manarak Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 10 hours ago, Trouble said: Maybe I'm too old but I hope I don't see driverless cars on the streets and freeways of Los Angeles. There is just no way a driverless vehicle can be as aware as a person when driving 65 or 75 mph on the crowded freeways in Los Angeles. In addition will driverless cars be traveling at the flow of traffic or remain at or under the speed limit, thus choking traffic even more. Maybe there are some applications somewhere they might work but a driverless vehicle on a freeway in major cities does not have the ability to anticipate other drivers' actions. It can only follow the programmed instructions in the computer. ha - wait until the treehuggers take over. In Switzerland, driving a car in the city of Zurich (administered by red-green totalitarians) has been made so disgusting that I hardly leave the apartment anymore when I am there. Such cities will soon become SDV paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, manarak said: I can't help but think about all these wasted resources when there already is one clear and indisputable source of evidence in the form of dashcam footage. Thousands of dollars spent for nothing - once the responsibility for the accident is clearly established, of what interest are the other facts? who pays for the autopsy and the hours of investigation into an accident that has already been elucidated? The purpose of the "in-depth" investigations is so that insurance companies can proportionalize blame and therefore control costs and payouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, mikebike said: The purpose of the "in-depth" investigations is so that insurance companies can proportionalize blame and therefore control costs and payouts. Is that an American thing? Where I come from, if I hit another car and I have full cover the company pays for everything. If I only have third party insurance, they only pay for the car I hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Any time there is an accident which results in a fatality, there is a thorough investigation. Even accidents injuries receives the same treatment. It makes no difference who does/doesn't have insurance or the type of insurance. The results of the investigation will be used by the insurance companies, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manarak Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, mikebike said: The purpose of the "in-depth" investigations is so that insurance companies can proportionalize blame and therefore control costs and payouts. sure, I understand that in cases that remain unclear as to how much blame every party has to carry - but incase the case is clear as in the case of a dashcam video ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silurian Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) Video of the crash. Looks like the sensors should have been able to see the woman. UBER VIDEO SHOWS THE KIND OF CRASH SELF-DRIVING CARS ARE MADE TO AVOID Tempe Police release footage of fatal crash from inside self-driving Uber Edited March 22, 2018 by Silurian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punchjudy Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, punchjudy said: difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows Given that such "accidents" will happen by self drive cars, despite the hype, who will be paying if insurance isn't taken out for the car by the owner? I'm referring to worldwide, not just the US. If a self drive car hits and kills another person, who will be legally guilty? The owner of the car, or the company that made and/ or sold the car, or the computer programmers? Different to the present case as there was a backup driver in the car, which complicates the situation even more. Should be an interesting court case when the relatives sue in the present case. If the liability is borne by the manufacturers or the computer programmers, that could stop this dead in it's tracks, as insurance costs for them will make the cars very expensive. I guess no one thought of this happening in the rush to eliminate human drivers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Given that such "accidents" will happen by self drive cars, despite the hype, who will be paying if insurance isn't taken out for the car by the owner? I'm referring to worldwide, not just the US. If a self drive car hits and kills another person, who will be legally guilty? The owner of the car, or the company that made and/ or sold the car, or the computer programmers? Different to the present case as there was a backup driver in the car, which complicates the situation even more. Should be an interesting court case when the relatives sue in the present case. If the liability is borne by the manufacturers or the computer programmers, that could stop this dead in it's tracks, as insurance costs for them will make the cars very expensive. I guess no one thought of this happening in the rush to eliminate human drivers. Worldwide, easy: same as now, the car, so it had better be insured. US: just sue everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 9 hours ago, punchjudy said: difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows I'm not so sure. The car didn't appear to slow down. There wasn't a lot of time to slow down but there was time for a human to jam on the brakes there or swerve. The car just ploughed straight into her. In addition - shouldn't it be smart enough to see in the dark? Infra red? Radar? God help these cars in the rain... