If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:07:42 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. Why not? The very fact that there is testing suggests that things can go wrong, and it might be something to do with the car design. How many more people are you willing to see killed during testing? Would you like to be one of them? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. -- Jeff Barnett |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:
Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
On 3/20/2018 7:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. It will be difficult for the software to be designed to make the reaches that are slightly beyond the facts. One of the problems that I see is a simple one. Yes the car will slow down and stop in traffic, but what will be used to increase the speed as traffic thins. What will trigger start ups after it stops in stop-and-go traffic? While in some places the placement of traffic lights are somewhat standardize, will a auto car be able to find the traffic light in all occasions? What about the stop sign that is mostly hidden by vegetation, will it recognize them. How will it be able to detect a person directing traffic? Could be a policeman, but could be a construction worker of a civilian directing traffic around an accident. The beginning and ending of speed zones will also be a problem, There are several places I drive where there is a sign as you come into a small community, but none after you leave the area for 10 miles, Will the self driving car know it is suppose to return to the default speed limit after passing through the community. Yes Garmin shows speed limits but there are times when the posted speed limits are different than what Garmin shows. How will the auto car no the difference. What about a brand new highway that has just opened. Last summer we drove for 20 miles on a newly opened high ways that completely confused the Garmin. Will a self driving car be able to handle that situation? These are just few common situations that I have encountered. Until these are reliably resolved, I will put my auto driving car in the garage next to my flying car. Remember when we got those about 50 years ago. What about the Segeway that was going to revolutionize transportation. There is more to driving than start, stop, and staying in the lane. -- 2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involvingpedestrian
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 3/20/2018 7:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. The occupant of that vehicle (Model S), insisted a Level 2 design drive at Level 5. Here's the new DMV written test for Model S [potential] owners. 1) In your Model S, you can be a) Drunk and slumped over asleep, in the driver seat. b) Playing Nintendo while the car drives me home. c) Driving with my hands on the wheel, in case I need to take over. If you don't answer "C", you can't get your plates for your Model S. The Model S has a camera and a radar system (no Lidar). If the software had paid attention to the radar a bit more, the car might have stopped in time. https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/11/te...model-s-crash/ Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
On 3/21/2018 8:35 AM, Paul wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: On 3/20/2018 7:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. The occupant of that vehicle (Model S), insisted a Level 2 design drive at Level 5. Here's the new DMV written test for Model S [potential] owners. 1) In your Model S, you can be Â*Â* a) Drunk and slumped over asleep, in the driver seat. Â*Â* b) Playing Nintendo while the car drives me home. Â*Â* c) Driving with my hands on the wheel, in case I need to take over. If you don't answer "C", you can't get your plates for your Model S. The Model S has a camera and a radar system (no Lidar). If the software had paid attention to the radar a bit more, the car might have stopped in time. https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/11/te...model-s-crash/ Â*Â* Paul What ever the licensing requirement the software must be capable of Correctly analyzing the situations I mentioned in my post, plus a million other situations that do not have yes/no answers. -- 2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
Paul wrote on 3/21/2018 6:35 AM:
Keith Nuttle wrote: On 3/20/2018 7:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. The occupant of that vehicle (Model S), insisted a Level 2 design drive at Level 5. Here's the new DMV written test for Model S [potential] owners. 1) In your Model S, you can be Â*Â* a) Drunk and slumped over asleep, in the driver seat. Â*Â* b) Playing Nintendo while the car drives me home. Â*Â* c) Driving with my hands on the wheel, in case I need to take over. If you don't answer "C", you can't get your plates for your Model S. The Model S has a camera and a radar system (no Lidar). If the software had paid attention to the radar a bit more, the car might have stopped in time. From what I read, she was hit just after stepping in the street by a car gin a legal 45mph. That doesn't sound like lack of driver or computer attention or lack of reflexes. I await a full investigation by LEOS, technologist, and pseudo pundits (the media). Let's hope they get their facts straight. Let us also hope that somewhere along the line we get comparison statistics between human and automation. https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/11/te...model-s-crash/ -- Jeff Barnett |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
"Keith Nuttle" wrote
| One of the problems that I see is a simple one. Yes the car will slow | down and stop in traffic, but what will be used to increase the speed as | traffic thins. | | What will trigger start ups after it stops in stop-and-go traffic? | | While in some places the placement of traffic lights are somewhat | standardize, will a auto car be able to find the traffic light in all | occasions? What about the stop sign that is mostly hidden by | vegetation, will it recognize them. | I saw an interesting case awhile back: Driverless cars were having a hard time at 4-way stops. Humans at those intersections often start and then pause, or wave each other on. It often requires negotiation. The driverless car can only calculate when its turn arrives and is confused by the "erratic" behavior of cooperation between drivers. | What about the Segeway that was going to revolutionize | transportation. | Except for the man who died wheeling over a cliff, and the fact that there's no suitable venue for Segways, I think they worked out pretty well. You can now go to the nation's capital and terrorize pedestrians with them, while taking in the sights: https://www.citysegwaytours.com/washington-dc |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:03:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote: [snip] While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. Getting the first bits is easy. Getting it all is much more difficult. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. It will be difficult for the software to be designed to make the reaches that are slightly beyond the facts. And the driver was not doing his job. Having one's hands on steering wheel is rather basic. Many automated devices allow a person to pay less attention. Where attention is then required to handle an emergency, trouble may ensue. When you are in a car and not the driver, do you pay as much attention to the road? I doubt it. (I do not either.) I had one case where I was driving a company vehicle and my supervisor queried me about a turn I had just made. It was a perfectly legal turn. What my non-driver supervisor was not aware of is that the road had been redone and there were now two turning lanes. I was in the new one. He did not have to know or even pay attention, but I did and had. One of the problems that I see is a simple one. Yes the car will slow down and stop in traffic, but what will be used to increase the speed as traffic thins. What will trigger start ups after it stops in stop-and-go traffic? Greater distance between the vehicle and the one in front. Oh, but what if it is the first car in line? While in some places the placement of traffic lights are somewhat standardize, will a auto car be able to find the traffic light in all occasions? What about the stop sign that is mostly hidden by vegetation, will it recognize them. Not a fair question. Some people might not be able to see them. How will it be able to detect a person directing traffic? Could be a policeman, but could be a construction worker of a civilian directing traffic around an accident. Or a prankster. The beginning and ending of speed zones will also be a problem, There are several places I drive where there is a sign as you come into a small community, but none after you leave the area for 10 miles, Will the self driving car know it is suppose to return to the default speed limit after passing through the community. Good one. The same applies after a construction zone. Since some highways have varying speed limits, this is not trivial. What if a regular speed change sign is within the construction zone? It should get ignored until the "Thank You Resume Speed" sign whereupon the regular speed is that new speed (and not actually resuming the previous speed). Yes Garmin shows speed limits but there are times when the posted speed limits are different than what Garmin shows. How will the auto car no the difference. For that matter, I do not know how to handle signs of the form speed X unless otherwise posted. (I just called the police to find out.) What about a brand new highway that has just opened. Last summer we drove for 20 miles on a newly opened high ways that completely confused the Garmin. Will a self driving car be able to handle that situation? If it follows instructions as given by the system I used on one rental, it would have multiple opportunities to drive off the road. I sure did. These are just few common situations that I have encountered. Until these are reliably resolved, I will put my auto driving car in the garage next to my flying car. Remember when we got those about 50 years ago. What about the Segeway that was going to revolutionize transportation. The owner of the company went off a cliff in one. Wrong kind of difference. There is more to driving than start, stop, and staying in the lane. Quite. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:17:52 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:03:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: [snip] While there is currently great enthusiasm for auto driving vehicles I am afraid the complexity of the system is more than current technology can handle. Getting the first bits is easy. Getting it all is much more difficult. We have already seen a death where the automated system did not understand that it was looking under the truck, and the human occupant was killed. It will be difficult for the software to be designed to make the reaches that are slightly beyond the facts. And the driver was not doing his job. Having one's hands on steering wheel is rather basic. Many automated devices allow a person to pay less attention. Where attention is then required to handle an emergency, trouble may ensue. When you are in a car and not the driver, do you pay as much attention to the road? I doubt it. (I do not either.) I had one case where I was driving a company vehicle and my supervisor