It's happened. Self-driving Uber kills pedestrian

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Nicnac said:

I get the sentiment but it's kind of a stretch comparing those two ^^

I'd say implementation of a new technology (although given that autonomous vehicles are probably one of the more disruptive things) is always going to be easier than any kind of 'social change' so to say.

 

Legal and social hurdles are hurdles none the less. It doesn't matter if it's AI cars, social ideology or medical misconduct. The world is missing out on good tech and has abundant social inequality because people oppose such things out of ignorance.    See how long it has taken many countries to legalise marijuana for medical purposes simply because it is associated with seedy drug use even though we have an abundance of evidence regarding it's efficacy in certain treatments.   There are countries that won't let you put an AI car on the road without a driver fully in control (defeats the purpose).  In Australia it has been estimated there are 700 laws that need to change before AI cars can be properly implemented.   That's not going to happen over night and it certainly won't happen when majority of the population don't trust them and can easily be swayed to vote no to any government who threatens to pave the way.    I'm afraid it is all social trend.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

On 3/19/2018 at 1:16 PM, maartendc said:

Regardless of the pedestrian or cyclist potentially being "at fault" because of crossing without looking or unexpectedly, the sensors in these self driving cars should be good enough to anticipate unexpected behavior by humans, such as unexpected crossing, and adjust their speed appropriately. If anything, it should be very easy for these systems to react in miliseconds and slow down significantly to prevent death, if not injury.

What? First, let's talk about physics. Average Speed Limit for in-city driving is anywhere from 50 to 65 km/h (exemptions like School Zones and residential suburbs aside). 50 km/h is roughly equal to 30 mph. 65 km/h is roughly equal to 40 mph.

 

Let's assume best case scenario, 30 mph speed limit. At 30 mph, the average braking distance (this is the time from a brake is activated, to a dead stop - NOT counting reaction time) is 45 feet. I can find no data on average reaction times for autonomous vehicles, but let's assume 0.1 seconds, or 100 milliseconds - this is "near instantaneous", for our purposes. 30 mph = 44 feet per second. 0.1 s reaction time = 4.4 feet added to braking distance.

 

That means an autonomous car might need at minimum, 49.4 feet, from detecting the danger, to coming to a complete stop. Let's round to 50 feet, for fun. That could be upwards of one-quarter (25%) of the entire city block (I cannot give an exact measurement, as it varies wildly per city).

 

My point is that if the autonomous car was approaching an intersectionm 50 feet is basically nothing. The reaction time isn't the problem. It's the stopping time.

 

Quote

Not sure about the US, but In Belgium, the driver is always at fault when hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (the "weak" road users) because cars should expect unexpected behavior and mitigate their speed accordingly.

So, what... does that mean every time you approach an intersection, you slow down to 30 km/h (20 mph)? Because, let's be honest, if you're driving the speed limit in most cities, you're already going too fast to prevent injury, should someone unexpectedly step out in front of you.

Quote

If we cannot do that, they should just ban them altogether. We should expect BETTEr behavior from these things than from.human drivers, nt the same "unavoidable" accident rate.

So far, autonomous vehicles have a significantly better track record when compared with humans. Expecting better of them is not the same thing as expecting them to be infallible. That's impossible, given that they are:

1. Programmed by humans, who are fallible, and

2. Defined by the laws of physics, which dictate that stopping a car with momentum is a difficult task that is not instant.

Quote

 

Not surprising that this happened to Uber. A shitty company that does not take laws or human decency seriously, all in the interest of profits and market share.

You're making an insane amount of assumptions about this.

 

We don't have all the facts. We have no idea who is responsible. The driver, the car itself, the pedestrian, or possibly something else entirely.

 

What annoys me the most about this thread is people assuming facts where facts do not exist yet. Should the investigation determine that Uber, their programming, or the vehicle itself are at fault? I'll be right there with you damning them and calling for better safety.

