SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A few Soylentils wrote in to tell us about a fatal accident between a pedestrian and an autonomous Uber vehicle.
Update - Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident
I debated just replying to the original story, but this seemed a pretty significant update to me:
The Uber vehicle was operating in autonomous mode when it crashed into 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday evening. Herzberg was transported to a hospital, where she later died from her injuries, in what may be the first known pedestrian fatality in a self-driving crash.
The video footage does not conclusively show who is at fault. Tempe police initially reported that Herzberg appeared suddenly; however, the video footage seems to show her coming into view a number of seconds before the crash. It also showed the vehicle operator behind the wheel intermittently looking down while the car was driving itself.
The link shows video of the seconds just before the accident.
The pedestrian did not step out in front of the vehicle, she was essentially out in the middle of the road, and all her lateral movement was nearly irrelevant. She might as well have been a stationary object in the middle of the road. You can see the headlights bring her feet into view first, (meaning she was pretty much in the line before the headlights could see her, and then move up her body; she's already in the middle of the road in front of him when she comes into view.
If I were driving that car, I think I'd have had time to hit brakes (but not stop in time). I also think that that if the camera view is an accurate representation of what was really visible, then the car was overdriving its headlights. Although given my experience with cameras, I wouldn't be surprised if actual visibility was better than what the video shows.
This, in my opinion, is pretty damning.
Police Chief: Uber Self-Driving Car "Likely" Not At Fault In Fatal Crash
The chief of the Tempe Police has told the San Francisco Chronicle that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg. “I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said chief Sylvia Moir.
Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."
After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway." Moir added that "it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available."
Self-Driving Car Testing Likely to Continue Unobstructed
Self-Driving Cars Keep Rolling Despite Uber Crash
The death of a woman who was struck by a self-driving Uber in Arizona on Sunday has auto-safety advocates demanding that U.S. regulators and lawmakers slow down the rush to bring autonomous vehicles to the nation's roadways. Don't count on it.
Efforts to streamline regulations to accommodate the emerging technology have been under way since the Obama administration with strong bipartisan support. And the Trump administration's aversion to restrictions and regulations makes it even more unlikely that the accident in Tempe, Arizona, in which an autonomous Uber sport utility vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, will result in significant new barriers, according to former U.S. officials and some safety advocates.
"Honestly, the last thing under this administration that car companies and self-driving vehicle developers have to worry about is heavy regulation," said David Friedman, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administrator under President Barack Obama who's now director of cars and product policy for Consumers Union.
Who is to blame when driverless cars have an accident?
[Partial] or full autonomy raises the question of who is to blame in the case of an accident involving a self-driving car? In conventional (human-driven) cars, the answer is simple: the driver is responsible because they are in control. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, it isn't so clear cut. We propose a blockchain-based framework that uses sensor data to ascertain liability in accidents involving self-driving cars.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3 Original Submission #4
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:47PM (70 children)
Nope, that's the problem with self driving technology. People have excellent visual object resolution ability in a small area, and the ability to scan and focus that area where it's important. By comparison, cameras, LIDAR, and other obstacle detecting tech are relatively near sighted.
Even if you have a 12 megapixel 15 degree FOV camera focused ahead, how much compute power does it take to process those images well enough to detect a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road? People are still much better at that kind of visual data acquisition and processing.
Now, as the Uber driver shows, people have much worse ADD and terrible consistency, so, someday the balance will turn, and children will be trained how to interact safely with autonomously driven death-boxes, and it will all be better overall. Meanwhile, we've got billions of people with decades of expectations (explicit and implicit) about how cars should behave, and they're going to behave differently when driven by machines.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:13PM (18 children)
Relatively how much near sighted? The way I read on many places on the Web, the expectations are for some couple of hundred feet - 50m at least - for LIDAR. Night time won't be an impediment for LIDAR (fog/rain would - but the night was clear) and the damned car didn't even slow down The effects of impact scales roughly with the square of speed, even if the crash was inevitable, slowing down may have changed the outcome from "fatal" to "serious but not life threatening injuries"
With an engine capable of 50+kW and the space of a hypersized womb, I reckon one can afford to install quite a large computation computation power, don't you think? Or is it the "let's do it cheap" already a thing in self-driving cars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:00PM (1 child)
Is it a corporate initiative? Cost will be minimized, corners will be cut, "good enough" will be a common phrase.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:28PM
All the more reason NOT to cut corners while in the initial stages - you know, the ones before the laws have been finished and politicians and the public are still buying the whole "Well make this AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE" story...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)
I watched the video and thought -- don't they have some form of radar? Night makes no difference. The woman was calmly crossing the road, not darting out suddenly. The car should have "seen" her immediately and from distance -- unless it war relying on the visible light video to make decisions. If that's the case, an accident like this at night is extremely foreseeable.