queried me about a turn I had just made. It was a perfectly legal turn. What my non-driver supervisor was not aware of is that the road had been redone and there were now two turning lanes. I was in the new one. He did not have to know or even pay attention, but I did and had. One of the problems that I see is a simple one. Yes the car will slow down and stop in traffic, but what will be used to increase the speed as traffic thins. What will trigger start ups after it stops in stop-and-go traffic? Greater distance between the vehicle and the one in front. Oh, but what if it is the first car in line? Exactly the same as you do now. You evaluate the information available to you and respond accordingly. The beginning and ending of speed zones will also be a problem, There are several places I drive where there is a sign as you come into a small community, but none after you leave the area for 10 miles, Will the self driving car know it is suppose to return to the default speed limit after passing through the community. Good one. The same applies after a construction zone. Since some highways have varying speed limits, this is not trivial. What if a regular speed change sign is within the construction zone? It should get ignored until the "Thank You Resume Speed" sign whereupon the regular speed is that new speed (and not actually resuming the previous speed). From what I've read, all current testing has abandoned the notion of driving according to pre-loaded maps, including pre-loaded speed zones. Think Garmin, for example. Instead, they've moved to an adaptive system that is closer to how humans do it: pay attention to the surroundings, including informational road signs, and respond accordingly. Yes Garmin shows speed limits but there are times when the posted speed limits are different than what Garmin shows. How will the auto car no the difference. See above. The auto car will read the road signs. For that matter, I do not know how to handle signs of the form speed X unless otherwise posted. (I just called the police to find out.) Unless you're a brand new teenage driver, I'd say that's a troubling admission. Most towns in the US seem to use that system, so surely you've seen it numerous times. What about a brand new highway that has just opened. Last summer we drove for 20 miles on a newly opened high ways that completely confused the Garmin. Will a self driving car be able to handle that situation? If it follows instructions as given by the system I used on one rental, it would have multiple opportunities to drive off the road. I sure did. They no longer use preloaded maps. Instead, they use sensors to drive where the road goes, just like us humans do. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crashinvolving pedestrian
On 3/20/2018 7:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:12:19 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: Char Jackson wrote on 3/20/2018 10:07 AM: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:53:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe [multiple groups removed] AFAIK, the facts are still being gathered, but I'd be curious to know how many pedestrians were killed by human drivers over the same period. If it's more than 1, which I'm assuming is the case, then I'm not alarmed by this incident other than having sympathy for the deceased and her family. Initial reports said she was crossing the street, but not in or near a crosswalk, so I wonder if it would have made a positive difference if a human had been driving. I hope testing doesn't get curtailed by this incident. I believe the number last year was 6000. The real question is how do auto driven car accident statistics compare with human drivers. The Uber accident was not necessarily the car/drivers fault. A woman was walking a bicycle and started to cross the street, not in the crosswalk, and was hit just as she went into the street. The car was traveling around 40-45mph. In other words, it was HIGHLY likely she didn't look before crossing. The municipal police are still investigating and certainly have not assigned any blame yet. In fact they have speculated that this might be one of those where no primary blame is asserted. As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading x-rays, etc, etc, etc. I'm with you 100%. From everything I've read, the technology is coming along much faster than I would have ever thought. There are two major hurdles that I see. The first, of course, is the technology itself. We already have anti-lock brakes, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors, and automatic parallel parking, oh and 360-degree virtual overhead view on the dashboard stitched together from multiple exterior cameras, on virtually all new vehicles. ICBW, but I think all of those things are mandated by 2020. With that much automation already in place, it's a logical (but difficult) next step to stitch it all together and make it work without significant human intervention. The second hurdle is the transition period, where semi-autonomous vehicles are forced to share the world with us humans. We're the weakest link by far, so the sooner we can get the humans out of the picture the better off we'll be. If people insist on playing with Facebook while they drive, let them play on Facebook while the car drives itself. Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. I'm guessing you missed today's Shannon Luminary Lecture Series at Nokia Bell Labs by Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist ( also widely known as a “Father of the Internet”) where he talked about many of the pitfalls of AI being integrated in to the real world. ~ Bottom line: Debugging AI algorithms ain't so simple. ~~ [ Just sayin' ] -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Char Jackson
