Autonomous vehicle kills a pedestrian

[zipping]

You would think even at night the sensors would pick up the heat signature so big fail there. No driver is avoiding that.

[Bossxr8]

Complete failure on the automated cars behalf. Darkness makes no difference to the radars and sensors they use. It should have detected the lady and the bike and hit the brakes.

But also did the lady not even look when she crossed the road? How could she not see the headlights coming towards her?

[Magee]

From the article and footage I would be leaning towards a vehicle sensor or system failure. I would be interested in finding out the final analysis but if they do not fault the vehicle I would have no confidence in current generation of self driving vehicles.

In this case the operator behind the wheel looked half asleep and could not intervene or even if alert may still not have been able to avoid impact. The data I would be interested in is how many interventions by alert drivers have occurred to avoid collisions.

[b0son]

Even if not autonomous, I doubt a person driving could have avoided that.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-au...y-crash-radar/

That's a different incident that I have never heard of.

The one I heard about was months ago when a Tesla ran into the side of a semi trailer that turned in front of it.
Apparently the car didn't know the truck was there.

Originally Posted by b0son

Even if not autonomous, I doubt a person driving could have avoided that.

Why?
Your eyes can see a lot more than the dashcam can. Yes in the video the person appears out of no where, but in real life with your real eyes you would have seen them a lot earlier.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Magee

From the article and footage I would be leaning towards a vehicle sensor or system failure. I would be interested in finding out the final analysis but if they do not fault the vehicle I would have no confidence in current generation of self driving vehicles.

In this case the operator behind the wheel looked half asleep and could not intervene or even if alert may still not have been able to avoid impact. The data I would be interested in is how many interventions by alert drivers have occurred to avoid collisions.

I agree, even alert a driver would have been hard pressed to avoid the poor lady, but the clown on watch was clearly reading or watching something in his lap, i'm betting he gets nailed for it....

A couple of years ago we were driving at night with a night vision capable dash cam on at the time, fairly straight and clear dual carriage way with good street lighting when about 100m up ahead of us 3 guys started to make a dash across the road from left to right, i backed of the accelerator and they where across ahead of us with about 20 to 30m to spare, we where only doing about 60kph at the time i backed off.

The interesting thing is when looking at the footage later, the camera had not picked them up until about 30 or 40m ahead of us at the time they where just stepping clear of the road, it didn't pick them up any time before. You could see my headlights in the camera but not to the distance of the naked eye, the shadows between the street lights on the camera where as black as the ones shown in the footage of this incident but not to the naked eye, in this case we could see a lot further and clearer than the camera.

With just our own headlights on the camera has great range and clarity, but add the glare of streetlights and on coming traffic headlights and it plays havoc with the video cameras focusing, reduced range with shadows and dark spots everywhere....

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Your eyes can see a lot more than the dashcam can. Yes in the video the person appears out of no where, but in real life with your real eyes you would have seen them a lot earlier.

Exactly as i just posted above

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by b0son

Even if not autonomous, I doubt a person driving could have avoided that.

They probably would have at least had a go at trying to swerve around her, or at least hit the brakes before hitting her. Possibly washing enough speed off to reduce the chances of her dying.

And has been said an alert driver probably would have picked up the sight of her before the camera did.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They probably would have at least had a go at trying to swerve around her, or at least hit the brakes before hitting her. Possibly washing enough speed off to reduce the chances of her dying.

The pedestrian did themselves zero favours... dressed in black, no lights, nothing reflective. They only come into view 15-20m ahead of the car, and at 40mph, that's around a second including reaction time (which gets worse at night), to respond. Probably asking a bit much of many drivers.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by b0son

The pedestrian did themselves zero favours... dressed in black, no lights, nothing reflective. They only come into view 15-20m ahead of the car, and at 40mph, that's around a second including reaction time (which gets worse at night), to respond. Probably asking a bit much of many drivers.

Not to mention taking no notice of the car baring down on her until a split second before it hits her.

[roddy1960]

On that evidence then , re dark clothing et etc , good luck with wildlife on unlit country roads or rural streets . And kangaroos ,wallabies , wombats , not to mention an black or brown wandering family dog might not be detected either if/when it hits Aussie roads .

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Not to mention taking no notice of the car baring down on her until a split second before it hits her.

To be fair, the driver didn't have high beams, and being in a Tesla, the noise wouldn't have gotten the pedestrian's attention til obviously too late.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

To be fair, the driver didn't have high beams, and being in a Tesla, the noise wouldn't have gotten the pedestrian's attention til obviously too late.

Car was a Volvo suv. Volvo and uber have partnered up in this undertaking to develop autonomous vehicles and may amount to thousands of Volvo cars bought by uber.
This was a perfect storm of scenarios that led to the death. All will learn and the world will move on

How many people died at the hands of broken human drivers on the same day?
JP

[Maka]

Heres a pretty interesting link -

https://theconversation.com/are-auto...-drivers-90202

"Comparing appropriate statistics -

Crash statistics for human-driven cars are compiled from all sorts of driving situations, and on all types of roads. This includes people driving through pouring rain, on dirt roads and climbing steep slopes in the snow. However, much of the data on self-driving cars’ safety comes from Western states of the U.S., often in good weather. Large amounts of the data have been recorded on unidirectional, multi-lane highways, where the most important tasks are staying in the car’s own lane and not getting too close to the vehicle ahead.

Automated cars are rather good at those kinds of tasks – but then again, so are humans. The data on fully automated systems will naturally expand to cover more roads as states allow automated vehicles to operate more widely. But it will take some time before self-driving cars can cover as many miles in a year and in as many circumstances as human drivers presently do.

Autonomous cars are good at driving on clear, open highways in good weather – but so are people.

It is true that self-driving cars don’t get tired, angry, frustrated or drunk. But neither can they yet react to uncertain and ambiguous situations with the same skill or anticipation of an attentive human driver, which suggests that perhaps the two still need to work together. Nor do purely automated vehicles possess the foresight to avoid potential peril: They largely drive from moment to moment, rather than thinking ahead to possible events literally down the road."
(with thanks to theconversation.com)

cheers, Maka

[roddy1960]

Originally Posted by Maka

Heres a pretty interesting link -

https://theconversation.com/are-auto...-drivers-90202

"Comparing appropriate statistics -

Crash statistics for human-driven cars are compiled from all sorts of driving situations, and on all types of roads. This includes people driving through pouring rain, on dirt roads and climbing steep slopes in the snow. However, much of the data on self-driving cars’ safety comes from Western states of the U.S., often in good weather. Large amounts of the data have been recorded on unidirectional, multi-lane highways, where the most important tasks are staying in the car’s own lane and not getting too close to the vehicle ahead.

Automated cars are rather good at those kinds of tasks – but then again, so are humans. The data on fully automated systems will naturally expand to cover more roads as states allow automated vehicles to operate more widely. But it will take some time before self-driving cars can cover as many miles in a year and in as many circumstances as human drivers presently do.

Autonomous cars are good at driving on clear, open highways in good weather – but so are people.

It is true that self-driving cars don’t get tired, angry, frustrated or drunk. But neither can they yet react to uncertain and ambiguous situations with the same skill or anticipation of an attentive human driver, which suggests that perhaps the two still need to work together. Nor do purely automated vehicles possess the foresight to avoid potential peril: They largely drive from moment to moment, rather than thinking ahead to possible events literally down the road."
(with thanks to theconversation.com)

cheers, Maka

Some really good points there . Like you say autonomous allows for moment to moment reactive input and can't possibly read the hazards that out of range that a human can .

Maybe in the future as the tech develops all sorts of upcoming interfaces from weather stations , emergency services outlets etc will link to your autonomous vehicle to calculate all sorts of stuff from safety to the best possible route to destination .

Being able to predict a human or animal that makes a bad choice on the spur of the moment may just yet be in the too hard basket for now , going by this sad incident .

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by b0son

The pedestrian did themselves zero favours... dressed in black, no lights, nothing reflective. They only come into view 15-20m ahead of the car, and at 40mph, that's around a second including reaction time (which gets worse at night), to respond. Probably asking a bit much of many drivers.

Evidence is now emerging that the dashcam was not properly configured for night and other locals have posted dash cam drive through the area with clearer view that Volvo’s head lights actually pick up the lady with bike much earlier than the dodgy dashcam shows
I’m on my phone so can’t post links, go to Blueovalnewe they have a thread with interesting links near the end
Observer was found blameless by police (allowed to text in Arizona)

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Evidence is now emerging that the dashcam was not properly configured for night and other locals have posted dash cam drive through the area with clearer view that Volvo’s head lights actually pick up the lady with bike much earlier than the dodgy dashcam shows
I’m on my phone so can’t post links, go to Blueovalnewe they have a thread with interesting links near the end
Observer was found blameless by police (allowed to text in Arizona)

I think this may be the article/video(s) you are referring to, the uber dash cam certainly looks dodgy compared to the locals....