Secondly, to the GP -- if a car can't detect a passenger in the road with its sensors and react in a safe way with its computing power, that's not a car, it's a dangerous weapon of random destruction and anyone who puts that on the road deserves prison (after bankruptcy).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:54PM
Exactly.
The white shoes showed up in plenty of time for a panic stop, with resultant much slower impact speed.
Radar, even 5 year old radar such as my car has, would have detected both the bike and the person much sooner.
Spoke reflectors would have helped, but over driving the headlights seems readily obvious.
She should have been spotted before she entered the driving lane.
The car seems to be relying on cameras ONLY.
The video is in color, but the driving cameras need only black and white which allows use of infrared led illumination.
And lidar range is way better than human vision, whoever said it was near sighted is an idiot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:13PM (12 children)
Even with my old-ass eyes, I can see a pedestrian standing in the road at least 300m away, 500m in good light. I can't tell you their eye color, but that out of place thing in my lane - yeah, it's starting to get attention by 300m, and even at 35m/s with 100m stopping distance, that leaves over 5 seconds to focus attention on the anomaly and decide what kind of corrective action to take.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:08AM (11 children)
Is that also true if there's a hill and/or curve such that an oncoming car with HID or laser headlights are shining directly in your eyes?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @12:33AM (10 children)
Of course not, which is why I don't drive 125kph over blind hills or around sharp bends.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @02:42AM (9 children)
You took my question too personally. I was trying to lead up to making a general point about how insanely bright some newer headlights are, and how dangerous they are because _I_ can't see anything when being approached by one, especially if there are hills, curves, and combinations thereof, such that oncoming headlight are shining directly in my eyes. I would have to slow down to 5-10 MPH in those cases, or maybe stop completely, to avoid the possibility of hitting a pedestrian or any obstruction.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @04:04AM (8 children)
The thing about oncoming brights is: unless the pedestrian wanders out after you get the blinding light in your eyes, you've probably already noticed them. Even with the blinding oncoming lights, they can silhouette a lot of things, not everything in your lane, but most things that stand as high or higher than the headlights. Yes, they suck, but oncoming headlights have always sucked, even before LED, Laser, HID, or Halogens.
My biggest pet peeve are the old junkers with the plastic headlight covers that are completely fogged with age, it just takes a few minutes with rubbing compound to restore them, but owners of the old junkers never seem to take the time to do that, so when they go out at night even their low beams are fully diffused - they can't see much, and low beams vs high beams all go the same place: everywhere.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday March 23 2018, @04:30PM (7 children)
I spent over an hour sanding and polishing my old junkers plastic headlights and while it made one hell of an improvement, they're still somewhat foggy. Definitely not just a couple of minutes of work.
Simplest now, with my old eyes, is to avoid driving at night. Unluckily hard to do in the winter.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @07:55PM (6 children)
I went at mine with a series of 600, 1500, 3000 grit wet sandpaper and followed up with some optical rubbing compound, took about 20 minutes per headlamp and they're pretty clear now. I thought I was going to spray them with clearcoat to preserve them, but as easy as that restoration was, I think I'll just do it again in a few years, God only knows how messed up the clearcoat will make things when it fails.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday March 23 2018, @08:27PM (5 children)
Basically how I did it, though I was at it for more like 30 minutes a side and as I said, they still weren't that clear. I think the truck was parked for a decade or so facing south. The paint on the hood is pretty screwed up to.