 

But we do not know this. Uber, the driver, and the car, all may be entirely "innocent". Or guilty.

 

Why don't we wait and see the facts before passing judgement?

 

On 3/19/2018 at 5:29 PM, chilicheeseburger said:

What if the pedestrian/cyclist just stepped right in front of the car? Even if the AI could react much faster than a human, it wouldn't be physically possible to avoid the crash.

There's not enough information to conclude anything yet. Do self-driving ubers have dashcams?

This is something that lots of people in this thread seem to be ignoring.

 

They somehow think because a computer is driving, and can think faster than humans, that it somehow makes the brakes work better? No. Physics says a 4000 pound SUV cannot stop instantly, and will need dozens of feet, at minimum, even with zero reaction time, to stop.

On 3/19/2018 at 5:36 PM, Ryujin2003 said:

They have a bunch of FLIR sensors I think, but not sure about actual standard video imagery. I'm curious if these cars use standard imagery or only advanced sensors. I feel like that could be viewed as "invasion of privacy" or something, so they wouldn't have it by default.

I'm fairly sure most automated vehicles will have a full range of sensors, including some standard video. But that wouldn't help. They would see a person on the side of the road (which they will see hundreds of times per journey). The computer can't tell if someone is about to decide to step out. If that person does so at the wrong moment, the computer will simply not have enough time to manoeuvre or stop the vehicle, even with perfect (near zero) reaction time.

[chilicheeseburger]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So, what... does that mean every time you approach an intersection, you slow down to 30 km/h (20 mph)? Because, let's be honest, if you're driving the speed limit in most cities, you're already going too fast to prevent injury, should someone unexpectedly step out in front of you.

Actually in a lot of places in Europe that's how it works. Cities here aren't designed around cars and laws favor pedestrians/cyclists over drivers. If you're involved in an accident with a cyclist and you were driving, you're in for a bad time. (I'm in no way a fan of this, because it let's bicyclists act like idiots in traffic... during the summer you can often see them in groups, next to each other using up the whole road trying to re-enact the tour de france)

Also a lot of streets in smaller cities are really narrow so there's a speed limit of 30km/h anyway. Then again, we have a lot less intersections and a lot more roundabouts.

 

I guess this is also why I only ever heard of tests of autonomous driving here on the Autobahn, not in city traffic.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, chilicheeseburger said:

Actually in a lot of places in Europe that's how it works. Cities here aren't designed around cars and laws favor pedestrians/cyclists over drivers. If you're involved in an accident with a cyclist and you were driving, you're in for a bad time. (I'm in no way a fan of this, because it let's bicyclists act like idiots in traffic... during the summer you can often see them in groups, next to each other using up the whole road trying to re-enact the tour de france)

Also a lot of streets in smaller cities are really narrow so there's a speed limit of 30km/h anyway. Then again, we have a lot less intersections and a lot more roundabouts.

 

I guess this is also why I only ever heard of tests of autonomous driving here on the Autobahn, not in city traffic.

I'd like to hear about Norway Belgium (wrong country!), specifically. Because from the way that @maartendc stated it, it seems like any intersection, regardless of design (pre vs post automotive revolution), you must slow down to a crawl, since that's the only possible way you can cross and possibly prevent an injury when a pedestrian/cyclist unexpectedly crosses in front of you, despite it not being safe.

 

Like, seriously, people underestimate how far it takes for a car to slow down, let alone stop.

[asand1]

What I find funny are are all the comments of "I hope they dont ban self driving cars because of this," yet so many want to ban guns because a handfull of people use them in a terrible manner.

 

Very simply put, you cant have self driving cars and pedestrians on the same road. People are unpredictable and will do stupid shit. Human drivers can be stupid too and people will always introduce a variable that the self driving cars may not be able to compensate for.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, asand1 said:

What I find funny are are all the comments of "I hope they dont ban self driving cars because of this," yet so many want to ban guns because a handfull of people use them in a terrible manner.

