If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involvingpedestrian
Mark F wrote:
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 The latest "evidence" points to a "problem" with the dash cam. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...nt-believe-it/ The *large* comment count for that article, suggests an organized effort to dismiss the comments. By flooding the comment section with crap. There's a lot of money at stake here. I'd certainly be paying some people on Mechanical Turk to write some posts for me, if I was CEO of the company involved, or I worked for the city promoting this project. That's exactly what I'd do, drop 600 comments into the comment section. That's not a normal comment count for that site. The street was in fact, well lit. Not that this makes a bit of difference, to the issue. The car automation failed, using a sensor suite intended for operation any time of the day or night. The car does not depend on city street lighting for its operation. The key message from the video is: 1) The pedestrian was in the middle of the street. 2) The pedestrian was moving and could not be mistaken for a stationary object. You can see the victims legs moving. 3) Conditions are ideal for a sensor suite to detect objects on the street. There are no obvious challenges such as smoke, fog, flames, rain, snow. 3) The system did nothing. It was like it was turned off and the car was just free-wheeling along the street. The human driver, if they'd been looking out the front windshield, is likely to have seen that individual from some distance away. Paul |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Wolf K
writes: On 2018-03-23 13:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [...] Presumably any sign - whether it has the words "unless otherwise posted" - overrides the default. I still haven't seen an answer to how you know, once you've passed an explicit sign (with or without), that the limit has reverted to the default (-:. [...] Char has already told you: when you turn off the road with the posted limit, the default applies. We have a Provincial default of 50km/h within town limits _unless otherwise posted_. That's as may be, but isn't what I was asking. I suppose what I was asking might be written as, how do you know when you're _leaving_ city limits? Example: Our town limits cover about 7km of Provincial highway with a the speed limit of 90 KM/h. The highway through the built up part of our town has a posted 70km/h stretch at each end, followed by 50km/h for the major portion through our town. Several local roads/streets branch off the highway from both the 90km/h and the 70km/h stretches. Those roads and streets are subject to the 50km/h default for built-up areas in Ontario, but for most of those roads, that default limit is not posted. I get that, even though it's different from what's done here. People _joining_ the 70 or 90 section _from_ one of those side roads (rather than coming onto it from one of the ends): how do they know that it is a 70 or 90 section, and not subject to the 50 limit they _were_ subject to? __________________________________________________ _________ / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ | A A C A A A A A A D A A A A A A A A A | 90E===========E=70.E...................E.70=E===== ========E=90 | A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A | \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_ _|__|__|__/ B B B | | | Right? I get it, that anyone leaving the 70 or 90 section onto one of the side roads at one of the As or C or D, would know they're going into a 50 area, without having to have a sign telling them. Q1. How would someone turning _onto_ the fast section at C know that it was a 90 section, and someone turning onto it at D know it was a 70 section? Q2. How would someone leaving town at a B know that they were doing so (and thus that they could go faster than 50)? Otherwise, the end of a speed limit is signalled by a sign with the new limit. If the change 20km/h or more, there will be a warning sign (number with up arrow above) posted at a suitable distance before the new limit sign. Such as at the Es above. That makes sense. There are also reminder signs at suitable intervals along highways. Whether such signs are posted on side streets and roads is AFAIK for the town to decide. AFAIK, that's universal in North America. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "That was a great speech. Every thinking American will vote for you." "That's not enough. I need a majority." - Mo Udall |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
In message , Wolf K
writes: [] roadside patch of swamp, by the time I'd stopped the car and started backing up, it had disappeared. Were you using Macrium Reflect Free to do your backing up (-:? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "That was a great speech. Every thinking American will vote for you." "That's not enough. I need a majority." - Mo Udall |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
On 23 Mar 2018 20:24:32 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote: Mayayana wrote: [...] I wondered whether that may have had an effect on the Tempe police chief. His public comment after viewing the video was that it seemed no was was at fault. A driver kills a woman crossing the road while paying no attention at all to the road ahead, yet no one is at fault! It was a ludicrous statement. Yes, that struck me - being from the other side of the pond - as well. In our country - The Netherlands - and probably in most of Europe, the driver is liable by default, because the pedestrian is a 'vulnerable' party. A vulnerable party is never *liable*. (S)He might have commited a (traffic) *offense*, but is never liable, at least not to any large percentage. So if the pedestrian survived, the driver could have been liable for amounts into the millions and the pedestrian might have gotten a fine. Since the pedestrian got killed, the amount of the liablity would be less, but still very substantial. If a pedestrian committed suicide by car, is the driver still at fault? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involvingpedestrian
On 26-3-2018 6:30, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
On 23 Mar 2018 20:24:32 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: Mayayana wrote: [...] I wondered whether that may have had an effect on the Tempe police chief. His public comment after viewing the video was that it seemed no was was at fault. A driver kills a woman crossing the road while paying no attention at all to the road ahead, yet no one is at fault! It was a ludicrous statement. Yes, that struck me - being from the other side of the pond - as well. In our country - The Netherlands - and probably in most of Europe, the driver is liable by default, because the pedestrian is a 'vulnerable' party. A vulnerable party is never *liable*. (S)He might have commited a (traffic) *offense*, but is never liable, at least not to any large percentage. So if the pedestrian survived, the driver could have been liable for amounts into the millions and the pedestrian might have gotten a fine. Since the pedestrian got killed, the amount of the liablity would be less, but still very substantial. If a pedestrian committed suicide by car, is the driver still at fault? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Yep. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
On 23 Mar 2018 20:24:32 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: Mayayana wrote: [...] I wondered whether that may have had an effect on the Tempe police chief. His public comment after viewing the video was that it seemed no was was at fault. A driver kills a woman crossing the road while paying no attention at all to the road ahead, yet no one is at fault! It was a ludicrous statement. Yes, that struck me - being from the other side of the pond - as well. In our country - The Netherlands - and probably in most of Europe, the driver is liable by default, because the pedestrian is a 'vulnerable' party. A vulnerable party is never *liable*. (S)He might have commited a (traffic) *offense*, but is never liable, at least not to any large percentage. So if the pedestrian survived, the driver could have been liable for amounts into the millions and the pedestrian might have gotten a fine. Since the pedestrian got killed, the amount of the liablity would be less, but still very substantial. If a pedestrian committed suicide by car, is the driver still at fault? I'm not absolutely sure, but I think (s)he is. As I indicated, the (monetary) 'damage' for death would be less, but still substantial. But I assume that no other damages, for example loss of income for hir family, will be due. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|