Never did do the clear coat thing nor waxing which I understand is enough to protect the lenses. Need to revisit them once it warms up.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @11:43PM (4 children)
I did a '99 Miata, and a '99 Dodge Ram this way just a few months ago. God knows the Miata's history, we just bought it a little while ago and they were fogged, but not awful. The truck has always lived outside, but usually under trees - it was quite a bit worse, and harder to work on due to bumps on the outside of the lens, but it cleaned up reasonably well, mostly got all the green stuff off and is near clear. The Miata came back to almost like new clear.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:10AM (3 children)
I think by '99 they were starting to get the plastic fogging under control though it may have been a bit later. Mine is a '91 F150.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:01AM (2 children)
The truck was impressively bad, especially the green stuff growing on the hazy plastic.
The Miata may have been cleaned before, or maybe garaged some of it's life.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:37AM (1 child)
That green stuff actually protects from the UV rays :) Not doubting you but even you admitted it can take more then a couple of minutes of work to clear the lenses. Obviously a lot of people are ignorant about how to deal with the fogginess, too lazy or like one friend of mine, lives somewhere where the condo association will come down on you for doing any work on your vehicle.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 26 2018, @02:56AM
I know better than to ever live (by choice) in a condo association again, however - if they've got a problem with me sitting in front of my car for less than an hour with a bucket, rag, some sandpaper and a bottle of rubbing compound, I would take that opportunity to sue them silly for overreaching their charter, starting with cell phone video recording of the harassment which should be enough to cow an experienced condo commando, but if they want to push it past that I think a good lawyer can get his fees paid by the association to "clarify the resident's rights" to wash, and even polish, their vehicle. If they're dumb enough to put any kind of citation in writing, that should take care of itself in court. However, you're right, it's not really worth the hassle, which is why I moved.
The condo association I used to live in had rules about vehicle repairs, but didn't seem to notice when I swapped out the steering knuckle assemblies on that truck.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:15PM
Can't target the consumer market with a "self-driving brain" that costs more than the average car, can we? I'd be surprised if consumers are willing to pay even a 10% premium to get self-drive capability.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:29PM (40 children)
A human would have been at a lower eye level, would have seen less of the headlight-illuminated road, would therefore have been less saturated, and probably have been able to see further ahead.
However, as a pedestrian and cyclist, never a car driver, my conclusion just from the vid is that the distribution of blame is mostly upon the pedestrian:
(1) busy road with fast heavy things on, should have been paying more attention - seemed to be paying none - those cars were all aglow after all;
(2) no reflectors on clothes (which should be totally subsidised, IMHO, as they make the streets safer for everyone);
(3) not crossing at a crossing
My guess is that she might be schizophrenic, in her own little world for a moment when she shouldn't have been. I can only hope the death was swift and painless.
However, I still would like to see *all* the data that was available to the autopilot, all the camera views, and the lidar reconstruction, before relieving the vehicle of all blame. There is if course the old adage "if you can't see it, then be prepared to stop for it", and if the car couldn't have seen, it should have been more cautious. So some blame seems irremovable.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:37PM (4 children)
She was transported to a hospital were she died later.
It wasn't swift, unless the ambulances travel at light speed in Tempe. Do they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:00PM
I always took that for euphemism for "died at the scene but we really wanted to make sure".
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:06PM
Yes they do...but they hit a lot of pedestrians going that fast. Lots being relative.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:16AM (1 child)
The story said she was unconscious after the hit. Not clear if she every regained consciousness.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @12:21AM
everyever(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 22 2018, @01:56PM (10 children)
That's the thing though, isn't it? If that camera view was the car's view, then the car was grossly over-driving it's headlights - it's the responsibility of a driver to drive within the limits of available visibility for exactly such a reason - hitting something stationary in the road is ALWAYS your fault.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:23PM (3 children)
There's some precise question about how accurate the footage is in that respect, however, it does appear that the headlights weren't properly aimed, for whatever reason. If you watch the video, only a handful of strips are actually visible in the video, which indicates that the headlights aren't showing as far away as they should. Even if it hadn't been a person, a car with headlights like that is liable to run into all manner of items in the road because they won't be visible until it's too late.
Really, this shouldn't be unexpected, Uber has a well deserved reputation for not thinking about the consequences of their actions. It wasn't that long ago that the drivers didn't have insurance policies to cover commercial driving and the company still doesn't have real permission to operate as a taxi service in most areas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:32PM (2 children)
Regular headlights are aimed low. This is required by law. You are not allowed to blind the oncoming drivers.
Vehicles are also required to have bright headlights. These are required to be aimed higher, for greater reach. These are to be used when there isn't oncoming traffic.
Does the self-driving system operate the headlights at all? (maybe the user is left to flip them on) If it operates them, does it ever turn on the brights?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)
What does the law sat about infrared headlights that only can be seen by cameras, wise guy?
If the drive system is ONLY using the camera supplying this video, then that is engineering malfeasances.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:35PM
As soon as there are two IR sensing cars on the road, those IR high beams will need to be dimmed for oncoming traffic just like visible light.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:55PM (3 children)
That video has been tampered with to make it darker. I also doubt that video is used by the car in the processing of information.
Release the LIDAR. There is NO reason LIDAR should not have picked this up.
(Score: 5, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:03PM (2 children)
Supporting evidence for this assertion:
The pedestrian is crossing 5~10 metres away from a pair of street lights (a sensible place to cross and be seen) but is not visible in the video until she's covered by the (low) beam of the headlights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:04PM
LIDAR has nothing to do with 'visible'. The vehicle is clearly lacking if it can't see in the 'dark'. Airliners have TCAS. There is no reason not to supply other vehicles with the same type of technology. Every cel phone can have a transmitter.
Ahhh, but the money shot was the driver's face. Worth a million bucks that was!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:25PM
How this got promoted up in in question.
But im sorry being visible to the camera means nothing to being visible to LIDAR.
The car either saw her, and disregarded it, or did not see her. Either way the car's hardware or software is at fault. There is NO FREAKING WAY that that video is representative of what the car actually saw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:45PM (1 child)
The car didn't hit something that was stationary.
The pedestrian WALKED INTO THE PATH OF THE CAR.
I am guessing you don't drive much, if at all, because your failure to note the pedestrian was MOVING is a basic mistake that a person who has much driving experience is unlikely to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:41AM
The pedestrian might as well be stationary, the head lights hit her shoes first, not the front wheel of her bicycle like it would if she walked into the light beam.
Had it been a block of concrete instead, the only difference would be which side of the car was damaged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @02:53PM (10 children)
Obviously we should blame the dead lady. She was on the road. Everyone knows that roads are for cars, not for people. How... pedestrian of her to be standing in a place that is reserved for cars. It's no wonder she got killed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:44PM (9 children)
Despite your sarcasm - there is truth in what you say. A pedestrian who exercises zero caution is at fault. A pedestrian who exercises insufficient caution may well be at fault.
I speak as a man who once struck a pedestrian. There were no charges filed. A claim was made against my insurance. Insurance company questioned the claim, then paid off on the medical bills, and a couple hundred dollars more. They didn't WANT TO pay the medical, because every ordinance and law applicable to the case clearly stated that the pedestrian was at fault. However, pedestrians aren't required to carry liability insurance, and all things considered, the insurance company decided that it would be cheapest to just pay the medical bills.
It's kinda like the running of the bulls in Spain. Those damned bulls don't have insurance. If you want to run with the bulls, you better have your own insurance! Don't run with the bulls, they won't run your ass over. Don't play in traffic, the traffic is unlikely to come hunting for you in your own back yard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM (6 children)
Bull shit Runaway, I know you like to spout plenty of that, but this one is indefensible.
Do you simply not realise that a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?
If they do not have the visibility ahead, then they must slow down to the point where they can do that.
This video shows the Uber is EXACTLY and 100% at fault here.
The woman is clearly in the middle of the road traveling at a constant speed across a straight piece of road with on visual obstacles.
The Uber 'driver' is not watching the road.
The Uber was above the legal speed limit (already admitted).
The Uber appears to make no attempt to brake/swerve, even once the woman is CLEARLY visible.
