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

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:03:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

Exactly the same thing that happens when a human driver encounters such
a thing, except that the computer will analyze the situation and make a
decision much faster than humans can.

Will the decision be correct?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:49:47 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-03-21 15:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[Live highway signs] would. Not just the cost of the signs, but their supporting
infrastructure, and its and their maintenance. Even just the cost of the
wire, in some areas, would not be insignificant.

Use solar power and rechargeable batteries (already used in a lot of
situations up here, mostly for temp signs and lights in construction
zones), and low power radio to communicate with the car. Easy-peasy (a
hobbyist could probably whip one up on a Raspberry Pi in a day or less).
The chips can be reprogrammed remotely as needed, lots of choice for that.

Snow-covered signs?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:36:39 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

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]

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.

1) The discussion was about self-driving cars, not human drivers.

2) What a non-answer. Of course, you evaluate the information
available and respond accordingly. That does not state what would be
done in that case.

[snip]

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.

I have seen it, but I have never understood it.

I just got off the phone with a police officer who said that he
had worked for ten years in traffic, and he said he did not know the
significance of the "unless otherwise posted".

Think about it. When you see the next black-and-white speed
sign, it cancels the previous one. This is true even if there is no
"unless otherwise posted", so what does "unless otherwise posted" add?

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

"Char Jackson" wrote
....

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtTB8hTgHbM

Driver looking down. There was a second or two that
an actual driver would have at least slammed on
the brakes. They might not have ben able to avoid
hitting the woman, but they wouldn't have hit her
at 38 mph.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:42:50 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:03:22 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 3/21/2018 1:41 PM, Wolf K wrote:
[]
The speed limit/change signs will have to be "live", and transmit the
data to the car.
[]
I haven't seen anything that puts a financial burden on governments. So

The above would. Not just the cost of the signs, but their supporting
infrastructure, and its and their maintenance. Even just the cost of the
wire, in some areas, would not be insignificant.

"The above would", but no one has proposed such a system, so it's not a
valid argument at this time.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:12:12 +0000 (GMT), "Rodney Pont"
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:39:35 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:

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 wonder if she saw the lidar on top of it and thought 'it's one of
those computer cars, it'll stop if I step out in front of it'.
Unfortunately since she didn't survive we will never know.

I don't think that's a widely held belief, so we can probably safely
assume that the pedestrian didn't think that. The laws of physics are
still in effect.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:26:09 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:03:22 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

[snip]

This will take years, and a lot of money which many governments
organizations do not have. Even then what will happen when the Live
speed sign is vandalized, hit by a car, or a deer is standing where the
car can not communicate with the sign

True. It is bad enough when snow covers the sign so it can not
be read. I have encountered this many times in British Columbia,
Canada.

And how did you deal with it, and why do you think the car won't deal
with it in a similar fashion?

I've been in the same situation many times and I can't say that it's
ever been a serious problem. Signs can be covered by snow, obscured by
trees or other vehicles, or the sun can be directly behind the sign,
etc. We all deal with similar situations all the time. Software is being
adapted to do likewise.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:27:07 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:03:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

Exactly the same thing that happens when a human driver encounters such
a thing, except that the computer will analyze the situation and make a
decision much faster than humans can.

Will the decision be correct?

You can ask that question regardless of who or what is "behind the
wheel". Here in early 2018, I think the balance tips in favor of the
computer. As the months and next couple of years go by, I expect it to
tip overwhelmingly in that direction.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:48:37 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:36:39 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:17:52 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

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.

I have seen it, but I have never understood it.

As I said above, I find that quite troubling. I wonder what other basic
information you haven't understood. Do you have any questions about turn
signals, or differences between Stop and Yield signs? Are you a licensed
driver? If not, then all is forgiven.

I just got off the phone with a police officer who said that he
had worked for ten years in traffic, and he said he did not know the
significance of the "unless otherwise posted".

It's the law of averages or something. Sometimes ignorance only finds
more ignorance, and the needle isn't moved. :-)

As for the officer, well, he's a disappointment, but officers clearly
don't know everything, as you've shown. How does a guy work in traffic
for ten years and not know the basics? I wonder if he had ever written a
ticket for excessive speed. One that held up in court, I mean.

Think about it. When you see the next black-and-white speed
sign, it cancels the previous one. This is true even if there is no
"unless otherwise posted", so what does "unless otherwise posted" add?