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...it/?comments=1

[ipn]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43523286

in short "we do not believe the accident was due to Lidar".

Instead, the company is pointing to Uber's on-board computer as potentially being to blame, Ms Hall said.

Anyway and imo , all this talk here of clothing and excuses completely misses the point , also remarks on the so called driver no paying attention AS these gadgets are being flogged off as the perfect autonomous scenario AND not only that when/if they do get out there to the masses WHAT do you think most people will be doing once they get used to be being driven around , yes reading newspapers , texting , coffee , makeup , TV and anything what you do at home when your doing nothing .

So , if they bring out LAWS that stop that or make it unlawful when being driven around when you still have to pay attention to grab hold of the wheel or apply brakes manually over-riding the computer

WHAT IS THE POINT OF BEING AUTONOMOUS !

Doom is coming , or should i be more accurate and type , It's here .

Paul

[b0son]

Wow. Game over Uber.

Presumably the driver is still required to be prepared to seize control under such an autonomous driving trial? Jail time likely?

[Whitey-AMG]

Had an interesting thing happen today .....
I have a 2018 Renault Megane GT.
It has some autonomous aids which are great but today it made me think twice.

As I was driving down a regular road I travel down, the car started making the lane departure warning noises. This particular car doesn’t intervene when you stray like some other marques but it does alert you that you are doing something wrong. I’m scratching my head at this point as the car is well between the lines and travelling straight. It then quickly dawns on me that it’s picking up a new line created by spilt paint from someone driving with an unsecured , leaky paint tin..... lols

Made me think.... if this car had the lane departure intervention I wonder what it would tried to have done ? There were cars either side of me so any potential lane correction may have ended up in confusion and possibly a collision ?

Also got me thinking about how easy it would be to create havoc on the roads by idiots spraying crazy lines on major roads just so they can watch autonomous cars have melt downs...... scary.

[JC]

Watched the video - result would've been the same for a human driver. Pedestrian was an idiot - didn't deserve to die I suppose, but certainly won't do it again.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by JC

Watched the video - result would've been the same for a human driver. Pedestrian was an idiot - didn't deserve to die I suppose, but certainly won't do it again.

I watched the video as well. What was also disturbing is how bad those LED headlights are. The line cut is very low and unlike non LED/ HID lights there is no peripheral type light bleed above that cut. The “victim” can only be seen at the very last moment which makes me think that even with a human driver with average reflexes and average concentration , the fatal outcome would have been the same. Doesn’t excuse crossing the road in pitch black on a highway , but at the same time , it begs the question about all sorts of new wiz bang technologies , autonomous or not , those headlights lights are substandard.

[ipn]

Talking about lights > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-drivers.html


Still talking about being autonomous , Using Mobile phones will be legal as the Vehicle is in control as you have clicked the waver button saying "Do you consent to this vehicle taking control and you stfu" , after clicking yes get out the newspaper or have a quick snooze on the way , or get ****ed p i s s e d as one is not driving under the influence is one , the list goes on and on and on and on .

Technically seat-belts will be not required as there should be no accidents to happen , and if they do decide to keep seat-belts and make them optional to wear in the perfect future what about now for me , i want the option!

Anyway , we all know there are to be plenty of "Incidents" coming along the way , then there'll be the blame games , then the Laws , then the usual psyco bs that is completely normal these days , imo ..
Paul

[irish2]

Originally Posted by JC

Watched the video - result would've been the same for a human driver. Pedestrian was an idiot - didn't deserve to die I suppose, but certainly won't do it again.

A human eye would have seen much more than the video shows. Just look at the fact there are two street lights above the woman. When have you ever seen a street light that didn't reach the ground? I hazard a guess that she assumed the vehicle would simply move over and avoid her.

[ipn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-God-real.html

I missed above this it was above the lights report .

Just wait until more of those get into a "G" controlled vehicle testing it right out and those other that'll be deliberately externally interfering like the painted line scenario mentioned previously a few posts back .