So stop being an idiot, there is no 'running with the bulls' crossing a road, there is simple law, and the Uber is heavily on the wrong side of it.
Hitting her while attempting to avoid would likely be Manslaughter.
Ploughing on straight ahead with no attempt to avoid? borders on Murder.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:30PM
Yep. I'd add to it that any human - well, not a psychopath - would at least try to steer away even if it would create a danger for him and/or other cars. That's empathy that AI does not have and probably never will.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:23PM (1 child)
Florida law states: "Pedestrians shall not leave a place of safety." Meaning: if a pedestrian is standing on a sidewalk and you're driving by, if they suddenly jump off the sidewalk in front of you it's absolutely not your fault. Somewhere between the suicide leap and standing in the middle of the road wearing high visibility clothing in broad daylight, the responsibility does shift back to the driver - when in question, the exact demarkation line is determined by expensive legal proceedings - best to stay on the safe side.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:37AM
In this case the driver was reading a book or using a cell phone. He reacted, but that reaction time was spent regaining control of the vehicle instead of evading. Had he already been in control, he could have evaded or turned the crash into a livable one. Uber and the driver should both be held at fault. Uber because their software clearly sucks and for only having one 'safety' driver and the driver for not paying attention. The lady was an idiot for wearing black and not looking, but she already paid with her life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:48PM
You are either an idiot or a person with no driving experience, or both.
DO explain to us why you make such moronic comments, won't you, you useless disrespectful cock-gobbling piece of waste ?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 23 2018, @01:28AM
You will note that I did NOT defend Uber. I only commented that the law does require that pedestrians exercise due caution. Hitting a pedestrian who runs out into traffic isn't a crime, and it doesn't result in criminal charges.
In THIS video, the driver isn't paying attention. That bit of data will weigh heavily in any court case. It's just obvious that he's not watching ahead.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:30PM
Most juridsictions, in fact, do state pedestrians are somewhat responsible for their behavior while not in a crosswalk (and in some states, even in a crosswalk if the lights are against them).
That does not mean Uber is or is not at fault here, just that, "a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?" is patently incorrect.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:00PM
Depends upon jurisdiction.
In Arizona what you say was true when I lived there. Actually, in Arizona (when I lived there) nobody is ever GRANTED the right-of-way in Arizona law. There are only times when the right of way must be yielded, like for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Which is one of the reasons why the Tempe police chief might have ventured an opinion. (Actually, no, I don't understand why the police should have an opinion beyond what they write up in the accident report.)
Actually, I used to work right at where the accident occurred, twenty-five years ago. Across from the theatre is a large amount of land that (AFAIK still belongs to) the Salt River Project. The facility I was based at in security was right there, and I routinely drove past the area of the accident on my patrol route. A lot about that area has changed (the Red Mountain Freeway wasn't there for starters, and I know the entrance to my facility moved to the S on Washington Street instead of the NW corner of Center and Priest), but that area is a gentle-ish hill and curve but it's visually deceptive how much the climb/drop is from Mill/Washington to Center/Priest and Priest/Washington. I didn't watch the video - not going to allow that page past No-Script. But I could see where it could be confusing for a computer to deal with it, at least in the era I worked there. But I digress.
Teh Internets tell me mixed things about California. But this site [ncsl.org] shows that laws regarding pedestrians and crosswalks (and whether a crosswalk being marked is a factor) changes a little in every state. Most states respect marked crosswalks and what occurs outside them varies greatly. But what an auto and pedestrian must do is regulated as part of state law, and the ethics of that appear to change from place to place. But my personal feeling is that a driver should always behave as if a pedestrian will immediately act to get hit (suicide) and that a driver should always be responsibly prepared to make sure that cannot happen. The privilege to drive a powered vehicle should be to make sure it never hurts a pedestrian as much as possible. (Which doesn't say anything about the circumstances of your history Runaway...)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:35PM
Addendum that I forgot... Arizona law also has a provision that the right of way shall be yielded at all times to avoid an accident. That general catch-all might still apply and IIRC it was a way a cop could decide whether he or she thought you were at fault or not, to either cite or not cite based on whether the cop thought you had tried to yield or not. I'm sure times have changed.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:05PM (5 children)
In many countries it is not illegal to cross the road when not at a crossing. Whether that is a smart to do is another question.