I thought about it 50 years ago when I first encountered it as a new
driver and it immediately made sense. It relieves the municipality of
putting speed signs on each and every street. IOW, it allows a
municipality to have a speed limit everywhere without the expense of
having speed limit signs everywhere. They only need to put up speed
signs on main roads and streets where the speed limit is not the
default. How is that not obvious?

Perhaps written driving tests should address basic things such as this.

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-21 15:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[Live highway signs] would. Not just the cost of the signs, but their
supporting infrastructure, and its and their maintenance. Even just
the cost of the wire, in some areas, would not be insignificant.

Use solar power and rechargeable batteries (already used in a lot of
situations up here, mostly for temp signs and lights in construction
zones), and low power radio to communicate with the car. Easy-peasy (a
hobbyist could probably whip one up on a Raspberry Pi in a day or
less). The chips can be reprogrammed remotely as needed, lots of choice
for that.

Char said "I haven't seen anything that puts a financial burden on
governments." Then someone else posited live highway signs, which I said
would impose such a burden.

OK, I take your point that solar/rechargeable would save the cost of the
wire; they'd make the cost of the individual sign assemblies more, but
still the total cost would be less (and there'd be less need to maintain
the supplying infrastructure, though the functioning of the panels and
batteries would still have to be checked occasionally). As for the
remote reprogramming, that's only on where mobile coverage exists - or,
you build quite powerful transmitters, or send someone along the road to
do the reprogramming, or use satellite, all of which cost money.

So no "active sign" would not cost administrations _something_. We can
argue about how much. FWIW, I'd consider it a worthwhile use of
taxpayers' money, if it was carefully monitored, but it isn't nothing.
(If autonomous vehicles develop enough, then the saving in emergency
service provision might exceed the cost of the signs.)

Such signs could be made much cheaper if they _only_ communicated with
autonomous vehicles - i. e. did _not_ have a display human drivers could
read. I would consider that way of thinking dangerous though, unless
roads _only_ open to autonomous vehicles were being considered - which I
would itself consider a dangerous precedent. I'd accept, _maybe_, a road
where autonomous vehicles were allowed to travel _faster_ over the
sections between such signs.

Though thinking about it, having some roads - or, for that matter, all
roads - where autonomous vehicles were restricted to a _lower_ speed
[than the rest of us] might have wider public acceptance - but the
proponents of AVs wouldn't like that precedent.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mary Poppins is a junkie" - bumper sticker on Julie Andrews' car in the '60s

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:48:37 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[]
Think about it. When you see the next black-and-white speed
sign, it cancels the previous one. This is true even if there is no
"unless otherwise posted", so what does "unless otherwise posted" add?

I thought about it 50 years ago when I first encountered it as a new
driver and it immediately made sense. It relieves the municipality of
putting speed signs on each and every street. IOW, it allows a
municipality to have a speed limit everywhere without the expense of
having speed limit signs everywhere. They only need to put up speed
signs on main roads and streets where the speed limit is not the
default. How is that not obvious?

Perhaps written driving tests should address basic things such as this.

I don't know if things are different in the US (or some states), but
here (UK), _all_ speed limit signs _do_ apply until the next one is
encountered. So I too don't see how these "unless otherwise posted"
signs work, or at least save anything - unless the ones posting
otherwise say things like "for next quarter mile" or something. Do they?

To give an example: you pass a "30 mph unless otherwise posted" sign.
(The UK normal rating for built-up areas.) You then enter something with
a different limit: you turn into a residential area which has a "20 mph"
sign at its entrance, or maybe come onto a main road which has a "40
mph" sign. When you come out of that (reach the other end of the
residential area, or of the fast section), there must be some indication
that you have reached the (opposite) border of the modified area; in
many cases, this indication may well be on the same post that carries
the 20 or 40 limit for those entering that area from the other
direction.

So unless the modifiers _do_ have a range restriction ("20 mph within
this estate", "40 mph for next 1/4 mile"), I can't see there's any
saving to be made in signs. And here, at least, they don't _really_ like
extra text on speed limit signs, as it's considered to be dangerous
(distracts drivers for longer than a simple limit sign), and also it's
not necessarily obvious when the far end of the modifier has been
reached.

[If this _is_ how they work where you are, are they ever nested - e. g.
a 30 limit, within which is an area that is a 20 (say residential), and
within that a 10 (say passing a school)? If so, then a driver has to
stack in his mind what the limits are (so when he gets past the school
he remembers he can go back up to 20, then 30 when he gets out of the
estate).]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mary Poppins is a junkie" - bumper sticker on Julie Andrews' car in the '60s

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:27:07 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:03:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

[snip]

Exactly the same thing that happens when a human driver encounters such
a thing, except that the computer will analyze the situation and make a
decision much faster than humans can.
Will the decision be correct?

