SoylentNews

First Autonomous Car Death Reportedly Caused by Faulty Software

posted by takyon on Tuesday May 08 2018, @03:11PM   
from the false-negative dept.

Justin Case writes:

The first machine to kill a human entirely on its own initiative was "Likely Caused By Software Set to Ignore Objects On Road" according to a new report on the collision which happened last March:

The car's sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, but Uber's software decided it didn't need to react right away. That's a result of how the software was tuned. Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber's software has the ability to ignore "false positives," or objects in its path that wouldn't actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road. In this case, Uber executives believe the company's system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects. But the tuning went too far, and the car didn't react fast enough, one of these people said.

Fast enough? She walked across three and a half lanes in what should have been plain view of the car's LIDAR the entire time.

takyon: Also at Reuters. Older report at The Drive.

Previously: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars After First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle
Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident, and More

---

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2 

• I don't understand the pedestrians thoughts (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08 2018, @09:06PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08 2018, @09:06PM (#677187)

  Yes, I know the pedestrian had right of way, and yes, the Uber car should have stopped, but read on.

  First, a couple givens:

  1. It was at night, and from the video that was released, it was quite dark on that stretch of road.
  2. A light source can be seen by a human much further away at night than the distance that same source can illuminate an object sufficiently to be seen by a human behind the light source. I.e., I, as a pederestrian, looking in the direction of oncoming headlights can see those oncoming headlights a much larger distance away than the distance for which those same headlights can illuminate me sufficiently to be seen by the driver.

  So, the pedestrian, provided they were even attempting to observe for oncoming traffic, should have been able to perceive the pair of point light sources (headlights) on the Uber car for a lot farther away than the safety driver in the car could have seen the pedestrian via the headlight illumination.

  Now, putting myself in the role of pedestrian, in the same conditions. I'm looking to cross a dark stretch of road and I see oncoming headlights. Myself, I pause a bit, judge how quickly those same headlights seem to be approaching, and if there is any question in my mind that they might be too close, I simply do not start across the street.

  Yet in the video, the pedestrian can be seen in the adjacent lane, walking straight into the Uber car's lane, close enough for the headlights and camera to illuminate her. Why did she not recognize these oncoming headlights as being too close and stop her attempt to cross the street until the headlights had safely passed? The video appears to show her as if she never even saw a car as present. Why is that?

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		1