Suppose you're a person of a certain age (or a playful child), needing to cross with no crossing in sight. It might take you some time to get to the other side of the road. In this case, the onus would be on the driver to slow down/stop and give way to the pedestrian.
In fact, there are countries (in Europe for example) with laws in place that squarely put the blame on the "stronger traffic participant" (ie car/truck vs child/pedestrian/cyclist) until proven otherwise. They have these laws to protect the weaker traffic participants from the stronger participants (who are required to be more careful and observant).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:39PM (3 children)
The notion of crossing at a "crossing" is incredibly urban. There are millions of miles of rural roads for which no crossings exist.
(Score: 2) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM
That's probably why it's not illegal to cross when not at a crossing in so many countries. Imagine having to walk all those millions of miles. Just to obey the law!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)
Jaywalking is very popular in certain urban areas, despite many clearly defined crosswalks.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Friday March 23 2018, @02:23AM
Jaywalking is really an American thing - a lot of other countries are either much less restrictive on where pedestrians can be on the road, and some countries have no laws against it at all. There may still be crosswalks, but there's no law that the pedestrians have to use them, and a driver can and will still be found at fault for hitting a pedestrian outside of one.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday March 23 2018, @05:00PM
That's not the point.
In virtually all countries, running people over with cars is frowned upon, even if the pedestrian was partly at fault. Even if the driver is not legally liable, it is not a Good Thing to have happen and taking steps to avoid it is highly recommended.
As others have commented - if that video was an honest representation of the visibility from the car, the car was driving too fast towards a dark void it couldn't see. If it wasn't, there's nothing blocking the line of sight between the car and the pedestrian so the car should have detected her in time to stop or swerve. In fact, it looks as if the car just totally ignored the pedestrian, even after she appeared on the dashcam. It doesn't really matter whether the "obstacle" was a careless pedestrian, an animal, a fallen tree, or pile of bricks fallen off the back of a truck, the car should have reacted. If the pedestrian was crossing in a dark patch without looking then they are at fault as well not instead -
Its also the sort of thing that self-driving vehicles should be good at - "what to do if an obstacle is detected in the next 3 seconds - is there a car behind, is the opposite lane ahead clear, what's the stopping distance?" should be a sub-process ticking away in the background, just like the mythical text-book-perfect human driver.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:37PM
Ya know - I had to read your post twice to get your meaning. The human sitting at a lower level? Yeah. What you're saying is, light striking the road is reflected back at the camera. The human is getting less of that direct reflection from the road surface, and the painted lines, so he retains some "night vision", and can see further down the road. Got it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Sarasani on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)
Your nick makes me suspicious of that statement.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 23 2018, @11:34AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:18PM (2 children)
Yep, scraping blood and guts out of the front grille is a lot of work, and let's not even get started about the legal paperwork involved.
Not too long ago I heard a quote from Google that self-driving cars can be made to work up to about 30mph, but beyond that they're just not good enough yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 23 2018, @11:40AM (1 child)
Very interesting. That's good enough for most (as measured by time) urban use, which is the most complex. Of course, AI is advancing at incredible paces currently, and I can't see that staying true for very long. However, the Big-Oh of the complexity of the problem is probably quite harsh. If you have speed x, you can reach an area of size x^2, and therefore the number of mobile entities will be x^2, and therefore the number of possible interactions between entities will be x^4. OK, it's probably not that Big-Oh at all, but it does show that with simple assumptions one can come up with a scary growth rate.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 23 2018, @07:52PM
The big Oh in speed is that double the speed makes 4x (s^2) the stopping distance, in addition to 2x the reaction time distance (which I'm assuming is lower for a digital driver), and visual acuity at that increased distance is d^-1, so you need something on the order of speed^2 arc-second resolution, which I think means that your image processing demands increase at speed^4?