You can ask that question regardless of who or what is "behind the
wheel". Here in early 2018, I think the balance tips in favor of the
computer. As the months and next couple of years go by, I expect it to
tip overwhelmingly in that direction.


The street layout in the accident scene.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018...-master495.jpg

This is video from in-car. Released by the police. The player wrapper
on the Verge seems to work, while trying the twitter one using that
URL, didn't.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/1...video-released

pic.twitter.com/2dVP72TziQ

The woman hadn't just stepped off the media.

She was out in the middle of the ****ing street when hit.

This wasn't "one step off median, clipped by car in left lane".

She was moving.

She has no retro-reflectors on the two bike wheels.

She has white sneakers.

The "Safety Driver" is looking down at something
in his lap, at the time of collision. Playing
with a Smart Phone ?

*******

Sorry, but in this case, the computer loses.

After reviewing a number of research projects and company
claims on websites, this kind of case ("difficult conditions")
is handled by correlation. Multiple sensors combine under
noisy conditions, a "classifier" (which normally works pretty
well in demos), draws a box around "threats".

In this case, the fact the car doesn't react at all, suggests
a portion of the self driving system was "down". A sensor such
as radar, can't "see" stationary objects. She was moving. The
radar should have seen an object at 3MPH, which is not 0MPH
like the scenery. She was running, but she wasn't a track star.
There is delta_V between her and the scenery.

The Lidars vary. In a student Electrical Engineering class project,
they use a cheap Lidar, with only very few data points per scan.
The correlation between that Lidar and a camera in daylight, picked
out a number of humans correctly (standing next to cars, on the
side of the street). But it drew a box around the side of a couple
of cars, where no human was standing. That sample system (not intended
for commercial usage) had false positives. But, it was also
data starved.

The Lidar on these cars, is 64 lasers (in infrared), collecting
a million data points per second. That scene would have been
lit up like a Christmas tree. But, Lidar has limited range.
(They're allowed to use more optical power, if the scanning lasers
run at 1550nm, which is more "eye safe" for the public on the street.)

For a non-reflective target (like the victim), the "range" is on
the order of 50 meters (150 feet). Cars can be detected from a longer
distance. The scanning assembly doesn't rotate that fast, so there's
potential response latency.

There's absolutely no sign in that video, that the Lidar (by
itself) saw anything. If the Lidar had info, and the vehicle camera
had picked her up on visual, the car would have swerved or braked
well before getting to her. It might still have hit her, but
not at 45MPH.

You would combine the Lidar "cloud of dots" ranging, with a second
sensor. In the video, the recording camera (which may not be the
camera used for driving), shows there wouldn't be a lot of visual.
There should be good detection at 50 meters (150 feet) for the
Lidar. The radar should have picked this up (as she was running).

The classifier used in the Electrical Engineering student project,
is able to pick up stationary people standing next to cars (so the
car functions as "interference" for the test).

I can only conclude from the info so far, that the Uber car tech
failed to meet objectives. And in clear dry (night time)
conditions. No raging rain storm. No snow storm. No forest
fire smoke. No fog. Just a clear night. Um, yikes!

If there was a tech failure, you'd think there would be
indicators in the cabin flashing or speaking, indicating
a portion of the system was non-functional. For a computer
crash, you could use watchdogs or majority voting. I have no idea
how redundancy is handled in these self-driving cars. Do they
have any ?

*******

This is a Tesla Model S threat test carried out by a car owner.

The system worked. But you can tell from the test results, that
there is a certain degree of separation, between camera detected
events and radar detected events. The system doesn't seem to
be combining all the sensors in a classifier sense before acting.
It might be using a slightly simpler method. Some threats generate
a notification, others the car just seems to come to a stop.
Or, the car keeps a distance from the human until they clear off
the road surface. Because the road is narrow, the car is probably
not allowed to violate the center line in the road and drive around.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/15/tesla...enders-humans/

The Model S is not nearly as well equipped as the Uber. And
yet Musk thinks some day it will achieve the higher Level
ratings of the other cars. "It's just a software update."