writes: [] Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. Isn't that just a variation on rail freight? OK, it's more flexible in terms of being able to set up new "railheads", and there isn't as much time spent building up trains (though if it takes off I can see "road trains" as in Australia being pushed), but the principle isn't that different as I see it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Astaire was, of course, peerless, but it's worth remembering that Rogers does everything he does, only backwards and in high heels. - Barry Norman in Radio Times 5-11 January 2013 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:41:43 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: [] Uber Trucking has a good initial approach. A human drops off a semi trailer at a hub near the edge of a city, then an Uber truck is hooked up. The Uber truck takes the trailer to the next city or across the country, where it's once again dropped off at a trucking hub and a human takes it into the city. Out on the highway, there's still a human in the truck, but he or she is there just in case, not as a primary driver. Isn't that just a variation on rail freight? OK, it's more flexible in terms of being able to set up new "railheads", and there isn't as much time spent building up trains (though if it takes off I can see "road trains" as in Australia being pushed), but the principle isn't that different as I see it. No disagreement here, but a country like the U.S. isn't going to make it on rail freight alone. We don't have the infrastructure for that, and likely never will. What we do have is a decent highway system. OK, it's crumbling due to neglect, but that can be fixed. They apparently just need to build a wall first. They'll get to the highways and bridges sometime after that. ;-) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
"Jeff Barnett" wrote
| As someone else said: You should be wary and afraid of those automated | vehicles. But you should be god-awful more afraid of all those idiots | out there jacking off with their smart phones while driving. | I hope you're not referring to me. I referred to the phone problem in the time zone thread. In this context I think it's misleading logic. It's not an either/or choice. Technophiles are expressing an almost frantic defense of auto- driven cars following the AZ accident, and they'll cook up any old logic to make their case. Even if you think auto-driven cars are the future, there's no reason they can't be limited to test tracks until the technology is proven -- or not. Whether the accident was avoidable is not really the point. What about the man leaving his Tesla on auto-pilot and fatally running into a truck? These cases neither prove nor disprove the safety of auto-driven cars. But they should raise questions. If you do favor auto-driven cars.... why? So you can safely diddle your phone on your way to work? Because you don't want to have to bother to drive? Because you don't want to deal with other people on the road? What rational reason is there, after all, to have auto-driven cars? And if there is a good reason, would it not also apply to eating, walking and all the other unregulated activities we do? Where do you draw the line? Should you trust yourself to wrestle a chicken bone without choking? (Of course, it's true that some people don't walk in any unofficial capacity. They pay a monthly fee to stand on a treadmill, breathing indoor air, under fluorescent lights, walking while they read reports for work. Those people only walk when it's an official, retail activity, duly recorded on their computerized watch.... And I suppose we can't really classify the intake of "power bars" as eating...) I can see auto-driven cars in a controlled environment where there are *only* auto-driven cars (with giant rubber bumpers). Mixing them with human drivers and uncontrolled circumstances seems crazy to me. And there's no credible case for the technology in the first place. It's a case of "Jetson Futurism Disorder". JFD. It's all the rage these days. The prescription is to spend a week in the woods to reconnect with basic physicality. | My personnel bet is that 5 years from now we will see self drive cars | doing spectacularly better than human drive cars - better safety, better | millage, faster trips - and still a bunch of idiots (the same ones who | opposed autopilots and computer assisted landings for planes) bitching | about the supremacy of human drivers, vinyl records, doctors reading | x-rays, etc, etc, etc. And cooking? And dressing yourself? And what's the problem with doctors reading x-rays? Doesn't human experience count for anything? You can't computerize life. It's not digital. One of my favorite examples to explain to people the limits of computers and the marketing of "AI" is to imagine an android that's programmed to drive across the country. If such a thing were done then people would be amazed. We'd be thinking about buying androids to raise our kids, mow our lawns..... But what if that android goes all the way from NYC to Nevada and comes upon something it's not programmed to deal with? Say, for example, a road block, a sinkhole in the road, or maybe a 3-way fork? Then the android crashes. Either the software, the car, or both. It made the drive all the way to Nevada only because it was programmed to deal with the things it encountered. That's not AI. It only looks intelligent to the observer. But in reality it's simply complex software that's limited to numeric, linear operations. Unfortunately that also means that if we come up with a Cherry 2000 it won't *really* be a lover but only a high-tech masturbation toy. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|