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

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. ;-)

"Mayayana" on Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:11:50
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:

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?

Same reasons exist as to why have someone else drive the car. One
less skillset to master, _I_ do not have to worry about finding
parking, "Tony" can get me home when I'm too "tired and emotional" to
be safe on the streets. And while Tony drives, I can "diddle" the
Times, the Daily Fishwrap, the Fizzbean Prospectus. Or I can say my
prayers, read a book, take a nap, have a cup of coffee.
Or because I can't drive, due to sensory issues, age issues, etc,
etc. For whatever reason I might not be safe on the roadways with a
car.

What we've seen happening over the last decades is the replacement
of humans with 'robots'. Robots "type" my papers, check my spelling,
will check my grammar (for some values of "checking"), etc, etc,. The
whole "smart house" Smart 'things', Internet of things, we've now got
'bots to replace the hired help. And still, as it always was - it is
so hard to get good help.

That is why I would like to see autonomous cars. So that "someone
else" can drive me & the missus to the gym on our schedule. Sure we
can take the bus - it's only an hour and a half trip and a 55 minute
wait before the class. We don't really have that much else we
consider is important, which we wanted to do today, right?

But I agree - these are the teething problems of a new technology.
And it is so hard to get good help these days.

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

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

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

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

What ever the licensing requirement the software must be capable
of Correctly analyzing the situations I mentioned in my post,
plus a million other situations that do not have yes/no answers.

No it just has to be better than the average human. This leads to a
reduction in accidents/deaths on the road.

Mayayana wrote on 3/21/2018 7:11 AM:
"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.

Not in particular - I don't recall reading the "time zone" thread. What
I said above, my pseudo quote, has been said in one way or another by
almost every rational observer of the of the evolving technology and its
inherent problems.

The capabilities of average human beings in most areas is rather
pathetic and only awesome in a few. Chess was once considered to be a
test of intelligence but many 1960s computer players could beat 98% of
all humans. So was the computer intelligent? No. We decided that chess
wasn't a good test. Auto drivers will soon be much better than we are;
it's silly to not believe that. Yet we still think we are superior, but
not for long. We neither have the attention span, reflexes, or the scene
recognition speed and accuracy to compete (a few years from now). I for
one will be happy to see texting drivers, road rage idiots, etc, removed
from car control. Hence my pseudo quote.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 3/21/2018 1:41 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-03-21 13:17, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip interesting discussion]
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Good one.Â* The same applies after a construction zone.Â* Since
some highways have varying speed limits, this is not trivial.Â* What if
a regular speed change sign is within the construction zone?Â* 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).
[...]

AHA!

The speed limit/change signs will have to be "live", and transmit the
data to the car.

IOW, the (car+driver) is part of a system. When the driver is not human,
the highway has o be adapted to it.

Best,

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

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

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:11:50 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

What rational reason is there, after all, to have auto-driven
cars?

Safety.

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

On 3/21/2018 1:41 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-03-21 13:17, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip interesting discussion]
***** 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).
[...]

AHA!

The speed limit/change signs will have to be "live", and transmit the
data to the car.

IOW, the (car+driver) is part of a system. When the driver is not human,
the highway has o be adapted to it.

Best,

This will take years,

True. Most prognosticators that I've read are saying it will take 2-5
years for fully autonomous cars to be roaming among us. That's years,
but not a lot of years.

and a lot of money which many governments
organizations do not have.

I haven't seen anything that puts a financial burden on governments. So
far, it's private industry that's funding the bulk of the R&D.
Obviously, they hope to gain in the long run. That includes Google,
Uber, Toyota, Nissan, Tesla, and probably a few I'm forgetting.

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

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.

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.

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.

far, it's private industry that's funding the bulk of the R&D.
Obviously, they hope to gain in the long run. That includes Google,
Uber, Toyota, Nissan, Tesla, and probably a few I'm forgetting.

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

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


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course some of it [television] is bad. But some of everything is bad -
books, music, family ... - Melvyn Bragg, RT 2017/7/1-7

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.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

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.



Right, there's no way to know for sure. But lots of us have a very
good guess: no, she didn't.

I'm not a gambling man, but I'd put money on that.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:59:45 +0000, mechanic
wrote:

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

What ever the licensing requirement the software must be capable
of Correctly analyzing the situations I mentioned in my post,
plus a million other situations that do not have yes/no answers.

No it just has to be better than the average human. This leads to a
reduction in accidents/deaths on the road.

Not necessarily. One issue is that people do not know how these
cars will react. If they are supposedly better but cause accidents
ostensibily by motorists but actually caused to due unpredictable
actiions, there might be more accidents overall. They would then be a
net minus.

Parts of systems interact. Just looking at one part is not
enough.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko