A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 20th 18, 05:07 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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.


Ads
  #2  
Old March 20th 18, 05:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Gene Wirchenko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default 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  
Old March 20th 18, 10:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Jeff Barnett[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 298
Default 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  
Old March 21st 18, 12:08 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old March 21st 18, 01:03 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Keith Nuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,844
Default 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  
Old March 21st 18, 01:39 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Ron C[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default 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
--


  #7  
Old March 21st 18, 10:41 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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
  #8  
Old March 21st 18, 01:35 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 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
  #9  
Old March 21st 18, 01:47 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Keith Nuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,844
Default 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
  #10  
Old March 21st 18, 02:11 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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.


  #11  
Old March 21st 18, 02:20 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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




  #12  
Old March 21st 18, 02:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involvingpedestrian

Keith Nuttle wrote:
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

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

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.


Level 5 is the only level that makes no assumptions about the driver.

For everything else, you had better be a Rocket Scientist.

Paul
  #13  
Old March 21st 18, 03:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:47:33 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

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

** 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

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.


I'm guessing you'd be surprised to learn how far the technology has come
in the last couple of years. Most of the situations you brought up have
been put to bed some time ago and they're now working on the edge cases.

  #14  
Old March 21st 18, 03:23 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

Keith Nuttle wrote:
[]
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.

[]
Why? For a start, what _is_ the "correct" analysis of a situation that
has no yes/no answer; to go on, do you test human drivers' decisions in
the same situation?

I'm not saying I have the answer (I like technology [presumably like
most here] but do have some concerns about autonomous vehicles, and many
other such matters for that matter); I just view the above as not being
a valid argument _against_, at least _unless_ you say what would be
right for a human in such a situation. [Which you can't if there _is_ no
"correct" choice.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average age of a single mum in this country is 37
- Jane Rackham, RT 2016/5/28-6/3
  #15  
Old March 21st 18, 03:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:34:21 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2018-03-21 05:41, 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.


Rail is much safer.


I agree.

IMO the push for autonomous cars is a sign of of a
last desperate bid to maintain the private car, which is the most
inefficient transport we've ever devised.


There are two points in there. I can't agree with either of them.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.