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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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.

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
--

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

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. ;-)

"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.