News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Uber halts self-driving tests after pedestrian killed in Arizona

Started by tradephoric, March 19, 2018, 01:57:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:51:50 PM
And yet, PER MILE DRIVEN, this dead end technology kills 10000s for every one a human does.  It is just too dangerous to allow further.   

Source needed of the number of miles these cars have driven.



kalvado

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:51:50 PM
And yet, PER MILE DRIVEN, this dead end technology kills 10000s for every one a human does.  It is just too dangerous to allow further.   

Source needed of the number of miles these cars have driven.
Quote
Waymo this week said its test fleet has logged 5 million miles driving in autonomous mode on public roads. That's more than double the 2 million miles Uber reached in December (though both companies are now capable or racking up a million test miles about every three months, based on reporting by Forbes' Biz Carson)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/03/02/waymo-is-millions-of-miles-ahead-in-robot-car-tests-does-it-need-a-billion-more/#5f450c61ef4c

Rothman

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 03:06:08 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:15:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 11:22:03 AM


SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.

And they were wrong.  And now they have killed someone.  Someone who had not consented to be a part of their little test.  People that get things wrong get sued.  People that test bad ideas on unconsenting subjects should get jailed. 

The way you test new technology is in the lab and proving grounds.  Of course setting up a proving ground for this complex a technology would cost billions.  So they just tested on whoever.  And now someone is dead. 

So, you would be fine if Kellogg's made a new cereal.  Maybe its poison, maybe not.  Why bother feeding it to some lab rats.  You just dig in.  And, BTW, we are not even asking your permission, just randomly inserting the new formula among all the regular stuff.  Interesting.

This is how you kill any innovation. Go to your cave and eat your raw wheat - flour mills are not proven to be safe enough, and stoves cause fires on a regular basis. And those studs in your house are treated with chemistry which may contain hell of a load of cancer-causing chemicals. They are tested to a certain level, but who said it is enough? Your home slowly kills you!
Anything new out there can have a glitch. Even Kellog cereal tested on lab rats can trigger allergy in someone - due to new processing technique of the grain, which causes problems to 1 person in a million.
Something more involved? Of course. Ever heard about car recalls? That is just that - lab tested technology not working in real life. Batteries burn, paints turn out to be toxic, and kids eat anything what fits in their mouth..
You may build a test city, hire 500,000 testers - but still not get someone wearing that specific brand and color of a jacket.
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."
Well, 40K people get killed in US every year - and we assume it is acceptable.. Until you find yourself being 40,001-st one.
Suing for money - and probably getting settled for a undisclosed amount (likely paid off by insurance anyway) is perfectly legitimate. Same thing would happen with a human driver. Suing to kill entire technology as suggested?.. Not sure.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

Brandon

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

hotdogPi

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Brandon

Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.

But the pilots are not passengers, just as the driver is not a passenger.  Yet the pilots must stay awake and alert for issues.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

DaBigE

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Except it seems like there's a lot less to have to pay attention to in the air than in cars, especially since there are far more cars than airplanes. Pilots are seemingly better trained. IMO, partial automation as you describe it would be the most dangerous situation. How will the driver know when they have to intervene? That seems like it would add more to the perception-reaction time component of driving a car than that of 100-percent driver-controlled vehicles.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

kalvado

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 04:05:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.

But the pilots are not passengers, just as the driver is not a passenger.  Yet the pilots must stay awake and alert for issues.
And one of big problems is keeping pilots awake during long haul.. Latest changes in regulation require napping one at a time.
And I never use cruise control on a car...

Bruce

The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.



Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

kalvado

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.

Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

Brandon

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

DaBigE

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Uber is 100% at fault.

:rofl:

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PMLidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian

Now that I can agree with.

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 05:30:37 PM
Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

^ This guy gets it. Subtract out the autonomous Uber and we'd still very likely arrive at the same result with a dead pedestrian.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

SectorZ

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.

Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

Having seen the video, I doubt a human driver would have stopped in time. However, the car didn't slow at all, and it's systems can't use the dark as an excuse.

webny99

Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2018, 05:59:48 PMSubtract out the autonomous Uber and we'd still very likely arrive at the same result with a dead pedestrian.

The entire discussion can be summed up by that statement. It is totally irrelevant that the car happened to be an autonomous one, as the bicyclist, and only the bicyclist, could have guaranteed the incident didn't happen by being attentive and doing the right thing.

Brandon

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

kalvado

Quote from: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?
Did NTSB say that they are going to be involved? I wouldn't be surprized, since it is a high-profile case; but they definitely not get involved in regular crashes.

jemacedo9

Why is it that in this society, we have to find a single source of blame in a situation?

This (as with many situations) seems to be one of multiple valid sources of blame. To sit and argue why one issue trumps the other issue is counter-productive.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 23, 2018, 10:27:09 AM
Why is it that in this society, we have to find a single source of blame in a situation?

This (as with many situations) seems to be one of multiple valid sources of blame. To sit and argue why one issue trumps the other issue is counter-productive.

People tend to like to have sources.  And even more so, names.  Or even sex.  If we find out the driver is a female, we can say they are always on their cell phones or putting on makeup.  If it's a male, all males drive fast.  With names, we can instantly tell their nationality and whether they should be deported.  With sources, we can pin everything on one thing.

Obviously, what we really like is to make generic, stereotypical, disparaging remarks.

Of course, we could wait for the facts to come out, but that takes too long. And we'll ignore them anyway.

Brandon

Quote from: kalvado on March 23, 2018, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?
Did NTSB say that they are going to be involved? I wouldn't be surprized, since it is a high-profile case; but they definitely not get involved in regular crashes.

Yes, NTSB and NHTSA are both involved.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Bruce

13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

kalvado

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
welcome to real world

Brandon

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
Blah blah blah anti-car blah

Again, let's wait for the NTSB report before passing judgement like a bunker blast.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

vdeane

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Not surprising.  Uber and Lyft are both currently subsidizing fares in order to undercut taxis, hoping that they can get self-driving cars operational and eliminate their drivers before they lose too much money and the confidence of investors.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.