Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman

[FrodosNewPet]

Experts: Uber self-driving system should have spotted woman

https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbfb0f6c8ed857465f1

AP - March 22, 2018

~ snip ~

“The victim did not come out of nowhere. She’s moving on a dark road, but it’s an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her” as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but “this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver.”

Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.

“It absolutely should have been able to pick her up,” he said. “From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian.”

~ snip ~

[brush]

1. Many here have been saying that but have been getting tremendous push back from adherents.

The technology is not ready yet.

[fescuerescue]

21. Maybe the technology isn't ready to improve on a human driver.

I saw the video, in this case I highly doubt that any human driver, including myself could have avoided that accident.

It would have been wonderful if the technology could have prevented that tragedy, but clearly it didn't.

[JHB]

26. Do we know if it had hi-beams on?

A non-negligent human driver would have had the headlights on high-beam, giving better visibility over longer distance.

Theoretically the radar/Lidar system would have made that unnecessary, and it is not clear from the video what the headlight setting was.

[a kennedy]

31. High beams?? Lucky it had lights on at all......

I do not understand how cars CANNOT HAVE IT THAT WHEN IT’S getting dusk, or inclement weather why they can’t have the head AND tail lights on, automatically. I can not believe how many cars don’t have light on in bad wether or whit’s getting dark out.

[csziggy]

35. My grandmother had a car that adjusted the headlights automatically

Back in the early 1960s and it would have been a Buick since that is all she ever bought.

I don't remember if it was supposed to switch the lights on or if it was supposed to toggle between high and low beams. It never worked right and eventually she had the dealer deactivate that feature.

It looks as though Buick has tried again with the IntelliBeam - "automatically turns the vehicle’s high-beam headlamps on when it is dark enough and there is no other traffic present and then turns high beam off when conditions warrant (e.g., another vehicle is approaching)." https://my.buick.com/learnAbout/intellibeam-automatic-headlamp-control

[tonedevil]

2. Seeing the video...

it seems to me a human driver would not have been successful in avoiding the pedestrian either. I feel like the position of the article is that there is no point in pursuing autonomous vehicles because they aren't perfect. To me it disregards the current state of affairs regarding driving. It is as though there are no accidents involving cars and this will introduce that possibility where it has never existed previously.
Humans are not very good at driving even if they all think they are. Computers are already better at driving under most conditions and their ability is only going to improve. Awareness and speed of reaction are two main areas where Humans are at the edge of their capability when careening down the highway at 50+ mph.

[FrodosNewPet]

3. I'm not saying stop development

But I seriously believe most people would have been able to spot Ms Herzberg in PLENTY of time in that particular situation.

"In this nighttime video, posted to YouTube by Brian Kaufman on Wednesday, the scene of the crash can be seen around 0:33. Features at the sides of the road—including curbs, signs, and bushes—are clearly visible. No pedestrians walk into the road during the video, but it seems clear that Herzberg would have been visible much earlier if the Uber video had been taken with this camera."

[LanternWaste]

5. Yet not all people would. And it takes merely one.

" I seriously believe most people would have been able to spot Ms Herzberg in PLENTY of time..."

Yet not all people would. And it takes merely one; hence, in 2017 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes

[FrodosNewPet]

6. Yes, that is why development must continue.

The system was clearly inadequate. And I believe the video footage, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is misleading about the conditions present at the time.

Somebody not on Uber's payroll or friend's list needs to investigate this, instead of passing it off as "homeless woman dies big deal it's all her fault".

[tonedevil]

13. Given history...

I start from the position that Uber is going to go cheap and get sloppy. The Uber cars could be inadequate as a result of them balancing cost vs safety and coming down on the side of less cost. I'm with you as to wanting the incident impartially investigated and although I know people can be callous about such things I hope the homelessness of the woman who was killed doesn't give rise to sweeping it under the rug.

[misanthrope]

32. That is the very heart of the matter

Unless Uber feels they will pay monetarily, they have no incentive for due diligence. Their very business model shows entitlement and a willingness to skirt the law as much as they can.

Were it a private citizens operating a standard car, they would be held responsible.

Were it an Uber driver utilizing a standard automobile -- the driver's private vehicle, by the way -- then Uber would gladly sit back as the driver was held responsible.

However this is a car belonging to the company. It's their auto-piloting system. What do you think the chances are in modern America of a major company being held truly accountable for something like this?

[kcr]

10. That video looks nothing like the one in the Uber video

Not sure why, but the Uber video is much darker. The pedestrian wasn't visible til a split second before she was hit. She was also dressed in dark clothing with no reflectors. I'm not defending Uber's technology. I don't think it's ready and it should never have been out on the road, but I don't think this is an instance where it's obvious a driver should have been able to avoid her.

[FrodosNewPet]

12. Either Uber used a worse camera, with an inadequate dynamic range,or the video was doctored

There needs to be a criminal investigation of obstruction of justice to go along with the safety investigation.

[honest.abe]

14. It appears doctored to me or the camera was faulty.

Look at the screen grab from just prior to the crash.. a very odd dark shadow covering the person..

[JHB]

27. Or high-beams vs not?

That’s one detail in all the discussion I haven’t seen addressed.