 

Very simply put, you cant have self driving cars and pedestrians on the same road. People are unpredictable and will do stupid shit. Human drivers can be stupid too and people will always introduce a variable that the self driving cars may not be able to compensate for.

There's a difference here. Autonomous vehicles aren't being misused. People just have ridiculous expectations for them. Also, most people who are in favour of gun control don't want to ban all guns - they want to make it difficult for people who are, say, mentally unstable (or have a history of violence) from getting them. Let's be clear, your average citizen has no idea how to buy a black market gun. They kill people using guns that they already owned, borrowed from a friend/family, or stole from someone they knew. And if the guns were stored properly in a safe, with the ammunition in a separate safe (or independently locked compartment within the primary safe), a lot less gun violence in the US would happen. But that's off topic, so I won't comment on that again.

 

You cannot have cars and pedestrians on the same road - regardless of autonomous vs people controlled. Human drivers are definitely not better at preventing pedestrian involved accidents.

[TetraSky]

The video says Cyclist, the article says Pedestrian. Not sure which is correct or not. To me a pedestrian is someone on foot, not on a bike.

But it does say she was walking off the sidewalk, which means she was on the street at the time and not the sidewalk.

So I'm gonna assume she basically tried to cut the car off to cross the street and ended up dying as a result because Car beats Bike 100% of the time.

[asand1]

On 3/19/2018 at 6:29 PM, dalekphalm said:

You cannot have cars and pedestrians on the same road - regardless of autonomous vs people controlled. Human drivers are definitely not better at preventing pedestrian involved accidents.

Human drivers have a better chance of adapting to other humans on the road. Computers have a finite number of options programmed in. How long has that uber Volvo been driving? In 20 years I have never hit another person on the road. You can have drivers and pedestrians on the road together, but automated systems trying to avoid the human factor is way far off in the future yet.

 

On 3/19/2018 at 6:36 PM, TetraSky said:

The video says Cyclist, the article says Pedestrian. Not sure which is true or not. But it does say she was walking off the sidewalk, which means she was in the street at the time.

So I'm gonna assume she basically tried to cut the car off to cross the street and ended up dying as a result because Car beats Bike 100% of the time.

In many states, Pedestrian and cyclist are synonymous.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, asand1 said:

Human drivers have a better chance of adapting to other humans on the road. Computers have a finite number of options programmed in. How long has that uber Volvo been driving? In 20 years I have never hit another person on the road. You can have drivers and pedestrians on the road together, but automated systems trying to avoid the human factor is way far off in the future yet.

Unfortunately, your experiences are anecdotal, and do not represent the actual cross section of humanity. There are many situations when - even driving "safe" and following all road laws - you can experience an accident that was quite simply, unforeseeable. If you truly believed that, you wouldn't use your seatbelt, and you could safely disable your airbag... but I'm guessing you're gonna keep using your seatbelt, and leave your airbag turned on.

 

Also, most modern self driving cars use AI subsystems, not traditional "if then" style code.

 

It's simply a matter of time before autonomous vehicles have accumulated enough data and learning, to know how to react in far more situations than an average driver has ever experienced.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

That was a Volvo, I wonder if they stripped out the pedestrian safety features in favor of their self-driving stuff. Of course there's no guarantee that would've stopped this either, but I just wonder how many failsafes there were.

 

Wait, are you saying the programmer can be considered at fault?

There are so many people and so many steps, that's like blaming 'the' engineer who designed the motor in a table saw when someone cuts their thumb off.

This thread has clearly shown most haven't ever had much interaction with Product Liability law & court cases.

 

In the case of Autonomous Driving Vehicles, just wait for the first manslaughter case to drop.

 

There's a reason that the only way this works is an explicit ban on Level 5 Autonomous and direct liability on the "Driver" at level 3 & 4, unless secondary information proves otherwise. Which means dash cams & "black boxes" as standard. 