Paul

On 3/22/2018 1:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
Think about it. When you see the next black-and-white speed
sign, it cancels the previous one. This is true even if there is no
"unless otherwise posted", so what does "unless otherwise posted" add?
When you get your drivers License in North Carolina you are expected to
know Driver's manual. Unless the speed limits are posted otherwise the
following speed limit prevail. Page 51

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/dmv/h...dl_english.pdf

Maximum Speed Limits
In cities and towns 35
For school buses 45
For school activity buses 55
Outside cities and towns 55
For interstates 70

I have seen similar information in Indiana and Ohio. I assume all
states have the default speed limits.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

Rodney Pont wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:39:35 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:

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 wonder if she saw the lidar on top of it and thought 'it's one of
those computer cars, it'll stop if I step out in front of it'.
Unfortunately since she didn't survive we will never know.


There is video available now.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018...-master495.jpg

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/1...video-released

She was in the middle of the road.

This wasn't a "take one step off median, get clipped" case.

The car should have detected this. It didn't.

The weather conditions are perfect. And, it's nighttime.

Now the question is, what part of the car failed. Did
the computer crash ? Did the classifier hardware crash ?
What exception condition or BSOD was it throwing at the time ?

The car doesn't react at all.

The Safety Driver isn't much of a safety driver.

Paul

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-22 08:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-21 15:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[Live highway signs] would. Not just the cost of the signs, but
their supporting* infrastructure, and its and their maintenance.
Even just the cost of the* wire, in some areas, would not be insignificant.

Use solar power and rechargeable batteries (already used in a lot of
situations up here, mostly for temp signs and lights in construction
zones), and low power radio to communicate with the car. Easy-peasy
(a hobbyist could probably whip one up on a Raspberry Pi in a day or
less). The chips can be reprogrammed remotely as needed, lots of
choice for that.

Char said "I haven't seen anything that puts a financial burden on
governments." Then someone else posited live highway signs, which I
said would impose such a burden.
[...]

You're complicating things. "Active signage" already exists. On

I never said it didn't. Adding it where it doesn't currently, however,
is additional cost. (I wasn't considering development cost - that's
mostly amortized already.)

railways. Reprogramming via satellite also already exists. My receiver
has been reprogrammed at least three times. Solar powered road
information signs also already exist, I see dozens of them every summer
during construction season. Interactive signs also already exist for
humans (have you never encountered a "Your Speed is..." sign?) Etc.

Though I believe most of those (in UK anyway) are not in any way
networked, i. e. they don't generate speeding tickets.

Fact also is that roads (and cars) have been adapted for human drivers,

Agreed ...

so additional adaptation for autonomous cars is a minor problem IMO.

.... but not agreed necessarily. I'd accept that any _new_ road being
built could be made autonomous-compatible (for want of a better
word/phrase) at minimal extra cost, but modifying _existing_ ones (or
de-modifying, if you like) would cost something. (_How_ much is
arguable; might be very little.)
[]
Bottom line: Autonomous vehicles will come sooner than expected, and
I think they're here, more or less. Still with a "pilot" except in some
trials, but he's there much like airliner pilots are.
IMO will initially be restricted to more or less fixed routes, both by
regulation and by the owner's common sense. That's why I think the
exercise is ultimately futile. We already have vehicles that travel
fixed routes: LRT, trolleys, subways, railroads. They are pretty nearly
Completely in some cases: we have driverless pods on the (London)
docklands light railway, and I'm pretty certain in some other places
such as airports; I presume ditto in USA.
autonomous already. But an autonomous vehicle that can navigate a bush
road IMO still a long way away. We'll see autonomous tanks first: they
make their own roads.

(-:

PS: "taxpayers money" is a red herring. You have only one wallet. TANSTAAFL.

True, but different people have different opinions about how much
control they should have over what it gets spent on. For example, it is
my understanding that most USAnians choose to arrange their healthcare
themselves. Here, I can see some local authorities (or national
governments) arguing that extra expenditure on - say -
autonomous-interacting streetsigns can be offset against less
expenditure being required on the national health service (because of
fewer accidents); I could imagine some states/jurisdictions in the USA
(e. g. ones with a lot of roads, where most of the users of those roads
are just passing through) not wanting to spend on such matters because
the saving on healthcare would not benefit them, but the road users who
are not taxpayers in that area.

On the whole, I like technology, and would be all in favour of enhanced
and automated street signage - and, though I don't think it is actually
proven yet, I think autonomous vehicles will on the whole be a good
thing. (Though I'd be wary of any moves that _dis_advantage users of
non-such vehicles - in the same way as I'm not happy when various bodies
assume that all citizens have good broadband, or a smartphone, and make
changes that disadvantage those who don't.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint
of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be
ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13