That above is also part of the on and on and on , all those more on's , they'll be more on's right to the bottom as well as those more on's right up to the top (the big money making more on's) as well as the pro sky-net type propagandist more on's , i hope the more on do not read here as more on's seem to get the idea slowly that they are more on than off .

Any play with words is just a coincidence as it is not my fault more on can sound like moron!

Paul .

[whynot]

Originally Posted by b0son

My biggest concern is the ethics they build into them... will it sacrifice me for the greater good (eg. drives me into a tree so as not to hit a number of people unlawfully on the road).

As compared to the “ethics” of the Subaru WRX driver who went past me yesterday; doing about 80kph in a 40kph construction zone, in the rain, whilst visibly texting on her phone???

While we would like to believe that ethical decision making is built into products, the sad fact is that a significant percentage of society have zero or low ethical values to begin with. Most of them have drivers licences as well (and we elect quite a few of them to parliament).

My view is that automation will induce a dramatic reduction in deaths and injury related to automobiles. However, it will not eliminate them. And the accidents that do occur will attract a lot of media attention out of proportion to other similar events.

As was pointed out, there was another 100 or so deaths on USA roads that day, and did any of them attract the same level of media attention?

[whynot]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

Had an interesting thing happen today .....
I have a 2018 Renault Megane GT.
It has some autonomous aids which are great but today it made me think twice.

The collision avoidance on my Outlander PHEV would occasionally confuse the traffic lights located on the island of Gympie Rd and Windrest Ave, Aspley as an obstacle. (There is a slight bend in the road at Windrest Ave, and for a period the southbound vehicles are pointing directly at the traffic lights.)

It once even slammed on the brakes as a cyclist had just gone past them. I assumed that the radar was tracking the cyclist, then became fixated on the steel poles, and then decided it had become an obstacle that I was going to crash into. Luckily, no one was travelling close behind.

On the other hand, the PHEV radar crash avoidance alarm had snapped me back to full attention on more than one occasion.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by whynot

As compared to the “ethics” of the Subaru WRX driver who went past me yesterday; doing about 80kph in a 40kph construction zone, in the rain, whilst visibly texting on her phone???

While we would like to believe that ethical decision making is built into products, the sad fact is that a significant percentage of society have zero or low ethical values to begin with. Most of them have drivers licences as well (and we elect quite a few of them to parliament).

My view is that automation will induce a dramatic reduction in deaths and injury related to automobiles. However, it will not eliminate them. And the accidents that do occur will attract a lot of media attention out of proportion to other similar events.

As was pointed out, there was another 100 or so deaths on USA roads that day, and did any of them attract the same level of media attention?

Originally Posted by b0son

My biggest concern is the ethics they build into them... will it sacrifice me for the greater good (eg. drives me into a tree so as not to hit a number of people unlawfully on the road).

I kind of agree with whynot here.

Is it assumed that human drivers have better ethics than any machine could possibly be programmed to have?

Take a hypothetical example of a person driving a car who gets caught in a scenario where they must decide between hitting a Mack truck head on, meaning almost certain death - or - hitting Miss Honey walking her 30 kindergarten kids along the footpath. Hitting the children would slow the vehicle down allowing the driver to escape unharmed.

Which option does the car driver take? The driver could be a 90 year old with only months to live anyway, or it could be a person with their own child in the back seat. People tend to instinctively self preserve which likely means goodbye kindergarteners.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

I watched the video as well. What was also disturbing is how bad those LED headlights are. The line cut is very low and unlike non LED/ HID lights there is no peripheral type light bleed above that cut. The “victim” can only be seen at the very last moment which makes me think that even with a human driver with average reflexes and average concentration , the fatal outcome would have been the same. Doesn’t excuse crossing the road in pitch black on a highway , but at the same time , it begs the question about all sorts of new wiz bang technologies , autonomous or not , those headlights lights are substandard.

The Volvo’s lights aren’t bad, the dashcam wasn’t configured properly for night and as a result the screen wasn’t set bright enough compared with what the observer would have seen (a lot further than the dull screen suggests)

Observer was exhonerated by the police so it’s okay to to run down someone not crossing at a designated crosss walk ..... stepped out in front of the car apparently according to dodgy dash cam 😱

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by b0son

They only come into view 15-20m ahead of the car,

On the dashcam