 

It's simply the way it has to be. The only place automated driving will be allowed is systems "on rails". Even then, most systems are headed towards something like the Airline Industry. Really, really advanced Autopilot, but there's still pilots.

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, asand1 said:

Human drivers have a better chance of adapting to other humans on the road. Computers have a finite number of options programmed in. How long has that uber Volvo been driving? In 20 years I have never hit another person on the road. You can have drivers and pedestrians on the road together, but automated systems trying to avoid the human factor is way far off in the future yet.

Humans make more mistakes on the road causing significantly more damage (over 1 million deaths a year), than all the automated systems of the world combined.    Regardless of how you feel about computers controlling cars, this is one fact that will not change.

 

EDIT: in fact you can expand or contract this to account for any device that humans use, be it a tunneling machine, process machine in a factory or aircraft.  People cause more mistakes period.

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, Ginger_ said:

Oh okay, didn't watch that. Maybe she was walking her bike across the road

I don't see how it matters.

 

If I see a car coming, you know what I don't do? I don't think "well I have the right of way so they have to stop" and then walk in front of that car. Regardless of how far away it is.

 

If I do have to cross, I run. I don't rely on the driver seeing me and stopping because I realize that the law (pedestrians having the right of way) has absolutely zero bearing upon reality.

 

Can we really not teach people to not walk in front of moving vehicles? Is that such a hard lesson to learn?

 

Edit: I am a former delivery driver. The number of people who just blatantly and blindly walk out into traffic that I saw, is/was absurd.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I don't see how it matters.

 

If I see a car coming, you know what I don't do? I don't think "well I have the right of way so they have to stop" and then walk in front of that car. Regardless of how far away it is.

 

If I do have to cross, I run. I don't rely on the driver seeing me and stopping because I realize that the law (pedestrians having the right of way) has absolutely zero bearing upon reality.

To be fair you shouldn't run either. Increases the chances you'll trip, and then you'll be in the middle of the road, and on your ass - especially if you're lugging a bike across the road.

 

Just cross when it's clear. Pretty simple. Humans cause so many accidents because they are careless and don't imply common sense.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

To be fair you shouldn't run either. Increases the chances you'll trip, and then you'll be in the middle of the road, and on your ass - especially if you're lugging a bike across the road.

 

Just cross when it's clear. Pretty simple. Humans cause so many accidents because they are careless and don't imply common sense.

That's why I don't like the law being that pedestrians have the right of way. I think it causes a false sense of safety that is absolutely counter to reality.

 

The driver might not see you, the road might be slick, they might not have enough time to stop, hell their brakes could fail or or the driver could have a health event and be unable to stop at all.

 

You know what cannot fail? Waiting until traffic has stopped, or waiting until there isn't a vehicle coming and you have enough time to cross. It's much easier for a pedestrian to come to a stop, and look, than it is for a driver to spot a pedestrian and stop the vehicle in a safe manner.

 

I'm just sick of that being a law when it is so obviously f**king retarded that it being law makes me feel like everyone in society is taking LSD on a daily basis.

[Salv8 (sam)]

RIP

press f to pay respects

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That's why I don't like the law being that pedestrians have the right of way. I think it causes a false sense of safety that is absolutely counter to reality.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

To be fair you shouldn't run either. Increases the chances you'll trip, and then you'll be in the middle of the road, and on your ass - especially if you're lugging a bike across the road.

 

Just cross when it's clear. Pretty simple. Humans cause so many accidents because they are careless and don't imply common sense.

 

 

Some people just confuse having right of way with being immortal.   Changing the law might solve that for some, but not for those who don't think the laws apply to them. 

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

 

Some people just confuse having right of way with being immortal.   Changing the law might solve that for some, but not for those who don't think the laws apply to them. 

You can't legislate stupid away I guess?