Let's try: 500x100 resolution to move safely at 25kph with a stopping distance of 5m. Increase speed to 50kph, stopping distance is now 20m, image resolution needs to increase to 2000x400 to see a pedestrian with the same resolution at 20m as before at 5m, so we've gone from 50,000 pixels to 800,000 pixels, or speed^4 - as long as your image processing demands only increase with N of the number of pixels being processed.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:32AM
As someone who owns a car - and usually drives over the speed limit - what that video shows is not just speeding, it's reckless driving. The lights on the car is barely low beams (low beams adjusted too low or daytime running lights), and at the speed the car was driving, high beams are needed.
Now, some people believe that the video was intentionally made darker to make Uber look better. If this is the case, I wonder what they are hiding, if making it look like reckless driving is making them look better. Maybe the street lights did light up the road, and there was enough light to see her hundreds of yards away, and the car just kept driving. Except even then, making it look like the "AI" can't even tell that it's driving blind should be worse than admitting that it overlooked a person. Detecting a person is hard, detecting that you are driving blind should be much easier.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:52PM (8 children)
The expectations about automobile behavior vary.
In 1987-1993 I went to MacWorld trade shows in Boston and San Francisco. (ah, those days were fun, back when Apple was a great company)
In San Francisco, if you looked like you might potentially cross, drivers would be careful and might even stop. Crosswalk or no. They would actually try not to hit you. At least back then.
The company mentioned this at the end of a briefing, in Boston even if you step off the curb and into the crosswalk, do not expect traffic to stop unless there is a red light. Maybe not even then. Then there are Boston taxis. On my first MacWorld1 in Boston, the cab from airport to hotel was in an accident (minor fender bender). Because cab driver and other driver both thought they should have the right of way. Wow. Welcome to Boston. It really was as awful as the company said. But before the big dig.
Don't even get me started about how BMWs always have the right of way. Even other BMW drivers (and emergency vehicles) must yield to a BMW driver.
Q. What's the shortest interval of time known to man?
A. The Planck time
Wrong: the interval between the light turning green and the Boston cab driver behind you honking the horn.
1http://32by32.com/macworld-expo-1987-boston [32by32.com]
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Funny) by redneckmother on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:29PM (1 child)
Obligatory quote:
What's the difference between a BMW and a porcupine?
The pricks are on the outside of a porcupine.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 22 2018, @04:50PM
It is illegal in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts to scare a pigeon.1 [boston.com]
But judge! I can't help how my face looks!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:48PM
In California the pedestrian always has the right of way. They are however forbidden on freeways.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:52PM (1 child)
Of course not, the vehicles are going at about 3mph, and you'll be walking around them without paying much mind, in the huge sea of pedestrians and cars known as the streets of Boston. When you've got crosswalks running diagonally through intersections, it's about time to give up on the idea of getting anywhere fast in a car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @06:30PM
Diagonal crosswalks actually make sense. All cars get red lights, all pedestrians cross in desired direction. Then cars get their respective lights. It seems to me that this could be faster for both pedestrians and car drivers all around.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:41PM
I lived in Vermont for a short time. Heard this: What do you call a MA driver? Masshole.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:39PM (1 child)
What's the difference between a Porsche and a Porcupine?
Porsche has the prick inside.
BMW substitutes perfectly for Porsche in that observation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 23 2018, @01:22PM
Worker: I'm here answering the ad to paint your porch for $50.
Homeowner: Okay, the paint and the porch is around back. Get started and let me know when you're done.
(minutes later)
Worker: I'm done. I'd like my $50 please.
Homeowner: How could you possibly be done so soon?
Worker: It didn't take very long. I even put on two coats. Oh, and it wasn't a porch it was a ferrari.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @05:45PM
You've got at least two, making the computation cheap, and you have enough compute power to identify an obstacle within a few milliseconds. Or: you don't have a safe autonomous vehicle. If the latter, the regulators that signed off on it are under-qualified. FOV and resolution are a lot less important than having redundancy and doing correlation.
It doesn't matter how great people are, machines have to match and surpass it if we're going to have safer driving conditions with self-driving cars. Pedestrians may find a new optimally-safe behavior, but the we could provoke the same phenomenon by removing all driver liability (without introducing self-driving cars) so that is a useless end in and of itself. Or we could ensure that safety increases across the board, which is well within our power.