Uber self-driving car ends up sideways - collision incident

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, zMeul said:

utter crap

Police is not equipped with diagnosing AI problems

NTSB is there to analyze and issue reports based on the findings

 

NTSB already gets involved in railroad accidents, but not self driving cars ...

Read the edits I made, NTSB does do highway where needed.

 

Edit:

Also the NHTSA is already investigating that Telsa crash.

[leadeater]

Quote

Citing an enormous potential to reduce crashes on U.S. roadways, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a proposed rule today that would advance the deployment of connected vehicle technologies throughout the U.S. light vehicle fleet. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology on all new light-duty vehicles, enabling a multitude of new crash-avoidance applications that, once fully deployed, could prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes every year by helping vehicles “talk” to each other.

 

Quote

Advanced vehicle technologies may well prove to be the silver bullet in saving lives on our roadways,” said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind. “V2V and automated vehicle technologies each hold great potential to make our roads safer, and when combined, their potential is untold.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-advances-deployment-connected-vehicle-technology-prevent-hundreds-thousands

[Just Monika]

The take home message here is that we need to outlaw human drivers.

[christianled59]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

statistics mean shit, people will die, safer doesn't mean no accidents

tests should not be conducted on public roads

what happened with the Tesla that went under that trailer and killed the driver? Tesla got a slap on the hand - legislation needs to evolve, there is the NTSB for aircraft related incidents, why isn't there a similar one for AI cars?

I said I don't want to argue. If you are going to spew bullshit then don't bother quoting me. I never said anything to remotely suggest that "safer doesn't mean no accidents."

[Monkey Dust]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's the dumbest thing I've heard. If a car is able to keep someone safe then it is a safe car it doesn't matter if it tipped over. I mean just because a car is safe doesn't mean it can defy the laws of physics. How do you suppose they make an untippable car? Also wouldn't the increase in deceleration experienced by the car because it didn't tip over cause more risk to the driver? It's easy for you to say I car is unsafe when you are basing your assessment on one fact. 

It tipped over in a low speed collision when it can't of ridden over anything bigger than a curb, it's centre of gravity is clearly way too high. Admittedly the equipment the car had on the roof would raise the CoF, but probably no more than a loaded roof box. I'd bet the V90 or S90, for example, wouldn't have tipped over.

 

Tipping over is never safe if you only have standard seatbelts. They are designed to hold you in place in case of a front or rear impact, and somewhat in a side impact, not when the car is on it's side or upside down. So the driver will experience greater acceleration than if the car stayed upright . And if following the accident you need to get out in a hurry, if something catches fire for example, or if the car ends up in deep water, it will be harder to get out of a car on it's side or roof, particularly the side.

 

Generally the XC90 is a very safe car, but it hasn't performed well in this accident. A healthy adult was able to escape this without injury, but how would an elderly person cope with dangling by their seat belt?

[lewdicrous]

when a self driving car wants to drift..

[Brooksie359]

52 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

It tipped over in a low speed collision when it can't of ridden over anything bigger than a curb, it's centre of gravity is clearly way too high. Admittedly the equipment the car had on the roof would raise the CoF, but probably no more than a loaded roof box. I'd bet the V90 or S90, for example, wouldn't have tipped over.

 

Tipping over is never safe if you only have standard seatbelts. They are designed to hold you in place in case of a front or rear impact, and somewhat in a side impact, not when the car is on it's side or upside down. So the driver will experience greater acceleration than if the car stayed upright . And if following the accident you need to get out in a hurry, if something catches fire for example, or if the car ends up in deep water, it will be harder to get out of a car on it's side or roof, particularly the side.

 

Generally the XC90 is a very safe car, but it hasn't performed well in this accident. A healthy adult was able to escape this without injury, but how would an elderly person cope with dangling by their seat belt?

where in the article did it say it was a low speed impact? even if it was a low speed impact and it tipped over that doesn't mean it was the result of poor design it could have been the way it was hit. also you can say that another car wouldn't have tipped over in the same situation but that is completely  speculative. bottom line was everyone was safe in the accident meaning the car did its job of keeping all the passengers safe.

[Monkey Dust]

25 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

where in the article did it say it was a low speed impact? even if it was a low speed impact and it tipped over that doesn't mean it was the result of poor design it could have been the way it was hit. also you can say that another car wouldn't have tipped over in the same situation but that is completely  speculative. bottom line was everyone was safe in the accident meaning the car did its job of keeping all the passengers safe.

It was at urban junction, and the relatively light damage to the other car indicates it was low speed, depending on your definition of low speed but seems highly unlikely either vehicle was travelling at 40 mph or more. I guess to be fair to Volvo, fitting the autonomous tech may have compromised the systems that help keep modern SUVs upright.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

It was at urban junction, and the relatively light damage to the other car indicates it was low speed, depending on your definition of low speed but seems highly unlikely either vehicle was travelling at 40 mph or more. I guess to be fair to Volvo, fitting the autonomous tech may have compromised the systems that help keep modern SUVs upright.

Actually I wouldn't say the damage is all that light. Both cars are very new and having seen a number of accidents involving new and old cars at city and highway speeds the actual impact speed of this crash is about what you said. Impact speeds of crashes in towns is typically much less than the speed limit, probably around 10-15 mph, due to breaking.

