Driver of self-driving Uber involved in fatal collision was watching 'The Voice' at time of crash

[Froody129]

32 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

It's the job, either you can do it or you can't. People who find excuses shouldn't be in that position. 

My point is that no one can. There have been studies on this (something about Wal-Mart IIRC) and you literally can't make someone focus with full attention on something mind numbing for 8 hours... 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

39 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

It's the job, either you can do it or you can't. People who find excuses shouldn't be in that position. 

That's great to say but impossible to implement. You can say that people that participate in these type of reckless behavior should not have these types of job but how do you screen for that. If you can't screen well enough to prevent something like this from happening then the job shouldn't exist. 

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

Some people forget at these aren't really self-driving cars. They are to assist the driver, you should still have your eyes on the road - especially if you are testing the car! They don't get paid to watch the voice. It's their job, if they can't do it, then they should not be there. Hopefully, if they haven't been, they should be fired and their licence taken away. 

It's pretty common sense to keep your eyes on the road while driving and to spot pedestrians who may cross. 

Kind of like autopilot in planes. It's only supposed to assist the pilot not replace them. The pilots still have to keep an eye on things.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Kind of like autopilot in planes. It's only supposed to assist the pilot not replace them. The pilots still have to keep an eye on things.

From what I hear most pilots are on ipads most the flight and occasionally look up. 

[NTDaws]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

When I was a kid, I never imagined I'd have a PC, high end point and shoot camera, and video camera in a very slim package, in my pocket.

The internet didn't exist.

And yet, look where we are now.

 

To say something will never be is to have already given up. All it takes is will.

I never said I gave up on it, I just personally don't think we can't guarantee safety by any means.

[dizmo]

22 minutes ago, Being Delirious said:

I never said I gave up on it, I just personally don't think we can't guarantee safety by any means.

Now perhaps, that's why technology advances.

[NTDaws]

12 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Now perhaps, that's why technology advances.

Technology infinitely advances.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's great to say but impossible to implement. You can say that people that participate in these type of reckless behavior should not have these types of job but how do you screen for that. If you can't screen well enough to prevent something like this from happening then the job shouldn't exist. 

Do they

A) Have a licence

B) Been a test driver for other companies

C) Have any endorsements to their licence

D) Taken a defensive driving test

E) Any past driving convictions

 

It's pretty standard. 

 

[Brooksie359]

24 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Do they

A) Have a licence

B) Been a test driver for other companies

C) Have any endorsements to their licence

D) Taken a defensive driving test

E) Any past driving convictions

 

It's pretty standard. 

 

And none of those eliminate the risk of getting someone who becomes complacent when "driving" a "self-driving" car. You can't screen for that even if you try the methods described. 

[ARikozuM]

I think everyone is at fault here. The pedestrian/cyclist should have used a crosswalk if on foot or used proper road safety if on the bike. The Uber driver should have been paying attention to the road. Regardless of what we see on a camera there's very little to suggest that Uber/Volvo used a shit-ass camera that records darkness as just black. I also blame Uber for disabling the braking system on a system that is supposed to be automated. 

[Spotty]

4 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

From what I hear most pilots are on ipads most the flight and occasionally look up. 

Well, what are the chances that a kid chasing the ball will unexpectedly run out in front of a plane at 20,000 ft?

[D13H4RD]

And this is why I still want my clutch pedal. 

 

Because then you won't have an excuse to use a phone or tablet while driving. 

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

So much blame on one person.

 

The lady still was crossing a street without looking and not treating a car as if it will not stop. You know, things that are taught to you when you are 5. 

 

Both are to blame but more blame is the lady. Roads are made for cars, you cross at your own risk. I dont care how you spin it. 

The part she was crossing was not dark, in the other thread there was several videos posted and one commentary showing that exact spot and why the Uber dash cam footage was darker than it should have been. 

13 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

I wish we had a camera that would have more realistically shown the lighting of the situation but assuming that the lighting is identical or close to how it is shown in the video I don't know if pretty much anyone could react quick enough to not hit her. She decided to cross a pretty fast road without speeding up and did it without any light near her. The driver should still get penalized for distracted driving as these systems still urge you to pay attention to the road but she really was testing Darwin.

There are quite a few videos showing what the light is like at that part of the road.  Many people have gone back there since (one with smartphone camera) and shown it was actually quite light and the driver would have easily seen her.

 

Also the guys that made the software and sensors for the Volvo he was in demonstrated the car would have stopped had they had the volvo's braking system enabled.

 

People need to stop blaming the pedestrian (god knows why she did what she did, but she would still be alive if uber hadn't turned of the emergency breaking system, disabled their own Breaking system and then had a driver who was actually paying attention.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

From what I hear most pilots are on ipads most the flight and occasionally look up. 

Maybe I am naive, but given a crash is likely to mean they won't have to worry about an investigation,  I like to think they are a little more attentive to the job.  Like the old saying goes, the train driver is the first one to an accident.

[Unimportant]

14 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Which is why I think level 3 autonomy, while I won't claim is impossible, may be impractical due to the number of variables and our current technology. We may be get there, but I don't think it'll be until we're all old and can't drive anyway (actually that'll be amazing timing)

Not to long ago we got to visit a factory that has a couple of LGV's (autonomous forklifts). Those things cost a small fortune, have specialized periphery such as laser reflectors at key positions in the building to help with positioning, and a large company profit motive for getting them right (Every minute the LGV's waste is money down the drain. These LGV's collected finished product from the assembly line, if they don't collect in time the assembly line stalls).

 

The result ? These things are driving around like drunk idiots, often getting stuck in some endless avoidance loop between themselves, going into alarm about once every 5 minute because one of the 8!! safety scanners on them saw a spider web's thread. The operator told me he'd rather grab a forklift and do the work himself rather then run around operating those things 8 hours a day.

 

So, while the mainstream seems to think we're close to affordable, flawless totally autonomous cars I agree with you we are way off.

I find it very weird that the same governments that mandate all the safety laws that require a LGV, traveling at 20KPH in a controlled factory setting, to have 8 safety scanners - set so precisely they stop for a pallet splinter on the ground - allow autonomous cars to roam the real streets so easily and so quickly.

[PineyCreek]

From your title alone I was thinking the computer was watching TV instead of paying attention to the road.

[Spotty]

28 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

From your title alone I was thinking the computer was watching TV instead of paying attention to the road.

GOOD NEWS! We've made a fully sentient artificial intelligence......
... Bad news is all it wants to do is watch re-runs of The Voice and America's Got Talent.

[Teddy07]

I could understand the driver, but the Voice. Come on dude

[alphaproject]

I blame the pedestrian as well.... 80%-20% The lady in the car just happened to be at the worst place at the worst time and I'm willing to bet even a normal driver might have hit that person or ended up crashing their car... I've seen Youtube videos of people that cross the street when they shouldn't and actually cause accidents and they just go on their own way like they did nothing wrong. When did people think it's ok to cross a street like that... like the other person said... you learn NOT to cross street when you are very young. I NEVER have come close to getting hit by a car unless I made a mistake. Regardless of a cars speed.... unless you are blind.... just be careful and check the dang street multiple times if you have to. Also... why was she not on the bike...just made her even slower walking it across that street... terrible.

 

The final truth is.... had she not crossed, she'd be alive... the driver did not crash into her like an out of control driver/car we've seen in other videos.

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, alphaproject said:

I blame the pedestrian as well.... 80%-20% The lady in the car just happened to be at the worst place at the worst time and I'm willing to bet even a normal driver might have hit that person or ended up crashing their car... I've seen Youtube videos of people that cross the street when they shouldn't and actually cause accidents and they just go on their own way like they did nothing wrong. When did people think it's ok to cross a street like that... like the other person said... you learn NOT to cross street when you are very young. I NEVER have come close to getting hit by a car unless I made a mistake. Regardless of a cars speed.... unless you are blind.... just be careful and check the dang street multiple times if you have to. Also... why was she not on the bike...just made her even slower walking it across that street... terrible.

 

The final truth is.... had she not crossed, she'd be alive... the driver did not crash into her like an out of control driver/car we've seen in other videos.

Had the cars emergency breaking system been enabled, had uber's breaking system been enabled or even if the driver was paying attention the car would have stopped. 

 

People make mistakes when on the road, pedestrians too, but the issue here is that Uber made two mistakes intentionally and the driver made one mistake intentionally. while the pedestrian could easily just have had a lapse of judgment, which we are all prone too and is certainly not intentional. 

[TechyBen]

15 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

I wish we had a camera that would have more realistically shown the lighting of the situation but assuming that the lighting is identical or close to how it is shown in the video I don't know if pretty much anyone could react quick enough to not hit her. She decided to cross a pretty fast road without speeding up and did it without any light near her. The driver should still get penalized for distracted driving as these systems still urge you to pay attention to the road but she really was testing Darwin.

It the detailed reports, the system did detect the pedestrian long before the "video" shows. So either the cam is useless, or the lidar (etc) worked very well, and was not using the cam for that part.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It the detailed reports, the system did detect the pedestrian long before the "video" shows. So either the cam is useless, or the lidar (etc) worked very well, and was not using the cam for that part.

The report said that Uber disabled the breaking, so it didn't matter that Lidar detected her well in advance, the breaks were not engaged automatically as it was considered the drivers responsibility.

 

This reports insinuation the driver was not paying attention might explain why the dash came footage released by uber is so dark, it looks like they are trying to preempt a court case and make it look like it was all her fault.

[Lathlaer]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This reports insinuation the driver was not paying attention might explain why the dash came footage released by uber is so dark, it looks like they are trying to preempt a court case and make it look like it was all her fault.

Yeah, it's astonishing how across all this time the news added to a whole different picture.

 

Started out as a potentially clean-cut case of a pedestrian jaywalking in poorly lit place with no chance of reaction from either the car automatic systems or the driver and now we know that not only is the place not so dark but the safety systems saw that person but were turned off and the driver could have reacted but was watching "The Voice".

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Yeah, it's astonishing how across all this time the news added to a whole different picture.

 

Started out as a potentially clean-cut case of a pedestrian jaywalking in poorly lit place with no chance of reaction from either the car automatic systems or the driver and now we know that not only is the place not so dark but the safety systems saw that person but were turned off and the driver could have reacted but was watching "The Voice".

And yet I still think Uber carries the burden for the punishment. 

 

Testing a fully autonomous vehicle that can’t act by itself is testing a manually driven car.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Lathlaer said:

Yeah, it's astonishing how across all this time the news added to a whole different picture.

 

 

I think it was because people in the electronic industry (eevblog) saw that there was more to the story and did a little investigation.  Also companies like mobileye didn't want their name tarnished so they looked into why their systems didn't detect or stop the vehicle (they would have had they been enabled). 

 

I think the biggest thing that turned this around were the dashcam owners and enthusiasts who knew something was wrong the second they saw the uber footage.  It was like showing a professional gamer a 640X480 screen and claiming the problem was the GPU.