[ImNotDeViLzzz]

RIp and condolences to the family and friends of the person but self driving clean energy cars are the way of the future.  They can't get these on all the roads out there fast enough.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, asand1 said:

Human drivers have a better chance of adapting to other humans on the road. Computers have a finite number of options programmed in. How long has that uber Volvo been driving? In 20 years I have never hit another person on the road. You can have drivers and pedestrians on the road together, but automated systems trying to avoid the human factor is way far off in the future yet.

If the driver behind the wheel took action they should have been able to stop in time, especially in a Volvo with its assisted braking system. If conditions allow, pedestrians and cyclists having right of way is a very good thing,otherwise it shouldn't be the drivers fault if it were raining for example and the pedestrian/cyclist crossed without paying attention.

Yet everyone here seems to have the attitude of "f*ck you i'm in a car get out of my way" which is one reason why so many drivers hit pedestrians,cyclists, or motorcycles.

[Trik'Stari]

33 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If the driver behind the wheel took action they should have been able to stop in time, especially in a Volvo with its assisted braking system. If conditions allow, pedestrians and cyclists having right of way is a very good thing,otherwise it shouldn't be the drivers fault if it were raining for example.

Yet everyone here seems to have the attitude of "f*ck you i'm in a car get out of my way" which is one reason why so many drivers hit pedestrians,cyclists, or motorcycles.

It's more like "it's easier for you to see the car and stop walking, than it is for the car to see you and stop rolling".

 

I don't want them to get out of the way. I want them to realize that the law is completely backwards from reality. The care will win this fight every single time.

 

Personally I think cyclists have absolutely no business being on public roads. Specifically the idiots who come out to back country roads and ride around in packs impeding traffic. Not people just trying to get from point A to point B.

 

The reason for the attitude, again, It's easier for you to not be in my path, than it is for me to stop. Would you walk onto an active runway and expect a fully laden jet-liner to come to a stop for you? No, you wouldn't. So you don't do it.

 

Don't walk in front of cars. Don't ride a bicycle on a back country road with a bunch of blind turns. Don't drop a plugged in and turned on electrical appliance into a bathtub full of water that you are sitting in.

 

I feel like these things are common sense. It has nothing to do with "I'm more important than you because I'm in a car" and everything to do with "don't walk in front of a multiple thousand pound block of metal, plastic, and rubber, moving at speed, because it WILL. KILL. YOU. if it cannot stop in time".

[Energycore]

Still waiting for the "It's happened, human driven cars have finally created a fatal accident" news.

 

Oh, wait.

[Dash Lambda]

44 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

-snip-

If there ever is a manslaughter case with a self-driving car (cases will happen, I'm just not sure if manslaughter will ever fit), it should NEVER go all the way back to the programmer(s) unless they intentionally put something screwy in it. That's just not how it works -You don't blame the guys in the lab, you just don't.

 

Though I do agree about the full autonomy thing. We'll never be able to make 'remove the steering wheel' autonomous cars because they can't intelligently react to adverse conditions, we can't identify a thought process and they can't find clever solutions to problems.

... That is, if we just try and build autonomous cars. Once we develop general AI, I imagine the nature of that problem will change completely. Whenever that happens.

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

The problem is that they're not intelligent. They're not considering all the circumstances and everything in their environment, they're following a line and reacting to ques in a very sophisticated and entirely 'dumb' way. No matter how safe or reliable they get, there will always be silly little things, maybe even hard to identify things that they can't do even when working perfectly. When those cause problems, it's a lot harder to accept than when someone screws up.

For instance: Teslas aren't good at seeing stationary objects at highway speeds. Of the three major crashes involving autopilot, one hit a stationary street cleaner on a highway, and one hit a parked fire truck at 50mph.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If there ever is a manslaughter case with a self-driving car (cases will happen, I'm just not sure if manslaughter will ever fit), it should NEVER go all the way back to the programmer(s) unless they intentionally put something screwy in it. That's just not how it works -You don't blame the guys in the lab, you just don't.

