Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman

AP ^ | March 22, 2018 | TOM KRISHER and JACQUES BILLEAUD

[Former Proud Canadian]

No exerpt.

Video of accident at link.

[rockrr]

The narratives I’ve read suggested that she bolted out from between cars but the video I saw showed her 2nd lane over casually strolling across the avenue.

I’m surprised that the sensors didn’t “see” her.

[az_gila]

No driver, computer or human, could have stopped before hitting that idiot who walked her bicycle in the dark, away from a streetlight and not at a crosswalk across a very busy road. If you watch the video she did not once turn towards the direction of traffic. It’s ridiculous for Uber to be blamed for the stupid actions of this woman, who had abused drugs and alcohol in the past, and may well have been inebriated at the time.

---

She was only “in the dark” to human eyes.

One of the selling points of self-driving cars is that they are safer since they have better detection system (Lidar, ultra sonic, 360 degree view) than a human eyeball.

Something didn't detect her in this event, or didn't react if it did. I would have expected skid marks from a full out braking operation, even if it was in the last few feet before the collision. Someone's software screwed up big time.

An earlier post mentioned the Lidar range as 60-70 ft. - not much for a 40 mph stopping distance. Perhaps some overall specifications need to be created that set a speed limit based on sensor range? To prevent lawsuits if nothing else.

[TXnMA]

"the driver had more than enough time to avoid the human."

Bravo Sierra. At that speed, and with the headlights on low beam, YOU wouldn't have been able to brake until after the woman was dead.

Watch the video and time from when her white sneakers first appear out of the darkness...

[erlayman]

Even human eyes could have seen her and reacted with the headlights fully on.

[bramps]

I agree and am horrified that absolute outrage is not the prominent reaction at the entire concept of self driving cars, especially given this example.. I would put everyone even remotely involved (including politicians who allow this) in prison for manslaughter for many years.

[rockrr]

Yeah but it was a pink bike ;’}

[longfellow]

Skynet has begun. The woman’s name, Sarah Connor.

[roadcat]

These autonomous cars require dedicated lanes for them and no other traffic! Same as railroad trains. Let’s get federal funding going for building the infrastructure, to include crossing points with bells and guard barriers. These cars are dangerous!

[az_gila]

The police have so far given the safety driver a pass even after viewing the video. They were actually quite quick about it. I am sure they are still reviewing it. I've read AZ doesn't have very strict distracted driving laws if any. That might be one of the reasons they are testing in AZ. If the homicide had occurred in my town, I suspect the driver would be facing negligent homicide charges.

---

It seems to be in the process of becoming law on a town or county level, not a state level.

Here is one example -

https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/police/distracted-driving-ordinance

I'm presuming Tempe does not have such an ordinance, or if it does then the “Uber dude” is not classified as a driver.

[bmwcyle]

Then the woman was stealth.

[ctdonath2]

“she was in the roadway about 7 seconds.”

I looked close at the dash cam video.
It’s 1 second from first glimmer of the brain noticing something odd, to impact.

There is no excuse for her to be crossing a dark controlled-access street with traffic.

[George from New England]

Same here. Brakes would have been pressed and I would have hit her at a slower speed.

[House Atreides]

“The vehicle's headlights were on low beam setting. In the time between when the woman's sneakers first appear out of the dark, and the collision, a human driver would not have had time to stop the vehicle, either.
Having said that, I thought the autonomous vehicles had ultrasonic or RADAR collision sensing — not dependent on optical lighting...

visible-light-optics dependent, then, the headlights definitely should have been on high beam.”
********************************************************************************
The latest car I bought for my family has automatic headlights that autonomously switch between low beam and high beam automatically. And they do so quickly at appropriate times — far better than would be done manually. Adding in its other safety features (automatic breaking, lane monitoring, proximity warnings, etc.) it’s the safest car I’ve ever owned. The Uber should have Incorporated that capability.

There’s not a reason in the world why this woman, who clearly was on a collision course with the Uber, should have been hit or, at worst, only hit after the Uber braked automatically.

These autonomous driving vehicles need to add infrared sensing and supporting software to their other situational detection hardware and software.

[George from New England]

I also believe headlights were misaligned — Too low. Also believe due to no visible oncoming traffic, I would have hi-beam on. And that would have seen her in time to stop.

[ctdonath2]

"I agree and am horrified that absolute outrage is not the prominent reaction at the entire concept of self driving cars, especially given this example."

I agree and am horrified that absolute outrage is not the prominent reaction at the entire concept of self driving cars, especially given some 50,000 dead annually.

[EVO X]

If you do some web searches on AZ distracted driving, it is rather confusing. The only state wide ban if for new drivers and goes into effect July 1 of this year. I’ve read Tempe doesn’t while Phoenix does. That could be old news though..

[Flick Lives]

I have to push back on this. A person in the middle of the street "was not anticipated"? Come on. A self-driving car doesn't use radar / lidar / sonar sensors to stay between the lines; those things are for figuring out where things are. As I wrote in an earlier response, if it's not able to avoid a person right in front of it on a straight road, it shouldn't be out in public.

I think you missed my deeper analysis that the problem is the computer does not see "people". It doesn't know about "people". it doesn't think at all. It's an algorithm. Something "obvious" to a person is not obvious to a mathematical equation.

[Fresh Wind]

I would have expected skid marks from a full out braking operation

No, the Volvo has anti-lock brakes. No skid marks.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would have hit the brakes. Not saying I would not have hit her, but I would have hit the brakes.

A friend told me that the person riding in the Uber self driving car was a "transgender."

Does anyone know if this is true?

[montag813]

She was only “in the dark” to human eyes.

She was an idiot, and probably drunk. Main road, darkness, high speed limit, no crosswalks (obviously), and the woman did not once even turn to glance at oncoming headlights.