Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman
AP ^ | March 22, 2018 | TOM KRISHER and JACQUES BILLEAUD

Posted on 03/22/2018 9:31:12 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian

No exerpt.

Video of accident at link.

(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: autonomous; uber
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-180 next last
To: montag813
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.

I disagree. A radar system would have picked her up a thousand feet away. Someone posted earlier that the LIDAR system on the car would have seen her within 20 yards.

There is no reason whatsoever that a computer controlled car should have hit any object in the road, let alone a person. If they can't detect objects in the road, their design isn't ready to be on the road.

81 posted on 03/22/2018 11:54:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Exactly. We should just eliminate procreation and eventually there be 0 dead annually. Brilliant.


82 posted on 03/22/2018 11:56:55 AM PDT by bramps (It's the Islam, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
And if in the meantime a less than perfect autonomous car runs over an idiot who should have not been on the street, then oh well. Too bad for her.

If that object in the road had been a Cow, or perhaps a girder dropped off a truck, it would have possibly killed everyone riding in the driverless car.

A system that cannot detect objects in the road should not be permitted on the road.

83 posted on 03/22/2018 11:57:34 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: montag813

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.
........................................................
Pretty heartless. I would guess she was homeless and not all there mentally.


84 posted on 03/22/2018 12:00:42 PM PDT by bramps (It's the Islam, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives
Well, yes. Obviously the brakes should have been and would have been applied if the system had recognized the object as a person.

What sort of object in the road would it have been okay for the car to run into?

That it was a person is irrelevant. Why would anyone tolerate a car that runs into anything? What if that had been a Cow, or a Moose or something?

Cars should not run into anything in the road. Had that been a concrete block, it would have likely wrecked the car.

A car that cannot detect objects in the road (regardless of what they are) should not be on the road.

85 posted on 03/22/2018 12:03:32 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

I think the low beams were about right. But I agree that high beams would have saved her life.

But these are all mistakes a human can make while driving. I had a real epiphany when it was pointed out to me that self driving cars don’t have to be perfect. They just have to be as safe as human drivers. And that’s not really that hard. :)


86 posted on 03/22/2018 12:05:34 PM PDT by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm using my wife's account.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

A win win


87 posted on 03/22/2018 12:10:47 PM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
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.

There are 254 million registered cars in the US. Assuming those cars drive umpteen billion miles per year, what is their ratio of miles driven per accident to the self driving cars miles driven per accident?

According to this webpage, it appears that vehicles striking Pedestrians account for about 548 deaths per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

I'm not certain, but I'll bet self driving cars have more accidents per mile driven than do the rest of all the cars in the US.

88 posted on 03/22/2018 12:16:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: montag813
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.

Let us assume she was just a stack of bricks that had fallen off of a truck. Should the car have ran into it?

Her dumbness has nothing to do with it. The dumbness that matters here is the dumbness that thinks it's okay for a car to hit stuff that is in the road.

If there was not a system failure on it's obstacle detection system, than whoever let this thing onto the road is an imbecile.

89 posted on 03/22/2018 12:18:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; vooch
At that speed, and with the headlights on low beam, YOU wouldn't have been able to brake until after the woman was dead.

Point 1: I would not have been asleep like the fat chick driving the car. Point 2, I would have swerved. Even then I would probably have hit the pedestrian. But there's good chance the algorithms didn't include pedestrian with bicycle. And a sleeping safety driver is a negligent safety driver.

90 posted on 03/22/2018 12:28:55 PM PDT by palmer (...if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

“1. The “safety backup” driver was not paying attention.”

This shouldn’t matter - the problem with all these “semi self driving” systems is shortly after having some confidence in the system, the “human backup” will cease paying attention just about every time.

“2. All the reports I’ve seen indicate the brakes were never applied. This is a huge problem for Uber and the designer of the self-driving system. Even if the vehicle could not have stopped in time to avoid striking the pedestrian, the brakes should have been applied.”

Right. In fact, the car probably should have been able to avoid the woman (who bears a lot of fault for obviously not paying attention to traffic at all) since its LIDAR should have seen her even in the dark. I’m waiting to hear the explanation for the LIDAR not functioning as designed.


91 posted on 03/22/2018 12:31:38 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty (Make America Greater Than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: montag813
and the woman did not once even turn to glance at oncoming headlights.

The woman crossing didn't expect the self-driving car to come up at speed. She probably assumed the car would slow down, which is why she didn't walk any faster. My guess the car algorithm was faulty and fooled by the bike, much like the Tesla that thought a white truck was "sky".

92 posted on 03/22/2018 12:32:37 PM PDT by palmer (...if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A system that cannot detect objects in the road should not be permitted on the road.

I agree completely. The self-driving car did not slow at all. The victim assumed there was an actual driver, not crappy SW.

93 posted on 03/22/2018 12:36:03 PM PDT by palmer (...if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: palmer
She probably assumed the car would slow down, which is why she didn't walk any faster.

Reminds me of my arrogant x (number 2). She assumed that the car had to yield to her as she was jaywalking one day. Problem was, the driver didn't see her and struck her, breaking her leg.

I had an awful time......trying not to laugh

94 posted on 03/22/2018 12:43:35 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

These cars are equipped with Radar and night vision supported by A.I..

They love to tout as features that make their autonomous vehicle safer than a human driver, as the computers systems can see further ahead than a human driver.


95 posted on 03/22/2018 1:05:29 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me https://youtu.be/wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Cars should not run into anything in the road. Had that been a concrete block, it would have likely wrecked the car.

A car that cannot detect objects in the road (regardless of what they are) should not be on the road.

How do you differentiate actual objects from shadows in a visual recognition system. You have to approach the problem without the built-in knowledge we all have of objects. A computer system processing a light sensor array only sees various colors at each of the sensor locations. There is no inherent image. The actual objects need to be differentiated from artifacts like shadows, glare.

Systems need to not only differentiate actual objects from artifacts, they need to discount objects that it should not stop for. You don't want the car stopping because some leaves fall in front of the car, or a trash bag blows across its path. What if it starts snowing or raining? So yes, there are real objects that are ok to run into. It's determining what is actually present in the path of the car that is a non-trivial task, but ultimately doable.

96 posted on 03/22/2018 1:17:00 PM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Indeed! I still contend that lawyers will doom the driverless car fantasy!


97 posted on 03/22/2018 1:18:38 PM PDT by gr8eman (Since God has been banished from our classrooms, Satan has filled the void.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

People make a poor RADAR target and night vision is helped by appropriate illumination. Insulating clothing makes peeps more difficult to ID and track.

Proceeding slowly greatly reduces the area of danger to monitor.

Eventually pedestrians will be able to intimidate autonomous vehicles to make them drive at slower speeds.


98 posted on 03/22/2018 1:20:10 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Oh, wait...here’s the problem...

You had the car on “Population Control” setting.

Deathwish2018


99 posted on 03/22/2018 1:32:10 PM PDT by Sapwolf (Talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty. -Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerod

“The Uber car was equipped with LIDAR that has a 20 meter range”

I would doubt that they would invest in that technology if it only had a range of 20 meters.


100 posted on 03/22/2018 1:36:07 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson