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
  #46  
Old March 22nd 18, 02:57 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

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
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.


Indeed.

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.


It certainly didn't seem to.

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


no, he was useless.

Paul


I would be interested to know a couple of things (though these should
_not_ determine any decisions, because you have to allow for deaf
pedestrians):

Was it an electric car (and thus rather quiet)? Was she hard of hearing?
Do any of the autonomous systems currently being developed use the horn?
(I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is no, probably because the
false positives would result in its over-use and thus be used [as
another argument] against autonomous vehicles; however, once things
improve in that respect, I'd say they should - if audible warnings
_inside_ the car are a good thing, then they would be outside too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Victory does not bring with it a sense of triumph - rather the dull numbness
of relief..." - Cecil Beaton quoted by Anthony Horowitz, RT 2015/1/3-9
Ads
  #47  
Old March 22nd 18, 03:46 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

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


I would be interested to know a couple of things (though these should
_not_ determine any decisions, because you have to allow for deaf
pedestrians):

Was it an electric car (and thus rather quiet)? Was she hard of hearing?
Do any of the autonomous systems currently being developed use the horn?
(I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is no, probably because the
false positives would result in its over-use and thus be used [as
another argument] against autonomous vehicles; however, once things
improve in that respect, I'd say they should - if audible warnings
_inside_ the car are a good thing, then they would be outside too.)


I tried to track that information down.

Uber has set up a contract with Volvo, for up to 24,000 cars.
The Volvo is a regular car, with "gubbins" added for smart control.
So, for example, the steering would have an electric motor to
move the rack and pinion. Uber then installs a kit, to provide
"drive" to the steering motor and make it autonomous.

Volvo makes a whole pile of cars, under the stated Uber contract
model number.

The current generation of Volvo, offered both gasoline and tdi (diesel)
models. With various transmission offerings.

In 2019, some of the Uber fleet cars they might take delivery
of, would include plug-in hybrid cars. It will be 2019, in theory,
before a "quiet" car could be a problem. Could they have received
prototypes of those ? Not likely.

But, it's pretty hard to get reliable information, as the initial
orders for Uber are filled with "table scraps" on a lot by lot
basis. The overall contract is for UC60 cars, and 100 cars
in Pittsburgh are UV60 (tdi) cars. Apparently. But the reliability
of this information is suspect.

All I can really say at this point, is it's a car, and it
came from the Chinese owner of Volvo.

"Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...66S1TC20100802

Paul
  #48  
Old March 22nd 18, 04:31 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

"Paul" wrote

| 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.
|

As I linked below, here's the original on
youtube that all these parasites are linking to:

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

| The woman hadn't just stepped off the media.
|
| She was out in the middle of the ****ing street when hit.
|

Yes. And there were almost 2 seconds of visibility.
Also, before she comes into the light there's a reflective
flash on the left, followed by visibility of her sneakers.
This wasn't an unusual situation for a human driver
to be able to stop or swerve.

This also highlights a problem with having a human in
a robot car. A driver will react in a split second. A human
in a robot car will probably take at least 1-2 seconds to
judge whether they need to take over. By then it's too late.


  #49  
Old March 22nd 18, 05:04 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

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-22 08:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
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?

[...]
It's just a reminder that the speed limit applies where there are no
signs, such as on side streets.

So are you saying they're not actually necessary anyway? (That's what
"reminder" would mean to me, but I can see there might be other
interpretations.)

In the UK, _all_ speed limit signs apply from the point you pass them
until the next one you pass, which cancels the last one and sets a new
one, or in some cases (white circle with black diagonal bar) means
"national speed limits apply", which then still applies until the next
sign. [The national speed limits are - all in m.p.h. - 30 in built-up
areas (even on dual carriageways I think), 60 on single-carriageway 70
on dual outside built-up areas. _In theory_ you could therefore pass
from outside to inside a built-up area - thus a change of limit
downwards - but I haven't for a long time seen such a transition without
an explicit (usually 30, occasionally 40) sign. And I've _never_ seen
the white-circle-with-bar anywhere _except_ when _leaving_ built-up
areas or at the end of roadworks outside built-up areas, so that
_always_ in effect means it's now 60 or 70.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
  #50  
Old March 22nd 18, 05:05 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

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| 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.
|

As I linked below, here's the original on
youtube that all these parasites are linking to:

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

| The woman hadn't just stepped off the media.
|
| She was out in the middle of the ****ing street when hit.
|

Yes. And there were almost 2 seconds of visibility.
Also, before she comes into the light there's a reflective
flash on the left, followed by visibility of her sneakers.
This wasn't an unusual situation for a human driver
to be able to stop or swerve.