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 How well these cars can see depends on a lot of things. They tend to react to something that is in their lane and/or moving. If the lady had been stationary, then the car would perceive her much as it would anyone/anything on the sidewalk and not react. People in the road may be moving or waiting. She may have started moving due to a car coming from the other direction. It's difficult to tell in the dark what was happening just prior to her walking in front of the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 8 hours ago, pedro01 said: I'm not so sure. The car didn't appear to slow down. There wasn't a lot of time to slow down but there was time for a human to jam on the brakes there or swerve. The car just ploughed straight into her. In addition - shouldn't it be smart enough to see in the dark? Infra red? Radar? God help these cars in the rain... I just watched the VDO on tv. 2 things, the car didn't appear to even start to slow or brake, despite her being a slow moving large object that did not just jump out in front of it, and she did not appear to be looking for oncoming vehicles. The car did have lights on and she would have seen it had she been looking. Perhaps she was looking at something on her phone. I can't believe that anyone that was looking for oncoming vehicles would just keep on walking slowly into the path of an obvious car. It didn't appear to be travelling exceptionally fast. IMO this calls into question, the effectiveness of the sensors, as they should have picked her up, regardless of visibility or weather. No wonder the programme has been halted, and no doubt the "brains trust" will be frantically analysing what didn't happen, when it should have, and why. The lights did not appear to be on high beam, and therefore, even if the backup driver had been doing her job, and watching where the car was going, she would not have seen the cyclist. Another question. Whatever, this technology isn't going to sell, if passengers will be helplessly watching their vehicle mowing people down. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 18 hours ago, punchjudy said: difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows The sensors shouldn't need visibility to "see". If they can't, then they are just as unreliable as the drivers they are intended to replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punchjudy Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 it had to be uber with the faulty software Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Scott said: How well these cars can see depends on a lot of things. They tend to react to something that is in their lane and/or moving. If the lady had been stationary, then the car would perceive her much as it would anyone/anything on the sidewalk and not react. People in the road may be moving or waiting. She may have started moving due to a car coming from the other direction. It's difficult to tell in the dark what was happening just prior to her walking in front of the car. This is not true. These vehicles have 360 degree cameras and are programmed to react to everything around them just like a human driver. It just takes coding a lot of scenarios and it'll undoubtedly a glitch that caused this car to not even react to a cyclist crossing the road. Just like the Tesla that ran into a white van because the car couldn't distinguish between that and the sky. Plenty of this to come. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silurian Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: I just watched the VDO on tv. 2 things, the car didn't appear to even start to slow or brake, despite her being a slow moving large object that did not just jump out in front of it, and she did not appear to be looking for oncoming vehicles. The car did have lights on and she would have seen it had she been looking. Perhaps she was looking at something on her phone. I can't believe that anyone that was looking for oncoming vehicles would just keep on walking slowly into the path of an obvious car. It didn't appear to be travelling exceptionally fast. IMO this calls into question, the effectiveness of the sensors, as they should have picked her up, regardless of visibility or weather. No wonder the programme has been halted, and no doubt the "brains trust" will be frantically analysing what didn't happen, when it should have, and why. The lights did not appear to be on high beam, and therefore, even if the backup driver had been doing her job, and watching where the car was going, she would not have seen the cyclist. Another question. Whatever, this technology isn't going to sell, if passengers will be helplessly watching their vehicle mowing people down. I would think this situation could easily be replicated in a test environment to check for possible issues/failures. There doesn't seem to be anything really out of the ordinary. I would also think there are logs that engineers can go over for possibles clues as well. This type of crash information should be shared among all the autonomous vehicle producers so they can all benefit from it. An autonomous car should have a major advantage over human senses in this type of night environment and this type of accident should have been easily avoided. Accident avoidence is a major selling point of autonomous vehicles and scary if engineers are cutting corners to try to get their vehicles out ahead of the competition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdiddy Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 8:15 PM, punchjudy said: difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows A human eye could of seen her from further off, cameras have big issues with dynamic range in low light conditions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overherebc Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) On 20/03/2018 at 2:53 AM, punchjudy said: Not at all.......it's very possible she was intoxicated and ran in front of the uber car Haven't been all the way through this thread so maybe someone else has seen and posted. Just watched on UK tv the dash cam from the car showing the lady try to beat the car and not making it and the reverse view showing the driver with eyes closed, looked almost asleep, then suddenly becoming awake about 1 second before the car struck her. Quite dark unlit road. Just seen the last few posts before mine. I'm a bit slow tonight. Edited March 23, 2018 by overherebc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 People are going to die with both kinds of vehicles. I have no doubt that over not much time the self driving car technology will mean many fewer deaths. That sucks if it's you or a loved one that's hit by one. But this must go forward just as commercial aviation did. Pretty much the safest form of travel unless you get unlucky. Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 4 hours ago, pedro01 said: This is not true. These vehicles have 360 degree cameras and are programmed to react to everything around them just like a human driver. It just takes coding a lot of scenarios and it'll undoubtedly a glitch that caused this car to not even react to a cyclist crossing the road. Just like the Tesla that ran into a white van because the car couldn't distinguish between that and the sky. Plenty of this to come. You could be right, but my car has a lot of those collision avoidance sensors and it doesn't react to a stationary object (unless I am moving too close, such as backing up). If however, something is moving toward me, then there is a lot of beeping going on. If she was stationary in the next lane, it may likely have not detected it as a possible threat. Although, if they don't, they definitely need to be programmed to understand that anything in the middle of the road, regardless of the lane, that isn't another vehicle has a very high chance of doing something unpredictable. I saw the dashcam video and it appeared as if she came from out of nowhere. It was almost instantaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 4:15 PM, punchjudy said: difficult to avoid that one for a human driver as she came out of the shadows That was because the headlights were dipped. Had they been on full, as they should have been if a human was driving, she would have been seen a long way off. If the sensors couldn't pick her up, there is a serious problem with the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punchjudy Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 "Sensor firm Velodyne 'baffled' by Uber self-driving death" http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43523286 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: That was because the headlights were dipped. Had they been on full, as they should have been if a human was driving, she would have been seen a long way off. If the sensors couldn't pick her up, there is a serious problem with the technology. The headlights are suppose to be kept dimmed inside the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silurian Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 More investigating done into the accident. Something not quite right with Uber's autonomous system. Self-driving Uber crash that killed pedestrian should have been avoided, experts say Quote Autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) company Cortica evaluated the crash video exclusively for CNET. Its system detected the victim 0.9 seconds before impact, when the car was still about 50 feet away, CNET reported—enough time for the car to react and save the victim's life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Silurian said: More investigating done into the accident. Something not quite right with Uber's autonomous system. Self-driving Uber crash that killed pedestrian should have been avoided, experts say Thanks for that. But even at 50 feet detection I am disappointed in the system, I would have thought it should detect from a lot further away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silurian Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 It really seems Uber is really pushing too hard and too fast with its autonomous system. This is maybe getting slightly off topic or should be continued in the motor forum? Leaked data suggests Uber self-driving car program may be way behind Waymo Quote ...Uber's cars need human help 100 times as often as Waymo's cars did in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silurian Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, stevenl said: Thanks for that. But even at 50 feet detection I am disappointed in the system, I would have thought it should detect from a lot further away. It is hard to tell from the video but maybe the pedestrian wasn't initially moving fast enough for the sensors to tell that she would be on a collision trajectory since she was off to the side. It does seem disappointing that technology still isn't adept enough for this type of accident. I would assume that if this happened to a human driver in daylight, the human would at least take their foot off the gas and maybe cover the brake in anticipation. I would expect as much from an autonomous system that can see as well in the dark. Edited March 25, 2018 by Silurian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 On 3/24/2018 at 10:12 PM, Scott said: The headlights are suppose to be kept dimmed inside the city. Driving without being able to stop within your limit of visibility on a public road is recklessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 3 hours ago, StreetCowboy said: Driving without being able to stop within your limit of visibility on a public road is recklessness. Crossing a fast-moving road in the middle of the night while pushing a bicycle is also reckless. The rule about headlights exists because anyone turning into the road will be temporarily blinded by the lights being on high beams. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdiddy Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Looks like uber's camera is a potato and very misleading. Skip to :30 in for accident site 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now