Uber self driving car kills woman
-
Did you know there are orange bits on each corner of your car that you can make flash to indicate to other drivers where you want to go?
Quote:
Just think: no matter how futile your job seems, there is a man whose whole working life has been fitting indicators to BMWs...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Did you know there are orange bits on each corner of your car that you can make flash to indicate to other drivers where you want to go?
Quote:
Just think: no matter how futile your job seems, there is a man whose whole working life has been fitting indicators to BMWs...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
I do, most times i use them but the other most times my blinkerfluid is empty so it doesn't work :laugh:
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
} -
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian | Technology | The Guardian[^] And we know who the passenger was, don't we: God Mode ON | CommitStrip[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Considering how many human drivers are knowingly reckless on the road, the argument's a wash. However, let's assume that somehow the AI is perfected and has a good fuzzy-logic add in, to boot. My fear is more persistent: Hackers. Also, remote control of the vehicle by "legal" means and without my control. These are more inevitable fearsome consequences.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
And I am ashamed to admit to the the first three as well: all on motorcycles, and the first two combined on far too many occasions. In my defence, I was young and very, very stupid ... I worked out recently that every time I rode a bike for over ten years, I would probably have failed a breath test just from the booze I had drunk the night before. The "falling asleep on a motorcycle" one was my first foreign trip - I left work at 5 on Friday, and drove to Geneva to see my girlfriend. About 2 or 3AM on those long straight French roads it felt like the road level dropped by three of four inches. Ignored it, happened again. And again ... Finally realised I was falling asleep, letting go of the throttle and the sudden engine braking woke me up... :-O
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Shit if that counts as falling asleep I've done 4. Probably 5 although I don't remember reading a Newspaper.
-
39.5 on a 35 is within the UK "unofficial tolerance" applied by the police: posted speed + 10% + 2. So they don't worry about 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40, 57 in a 50, ... and 35 would be 40.5 It's to allow for inaccuracies in speedometers and / or tire wear affecting the speedo reading I understand. I'd suspect other countries do the same thing.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Be very careful with that, you're quoting years old wisdom. Many police forces have lowered the "unofficial" tolerance to between 0 and 3% depending on the country, UK included (3%); reasoning is today's speedometers are far more accurate than they were >20 years ago. (In NZ/Australia it's zero and they have days where they enforce that to the brink, often though it mostly it depends on the cop on the day and with respect to prevailing conditions including the speed of the other traffic.) Anything, even 0.5 mi/km above the speed limit[^] is ticketable even if your speedo is out because it's also "the owners job to keep their vehicle in good, legal, road worthy, and proper working order." Finally they will also state if you are unsure you may drive a little below the posted limit, however too much under, particularly if holding up other traffic is often nearly everywhere also an offence unless you are doing so to avoid a dangerous situation.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
-
Evolution is certainly a slow process. Humans have evolved, at let's say a 20 year generation cycle, over countless millennia and aren't really up to much as yet. Fruit flies evolve exponentially quicker than humans (more than a generation a day) and they're still pretty crap at anything that doesn't involve eating fruit and being gross. Motorists have evolved over 5 or 6 generations and it's a wonder that there are any of them left to breed.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
PeejayAdams wrote:
they're still pretty crap at anything that doesn't involve eating fruit and being gross.
But they are REALLY excellent at eating fruit and being gross. :-D
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
PeejayAdams wrote:
they're still pretty crap at anything that doesn't involve eating fruit and being gross.
But they are REALLY excellent at eating fruit and being gross. :-D
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Yes, in fairness, you have to give them that! :laugh:
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian | Technology | The Guardian[^] And we know who the passenger was, don't we: God Mode ON | CommitStrip[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Sounds like suicide-by-self-driving-car -- that'll be a thing, like jumping in front of a train. Oh, and the blasted things are all over the place in this area. And they're pretty obvious, so if you want to off yourself with one it must be pretty easy, though I won't test that theory.
-
Thank you for that, it was an interesting read. From that report it seems that the self driving cars have less minor accidents. It is a lot closer with the more significant accidents, but self-driving cars still have less accidents (although by the admission of the report there is too little data to form any conclusions.) I personally think they over-estimate the number of unreported serious accidents - although I might be wrong there. One thing they omit is the number of incidents that are averted by the driver interceding. I believe all of the data was gathered with an actual driver. What we are seeing more of now is driverless cars. BTW in case you have not guessed I am against driverless cars, as I do not think they are ready yet, but I am not against self-driving cars.
-
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian | Technology | The Guardian[^] And we know who the passenger was, don't we: God Mode ON | CommitStrip[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
And, the Self-drive Uber car attendant is... a FELON. Bank robbery. So much for Uber doing background checks.