 

Here you can see significant deformity to the side and roof of the ford, the sunroof has been bent and pushed out due to the roof structure being deformed. Sides of cars and roofs are extremely strong in modern cars and are not part of crumple zones, they are designed to transmit the energy around the cabin and not encroach in on the cabin space.

 

If the Ford was a 1990's Honda for example anyone in the rear passenger seat on the impact side would likely have significant to critical injuries.

 

Here is a great example of what I'm talking about and cars are even safer than this now.

 

Don't let the lack of visible damage to the front of the Volvo fool you.

[79wjd]

17 hours ago, zMeul said:

 

more human driving less incidents .. who knew 

 

All those graphs show is that self driving cars have gotten safer; it shows nothing about human driver vs. AI driver.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

All those graphs show is that self driving cars have gotten safer; it shows nothing about human driver vs. AI driver.

Also notice how short of a time span the graph is over? So short it's meaningless and if you project the shown trend forward a year you might be in the 2000 miles per critical intervention.

[zMeul]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

All those graphs show is that self driving cars have gotten safer; it shows nothing about human driver vs. AI driver.

why are you not reading the source? http://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14938116/uber-travis-kalanick-self-driving-internal-metrics-slow-progress

how about this one? about once / mile the Uber car had to be corrected 

 

Quote

In another document that specifically analyzed cars in Arizona, Uber’s self-driving team wrote that the rider experience in one part of the state, Scottsdale Road, was “not great.” The cars only drove 0.67 miles between interventions and two miles between so-called bad events.

 

congratulations, Uber self driving cars are an accident waiting to happen .. oh wait!

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

congratulations, Uber self driving cars are an accident waiting to happen .. oh wait!

Sounds better than Tampa traffic to be honest.

[DildorTheDecent]

10 hours ago, Weird Face said:

The take home message here is that we need to outlaw human drivers.

To top that: Outlaw humans

[Notional]

See! This is what happens when you don't use the proprietary RoadWorks^tm as part of the black boxed proprietary closed DriveWorks^tm as part of NVidia^tm's CarWorks^tm walled off eco system! Uber should have paid the 2000$ per mile NVidia^tm tax, so they wouldn't have to suffer a crash of multiple G-Syncs^tm.

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/41405-uber-self-driving-volvos-use-nvidia-tegra^tm

[divito]

14 hours ago, zMeul said:

yeah sure, based on what?!

Your contrarian and sensationalist outlook to almost every topic I've seen you post in.

[bigneo]

On 3/26/2017 at 6:37 AM, zMeul said:

statistics mean shit,

 

Yet, you post statistics and graphs.

[zMeul]

Uber wasn't t be blamed in the incident or was it!??!

Quote

The Uber car was going under the speed limit – 38 in a 40MPH zone – but visibility was limited, according to witnesses, due to traffic. The woman driving the car that hit it, Alexandra Cole in a Honda SUV, stated that the Uber came "flying through the intersection."

That statement was backed up by a witness, Brayan Torres, who told police it was the Uber car's fault for "trying to beat the light and hitting the gas so hard."

 

The report states that the light turned yellow as the Uber entered the intersection, although it does not give more detail over how long the light had been yellow and how long the delay is between a yellow and red light at that intersection.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/30/uber_selfdriving_car_crash/

 

Uber car goes through a red light:

 

[spartaman64]

On 3/26/2017 at 0:20 AM, AshleyAshes said:

Because a car without a driver doesn't have to be paid ANYTHING, it only has to be provided with gasoline and maintenance.  The automated car isn't concerned with paying it's rent or having enough money for groceries.  It doesn't get tired and go out of service for eight hours.

 

but they now have to pay insurance for the car and most uber drivers are part time

[Belgarathian]

On 3/26/2017 at 9:35 AM, zMeul said:

-snip-

 

do people actually have to die for these shitheads to realize self driving vehicles and human driven vehicles do not belong in the same space?

 

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and 100% disagree with you. A self driving vehicle, and a human driving vehicle can operate in the same space because driver training teaches you to operate in a way that if there is an outside influence, such as a vehicle running a red, or a car stopping in front, you can react and prevent an accident (don't tailgate, check both ways, etc). 

 

Under that concept, driverless vehicles are going to be just as safe, if not safer than human driven vehicles if implemented correctly. 

 

They will never be perfect, but with human driving capabilities setting the bar, it's a pretty low one to achieve. 

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

56 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but they now have to pay insurance for the car and most uber drivers are part time

Do you realize that we're talking about a car that can do work for Uber literally 24hrs a day.  Literally, except when de-servicing the car for refueling or scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, the car can be on the road indefinitely.  Do you know how CHEAP paying the insurance and maintenance on a car that can operate at those hours is in comparison to paying wages to the multiple humans drivers you'd need to cover the same amount of operating hours?

 

Like, think about it.  To be an Uber driver, a driver would have to at LEAST make enough money to cover fuel and maintenance of their vehicle alone, before they'd even pay rent/mortgages, food, and other human things or they wouldn't work for Uber at all.  In the long run, Uber is basically paying fuel and maintenance for it's drivers anyway, plus a lot more per operating hour.  Even accounting for the initial unit cost of buying a new automated vehicle, it would be massively more cost effective to replace the humans with tireless robot cars that don't have children or student loans to be concerned about.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Even accounting for the initial unit cost of buying a new automated vehicle, it would be massively more cost effective to replace the humans with tireless robot cars that don't have children or student loans to be concerned about.

Less likely to give an attitude or take the "short way" to the destination.