This also highlights a problem with having a human in
a robot car. A driver will react in a split second. A human
in a robot car will probably take at least 1-2 seconds to
judge whether they need to take over. By then it's too late.


Yes. The "Supervision Paradox".

That Safety Dude, might as well have been stretch out
asleep, in the back seat.

Paul
  #51  
Old March 22nd 18, 05:42 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 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:51:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

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.)


I'm not sure why you're pressing the point of expenditures being
required when the folks who are actively doing testing repeatedly say
they neither need nor expect anything different from what we have now.

  #52  
Old March 22nd 18, 05:54 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 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:57:44 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Was it an electric car (and thus rather quiet)? Was she hard of hearing?
Do any of the autonomous systems currently being developed use the horn?
(I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is no, probably because the
false positives would result in its over-use and thus be used [as
another argument] against autonomous vehicles; however, once things
improve in that respect, I'd say they should - if audible warnings
_inside_ the car are a good thing, then they would be outside too.)


For a very long time now, I've thought that horns are obsolete. They may
have made sense a century ago when cows roamed freely and drivers hadn't
yet agreed on a common set of driving rules, but not so much anymore. A
non-directional blast of noise has never been very effective or very
efficient.

I think the last time I used a car horn was well over 45 years ago. The
last time I used the horn on my motorcycle was in the summer of 2012. I
made sure I was well out in the country with no other vehicles around. I
just wanted to see if it worked. It would never occur to me to use a
horn where others might hear it, which of course, rather defeats its
purpose.

  #53  
Old March 22nd 18, 07:29 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

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:51:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

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.)


I'm not sure why you're pressing the point of expenditures being
required when the folks who are actively doing testing repeatedly say
they neither need nor expect anything different from what we have now.


These things have features such as GPS and Google Maps.

Who needs road signs ?

Of course, a GPS signal isn't always available.

An autonomous car isn't a Roomba.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...time-lapse.jpg

Paul
  #54  
Old March 22nd 18, 07:57 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 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:54:06 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-03-21 19:27, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
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?


????


In British Columbia (and probably some other places), snow can
stick to signs to the point where the signs can not be read.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
  #55  
Old March 22nd 18, 08:02 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 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:49:22 -0500, 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.


Of course, but much of the speed issue is a red herring. Is the
decision correct, and is it fast enough?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
  #56  
Old March 22nd 18, 08:04 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

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:57:44 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Was it an electric car (and thus rather quiet)? Was she hard of hearing?
Do any of the autonomous systems currently being developed use the horn?
(I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is no, probably because the
false positives would result in its over-use and thus be used [as
another argument] against autonomous vehicles; however, once things
improve in that respect, I'd say they should - if audible warnings
_inside_ the car are a good thing, then they would be outside too.)


For a very long time now, I've thought that horns are obsolete. They may
have made sense a century ago when cows roamed freely and drivers hadn't
yet agreed on a common set of driving rules, but not so much anymore. A
non-directional blast of noise has never been very effective or very
efficient.

I think the last time I used a car horn was well over 45 years ago. The
last time I used the horn on my motorcycle was in the summer of 2012. I
made sure I was well out in the country with no other vehicles around. I
just wanted to see if it worked. It would never occur to me to use a
horn where others might hear it, which of course, rather defeats its
purpose.


You don't have to use a horn solely as an "indicator of displeasure".
It's not an "editorial comment" button.

It can also be used to send positional information to another
driver, who may be showing signs of not realizing you're present.

I have avoided accidents by using the horn for that purpose.