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac. The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it. ~ my brother Jeff
-
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian | Technology | The Guardian[^] And we know who the passenger was, don't we: God Mode ON | CommitStrip[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
This is certainly going to happen if you are going to let AI drive a car. After all, the human mind is something which even the greatest scientists of all time cannot think of building. So, better let humans drive cars around the world.
-
This is certainly going to happen if you are going to let AI drive a car. After all, the human mind is something which even the greatest scientists of all time cannot think of building. So, better let humans drive cars around the world.
It's not AI, it's just a computer program driving a car, "true intelligence" is not involved, just sensors and inputs. But ... I disagree with you. Think about it: a driverless car is never pissed, stoned, asleep, reading a newspaper, (or in extreme cases having sex). Never unlicensed, angry, suicidal, distracted by the kids in the back, maintaining eye contact with the passenger while having a conversation, or diving into the glove box to change the music. Driving a car is dangerous - the use of them as terrorist weapons shows that, even if the road death toll didn't (nearly 150,000 people are killed on the road of India every year!) And most humans are really pretty bad at it. Within a generation, the "right" to drive a car will be withdrawn, replaced with a legal requirement to have a robot do it for you. And that generation's children will be horrified that we drove ourselves!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
You are describing a good human driver, what about the many deaths daily caused by detracted, dangerous drivers. By the time this technology makes it to the mainstream, all the bugs will be sorted out and the roads will be a far safer place, current dangerous and careless driving offenses will no longer exist.
I doubt that 'all' bugs will be sorted out, but that is not the point. At all. The point is that the system works better than most human drivers. Judging by the very few reports of autonomous vehicles involved in accidents, these systems have already surpassed that mark! I'm sure if, today, all vehicles would be equipped with the latest autonomous systems, the number of accidents would be drastically reduced, and the main cause for accidents still happening would be pedestrians, bikers, and other road users that are not equipped with such a system for whatever reason, behaving in erratic ways. The only good reason against such a stepp would be indications that autonomous systems can cause crashs among themselves - so far I am not aware of a single incident of that kind, but of course there are too few autonomous vehcles around for that to be a useful statement at this time.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
Tomaž Štih wrote:
We don't, we train him or her ... and pray.
That's not true. At least around here they make sure that you are equipped with the abilities of a few hundred million years of evolution before they even let you near a car with a driving instructor. Sure beats training a thing that has no idea what it is doing - or why it is supposed to do it. Did they really have to teach you how to look around and make sense of what you see?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the ability of braking in time when a pedestrian jumps in your way in unexpected places while you're controlling a 1500kg mobile object at 38 mph. Or pretty much any other situation that we have to deal with when controlling a car. If anything, the instincts that evolution got us will make us behave inappropriately. If anything, most of evolution taught us that it's best to run over any pedestrian who's stupid enough to run into our path - one less competitor on our hunt for food! In that respect, most autonomous systems are already better than that before they even start training!
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
she walked out in front of it so close than nothing could have prevented the collision
Common sense and experience would probably have saved her, i don't know how you guys drive but as soon as i see someone behaving like he would just jump on the road i drive slower and focus to react as fast as possible. Same logic as with a ball jumping on the road, expect a kid jumping after it and you'll save a live. And another thing, the car was obviously speeding :thumbsup: brilliant technology X|
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}HobbyProggy wrote:
Common sense and experience would probably have saved her
Yup, but apparently she was lacking some. On a more serious note it's true that many human drivers (including myself) watch out for other road users that may act inappropriately and prepare for that possibility, e.g. by slowing down or passing at a wider distance than strictly necessary. However, it's not reasonable (and often not possible) to do this for every other road user, and the reports indicate that the woman was acting abruptly, with little to no prior indication, LiDAR or not. This is the point where you have to rely on others to behave with a reasonable amount of self-preservation. Lacking that, not even AI can break the Darwinian law ...
HobbyProggy wrote:
And another thing, the car was obviously speeding
Was it? I only saw statements about it not showing any signs of slowing down. Which is kind of odd, given that the LiDAR systems should have been able to recognize an obstacle and should have caused the system to do something to limit the effect of the impact, assuming that it was too late for evasive maneuvers.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
CodeWraith wrote:
even the dumbest human driver has a few million years of evolution behind him
When that human driver happens to be a p***ed up 17 year old blasting out da G-funk at 110 dB whilst smoking a spliff, sending text messages and driving at faster-miles-per-hour past a school hoping to impress the girls, I'd question the value of the evolutionary input!