 

Though I do agree about the full autonomy thing. We'll never be able to make 'remove the steering wheel' autonomous cars because they can't intelligently react to adverse conditions, we can't identify a thought process and they can't find clever solutions to problems.

... That is, if we just try and build autonomous cars. Once we develop general AI, I imagine the nature of that problem will change completely. Whenever that happens.

The problem is that they're not intelligent. They're not considering all the circumstances and everything in their environment, they're following a line and reacting to ques in a very sophisticated and entirely 'dumb' way. No matter how safe or reliable they get, there will always be silly little things, maybe even hard to identify things that they can't do even when working perfectly. When those cause problems, it's a lot harder to accept than when someone screws up.

For instance: Teslas aren't good at seeing stationary objects at highway speeds. Of the three major crashes involving autopilot, one hit a stationary street cleaner on a highway, and one hit a parked fire truck at 50mph.

Not sure what your point is.  Are you trying to insinuate that the level of automation is somehow inferior to humans who on the whole have so far proven to be the most inferior of all when it comes to intellectual problems?

[Trik'Stari]

10 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If there ever is a manslaughter case with a self-driving car (cases will happen, I'm just not sure if manslaughter will ever fit), it should NEVER go all the way back to the programmer(s) unless they intentionally put something screwy in it. That's just not how it works -You don't blame the guys in the lab, you just don't.

 

Though I do agree about the full autonomy thing. We'll never be able to make 'remove the steering wheel' autonomous cars because they can't intelligently react to adverse conditions, we can't identify a thought process and they can't find clever solutions to problems.

... That is, if we just try and build autonomous cars. Once we develop general AI, I imagine the nature of that problem will change completely. Whenever that happens.

The problem is that they're not intelligent. They're not considering all the circumstances and everything in their environment, they're following a line and reacting to ques in a very sophisticated and entirely 'dumb' way. No matter how safe or reliable they get, there will always be silly little things, maybe even hard to identify things that they can't do even when working perfectly. When those cause problems, it's a lot harder to accept than when someone screws up.

For instance: Teslas aren't good at seeing stationary objects at highway speeds. Of the three major crashes involving autopilot, one hit a stationary street cleaner on a highway, and one hit a parked fire truck at 50mph.

Interesting thoughts.

 

Hell, humans are "a lot" more intelligent, allegedly, than these things and they still cause accidents.

 

I got head-on-ed by some kid in a Plymouth Neon (before Dodge made the Neon) in broad daylight. With my headlights on and a bright blue illuminated Domino's sign on the roof.

 

I saw him, saw no turn signal or noticeable signs of braking for a turn. He suddenly veered into my lane to turn off the road (it was an odd intersection where from his direction of travel he didn't have to stop and turn, but simply merge across my lane). The speeds were 35mph per vehicle.

 

More than enough time that had I seen a turn signal, I'd have been able to stop or honk the horn. But he did not signal or even brake. He admitted this to the police after wards.

 

He totaled my 1995 Mitsubishi 3000gt. I'd had that car since high school. 6 years with no tickets or accidents (unless you count deer).

 

God I was pissed.

[dalekphalm]

32 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If the driver behind the wheel took action they should have been able to stop in time, especially in a Volvo with its assisted braking system. If conditions allow, pedestrians and cyclists having right of way is a very good thing,otherwise it shouldn't be the drivers fault if it were raining for example and the pedestrian/cyclist crossed without paying attention.

Yet everyone here seems to have the attitude of "f*ck you i'm in a car get out of my way" which is one reason why so many drivers hit pedestrians,cyclists, or motorcycles.

This is 100% speculation and there is no evidence to support this conclusion. 

 

How can you possibly know that if the driver had been in control, he could have avoided the accident?

 

We don’t even have remotely enough facts yet to make that conclusion (let alone just about any other conclusion that is being thrown around).