After you've had your first accident where you *should* have
used the horn, you'll be less timid in reaching for it the
next time. Trust me. Ask me some time, what it cost me
to learn that.

It doesn't matter how many years you haven't used it.

And for God sake, practice :-) The next time you're at a left
turn, and the driver in front of you is a microsecond slow
hitting the accelerator , pretend displeasure by giving them
a "pip" with the horn. That gives you a hardware test opportunity.
I've had horns rust out on a Honda, and be completely inoperable
before (there's a high and a low horn), so an occasional hardware
test is called for. And the practice, of not being afraid to use
the button, will do you good. It makes you less timid in a
situation where you are attempting to "maintain dignity" when
instead you should be "lettin it rip".

A typical place to use a horn, is in an "old person backing up"
incident. Where they cannot see what they're doing, and a
little "pip" on the horn, will get them to pull back into
their hidey hole. Don't say to yourself "shirely they can
see me", when you have an opportunity to leave no doubt.

That's what the horn is for.

Paul
  #57  
Old March 22nd 18, 08:09 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 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:40:04 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

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 knew the route and was expecting the sign. The road was also
steepening and getting curvy. (In case it matters, coming from
Keremeos, BC to the junction of highways 3 and 97 south of Penticton.)

I can not know that the car will have been there before or
otherwise know about it.

Had I not been there before, I might have had an accident. So
could a self-driving car.

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.


We do. We can not rely on what we can not perceive so we take
other factors into account. It is not as safe -- after all, if it
were, the sign would not be necessary -- but we do what we can.

What will a self-driving car do?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
  #58  
Old March 22nd 18, 08:12 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 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:19:43 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

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.


Sure, but the moment you have a sign, these are overridden. I am
discussing signed limits.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
  #59  
Old March 22nd 18, 09:27 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

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:49:22 -0500, 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.


Of course, but much of the speed issue is a red herring. Is the
decision correct, and is it fast enough?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko


11.29.17

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/29/...e-the-highway/

"Have you noticed that many self-driving car tests avoid the highway?

There's a good reason for it: the LiDAR (laser pulse-based radar) cars
use to navigate frequently can't handle high-detail images at the speeds
and distances needed for timely reactions."

The current systems on cars might have 32 or 64 lasers. One of the
popular ones, has a range of 50 meters (150 feet) for non-reflecting objects.

"Velodyne might fix that with its newly unveiled VLS-128 LiDAR system.
It has 10 times more resolving power than its predecessor and can
detect objects up to 300 meters (984 feet) away."

With no spec for women hauling bicycles.

That's the first I've heard of that thing, and it's probably not
in any car quite yet. So what reaction time horizon might
that open up ? It helps if Lidar can be correlated with
other sensor systems. Lidar isn't good enough alone.

The correct decision, comes later.

Garbage in Garbage out. That's how it works with computers.
SNR is everything. Algorithmic cleverness buys you an extra
3dB. How can you get the orders of magnitude you need for
really good results ? Better sensors.

Paul
  #60  
Old March 22nd 18, 09:37 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mark F[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:49:54 -0400, Paul
wrote:

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

(video at https://twitter.com/TempePolice/stat...85098542833664)
Either the headlights were no good or misaimed or the video was too
dark. If the video is too dark in means that a human would have
actually hard more time to react than indicated by the video.

Headlights should work about 150 feet. I barely saw the reflectors
on the driver's side of the road for 1.5 seconds. 45 MPH is the
highest speed I saw for the car in news reports. (Most reports
say 38MPH in a 35MPH zone.)

30MPH is 44 feet per second, so 45MPH would be 66 feet/second, so
the light reflected off of the reflectors was visible
less than 100 feet away, when the woman should have been visible
more than 150 feet away.

Also:
1. I thought that the car was able to "see" driver's side of the
road further than humans can see with low beam headlights.
2. I also thought the car was able to see the opposing side
of the road at night much further than a human could since
no care need be taken to avoid shining a "light" into the
eyes of the human or robot on the other side of the road.
(i.e., LIDAR or whatever should have "seen" further than
a human at night, except possibly for reflectors)



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

 




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 04:09 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.