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Actually, evolution workks just fine when he wraps his car and himself around the tree at the next bend in the road. ;)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
HobbyProggy wrote:
Common sense and experience would probably have saved her
Yup, but apparently she was lacking some. On a more serious note it's true that many human drivers (including myself) watch out for other road users that may act inappropriately and prepare for that possibility, e.g. by slowing down or passing at a wider distance than strictly necessary. However, it's not reasonable (and often not possible) to do this for every other road user, and the reports indicate that the woman was acting abruptly, with little to no prior indication, LiDAR or not. This is the point where you have to rely on others to behave with a reasonable amount of self-preservation. Lacking that, not even AI can break the Darwinian law ...
HobbyProggy wrote:
And another thing, the car was obviously speeding
Was it? I only saw statements about it not showing any signs of slowing down. Which is kind of odd, given that the LiDAR systems should have been able to recognize an obstacle and should have caused the system to do something to limit the effect of the impact, assuming that it was too late for evasive maneuvers.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
Well, yes. The latest news i saw was that the woman was crossing the road not abruptly, the car and the safety driver should have recognized her. But we will see what the police will state. I also i have to correct the speeding thing, initially they said it was driving 40 in a 35 zone, now it shows it was actually a 45 zone, so no speeding. This article has a good picture of the situation i think -> Pedestrian killed by Uber Self-Driving Car[^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
} -
I know, we have the same "rule" though it's not 10% but more like 7% + 0 but would you expect an autonomus car that is design to drive BETTER than the human driver to drive faster than officially allowed? I think if it is 50 or 35 the AI car should drive 50 or 35.
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}The UK speed tolerance has been tightened, you will now be booked if caught at any speed above the limit. That is not the point, though, the limit is an absolute maximum; you are obliged to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions. In the dark on a road that is badly lit and accessible to pedestrians that is perhaps 20mph. The risk of death to a pedestrian rises steeply between 30 and 40mph, so every mph counts. If you were to program autonomous vehicles to be safe, they would be limited to lower speeds than human ones. And would always give way. And in congested traffic, slowing all vehicles makes journey times less, because flow is restricted by junctions, not maximum speed. But try selling that to anyone.
-
Well, yes. The latest news i saw was that the woman was crossing the road not abruptly, the car and the safety driver should have recognized her. But we will see what the police will state. I also i have to correct the speeding thing, initially they said it was driving 40 in a 35 zone, now it shows it was actually a 45 zone, so no speeding. This article has a good picture of the situation i think -> Pedestrian killed by Uber Self-Driving Car[^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}Thanks for the link. It's much more detailled than any of the other reports I've seen. Not to mention that there are barely two that offer matching information. :doh: In another forum, someone said that, according to one report, the woman was crossing from west to east, which would mean she had to pass across most of the road before the car hit her. I consider that extremely unlikely as both she should have seen the car well in advance while starting to move across, and the driver should have seen her very clearly as well. Also the statements about the video footage seem to indicate otherwise. However, if she was indeed coming from the west, I wonder whether she expected the car to see and move around her, not realizing that it was an autonomous car that may not be capable of predicting her (inappropriate) intent correctly. In some places (e. g. Paris, France) this would be a common method of crossing the street (preferably without looking left or right, and your head dug into the wide open newspaper), and the drivers there would indeed go around you, no problem (which means any autonomous system hoping to gain traction there should be able to do the same). But I suspect that in Tempe the traffic standards are not quite like that... Either way, it seems to me that although AI can beat human intelligence at chess and go, it still fails when faced with true human stupidity. P.S.: it seems the speed limit changes from 35 to 45 mph a short way to the south of the location shown in that article (speed signs can be seen at the start and end of the bridge in Street View)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
nothing could have prevented the collision, human or robotic driver
Yeah well I would dispute that, we've all been in that situation driving along where nobody is in front of you but they are near enough that you keep your eyes open - people walking close to the edge of the road, kids playing football in front of their house, dog walkers with the dog jumping about ... If this woman "walked out in front of it so close than nothing could have prevented the collision" seems likely she was already close to the edge of the road, most humans would (1) gently nudge the car away from that lane/road edge before reaching (I'm sure in Az the lanes are wide enough), and (2) pay extra attention to watch for change of direction. There's more to driving then what does happen, but being ready for what else can happen - yes some things are completely unexpected but where you can anticipate these possibilities you can and should be prepared. You see a drunk on the road do you pass within inches or wait till a nice big gap appears...
It's one thing when you see other road users well ahead that, judging by their current behaviour, can be expected to perhaps act eratically. But it's simply impractical, even impossible, to give everyone a wide berth as well as slowing down your speed, just in case. I am not aware of autonomous systems that in fact watch other road users and try predict their behaviour, but that doesn't mean they couldn't learn to do just that in the future. The question is whether we want it to have that capability - it may eventually decide that it's not a good idea to give us a ride at all: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" ;P
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
