far.

I have heard even hi-tek AI leaders involved in this state that lawmakers need to get take action to set some parameters..



There are already a lot of Federal government committees and stuff about highway safety and cars in general. I'm sure it will get rolled into one of their duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

***This has me curious;
Uber cars are, (or at least were), using LIDAR.
That is what the legal fracas between Uber and Waymo was about.
An engineer from Waymo, who had a lot of knowledge about LIDAR, went to Uber.
I don't see how LIDAR could miss seeing a cyclist.



Is the end game really to put out a car where nobody would have to even know how to drive? Here's the part I really can't even being to work out. I live in a college town and sometimes moving forward is a downright battle of the will between driver and college students in the street (I won't degrade the word pedestrians by referring to them with it). What then?

There is a little button on the dash its entitled "Aggressive". You increase the aggressiveness of operation from 1,000,000 miles accident free, to Cairo street fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Self driving cars are being tested in AZ, and some parts of CA an NV. Because the weather conditions are close to perfect. They need technicians to clean their delicate sensors at least daily. Even in the land of sunshine. When the sensors get dirty, the machine will get confused and just pull over and stop.

This shortcoming is going to be VERY difficult to overcome. And that's why a licensed driver is going to be needed in every one of these machines for a very long time. You are not going to be able to just summon one of these and not worry about driving. The first time it snows, or even rains the roads will be littered with out of service vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Self driving cars are being tested in AZ, and some parts of CA an NV. Because the weather conditions are close to perfect. They need technicians to clean their delicate sensors at least daily. Even in the land of sunshine. When the sensors get dirty, the machine will get confused and just pull over and stop.

This shortcoming is going to be VERY difficult to overcome. And that's why a licensed driver is going to be needed in every one of these machines for a very long time. You are not going to be able to just summon one of these and not worry about driving. The first time it snows, or even rains the roads will be littered with out of service vehicles.



We've had people die because self serve gas stations, often the only ones you can find, don't check things like air in the tires and most drivers wouldn't know how or bother with it if they did. This could get pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Self driving cars are being tested in AZ, and some parts of CA an NV. Because the weather
>conditions are close to perfect. They need technicians to clean their delicate sensors at least
>daily.

No they don't. We've been doing autonomous vehicle testing here and we certainly don't have "technicians cleaning their delicate sensors at least daily." Vision sensors (i.e. cameras) are very robust when it comes to dirt and LIDAR is pretty good as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The video has been released.

https://youtu.be/P243yeOnKoo


this techcrunch article has a good summary of the Uber sensor suite, and I agree with the writers curiosity as to why they were apparently unable to recognize the pedestrian, as LIDAR systems are self-illuminating and therefore work in the dark. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/heres-how-ubers-self-driving-cars-are-supposed-to-detect-pedestrians/

I wonder if the LIDAR detected "something" in the adjacent lane, but since the visual cameras could not resolve it, they just ignored it as an unknown element in a different lane and therefore not a problem? Hopefully we will get an answer as to what the car was "thinking"
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>
No they don't. We've been doing autonomous vehicle testing here and we certainly don't have "technicians cleaning their delicate sensors at least daily." Vision sensors (i.e. cameras) are very robust when it comes to dirt and LIDAR is pretty good as well.



So I'm curious: When running LIDAR at night, how much of a difference does the color of clothes make to LIDAR detection of pedestrians? (Note the released video with woman wearing black above the waist.)
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder


So I'm curious: When running LIDAR at night, how much of a difference does the color of clothes make to LIDAR detection of pedestrians? (Note the released video with woman wearing black above the waist.)



That is a good point, black does absorb LIDAR just like it absorbs visible light (LIDAR is infrared). Obviously the more powerful the laser the more it can get back, but black detection range can be 10-30 % of white.

here is a data sheet of one of the 2D LIDAR sensors we use. https://www.pepperl-fuchs.com/usa/en/classid_53.htm?view=productdetails&prodid=71259 It detects white to 30m and black to 10m

edit to add, it does not make a difference day or night. the sensor is putting out its own laser light, and it needs to get those pulses back to "see"
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0