[pnwmom]

16. That is not the point of the article. They're saying the vehicles need more development and testing

before they're put back on the road.

It has already been shown that back-up drivers don't help. There is too much of a lag time before they notice an emergency -- the car's system has failed -- and when they react.

[tblue37]

36. The back up driver seldom raised his eyes at all to look at the road.

The interior camera shows him looking down almost the entire time--probably at his cell phone.

[pnwmom]

37. And that's the general trend, and why researchers already decided

it would be safer to have cars that are designed to be entirely self-driving, than assume that a back-up driver will add to safety.

[rusty fender]

19. I drove into town yesterday(Santa Fe,NM)

with this case in mind. Although my trip was in daytime, I took in much more of the variables in driving around, with people and other cars constantly vying to occupy the same space. It’s mind boggling, really, and I’m amazed that we don’t have constant mayhem on the streets of this small town, let alone the big cities!

Given the vociferous defense of a couple of posters on the subject of the safety and success of driverless technology, I don’t think that it would work in an old town like Santa Fe. Some of the streets are quite narrow, there are often no lines on the pavement, people stepping in front of cars, hundreds of potholes, etc,.

I don’t see how the technology can advance beyond driving on grid-like streets. And rural driving seems totally out of reach.

That being said, I believe that monorail type transportation is the way to go to move people around big cities.

[brush]

34. Yet none of that happened in that accident. The car didn't even slow down. The tech is clearly...

not ready yet.

[brush]

39. There may have been some tampering with that dark video that was released of the accident.

Here's another video that was taken by someone else traveling on the same road at night.

The car should have detected the pedestrian way before it hit her.

Hell, that car didn't even slow down.

[MarvinGardens]

4. I wonder how the fatality *rates* compare?

The posts I have seen on here defending autonomous vehicles have focused on the raw number of fatalities versus human driven cars. So basically it's one dead ever versus tens of thousands per year. But even if we knew that autonomous cars were equally as dangerous, we would expect the raw number of deaths to be very small, because the number of vehicle miles being driven per year is currently very low.

We should divide the fatality numbers by the number of vehicle miles driven for each technology, and compare those rates. Depending on how many autonomous cars are on the road, one fatality may still be much too high.

Uber is certainly taking it seriously. They do not suspend all human driven Ubers every time an Uber driver kills someone.

[LeftInTX]

7. Based on the YouTube videos, the lights on the Uber appear too dim.

The Uber driver wasn't looking at the road!!!!!!

She is walking with a bicycle which should have added to her visibility.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. The Uber system should be able to work with no headlights.

It has more sensors than just "visual". The vehicle's headlights make the vehicle visible to other drivers, and, supposedly, pedestrians.

I didn't see the speed of the vehicle, or the speed limit. It's possible the speed was too high to stop once the pedestrian was sensed.

I have been fortunate in never hitting a person. I have hit animals. And, I had lights on, was awake, not texting, etc.

[pnwmom]

17. The car would have at least slowed down if it had detected the woman. There is no suggestion

that it did.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. We should be focusing on driver-assistance tech, not driverless tech.

And frankly, from the video I've seen, a human driver would have been said to have been 'overdriving his headlights' in that scenario. If you don't have a clear view of everything within your stopping distance then you're moving too fast for conditions.

[trof]

28. "overdriving his headlights"...exactly. I was searching for the term.

I would submit that at 40 MPH, most cars are overdriving.
At 75 or 80 on the interstate, no question.
You greatly depend on things not being in your way.

[bullwinkle428]

9. I've seen that Toyota commercial at least 100 times - the one where

the distracted driver is shocked when the car automatically slams on the brakes so it won't rear-end the motorhome that stopped for the deer crossing the road in the mountains.

Why did this car not have that kind of "sensing radar" in place?

[FrodosNewPet]

11. It is supposed to

Clearly, the system failed. Autonomous cars need to be able to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be.

[gyroscope]

18. I thought it was against the law

to use humans as guinea pigs without their written consent. That's what we are all being used for, as real life crash test dummies for the auto industry (Uber, Google, Tesla et al), and people are paying with their lives. I don't recall giving my consent.

I hope Uber is sued into bankruptcy. And while you're at it bring a lawsuit against the state of Arizona as well.

[USALiberal]

20. LOL, ok. nt

[gyroscope]

22. Do you enjoy being a human guinea pig?

obviously you do.

[tonedevil]

23. I'm just not full of myself enough...

to think there is a law that would allow a suit against Arizona for allowing autonomous vehicles.

[gyroscope]

24. You are full of it

if you think states cannot be sued. we're not in China or the Soviet Union, sorry to break it to you.

[tonedevil]

25. I know that states can be sued...

nothing I wrote would indicate they could not. If you think that Arizona or any can be sued for allowing autonomous cars on the road I would really like to see your basis for said suit.

[trof]

29. I think you got aholt of somebody just itchin' for a fight.

Just my tuppence worth.

[gyroscope]

30. Where is the law that says Arizona can't be sued regarding autonomous cars?

LMAO. it is up to you to back up your claim. if you can't then you are talking out of your rear end.

Even a sitting US president can be sued, as Stormy Daniels as proven in recent days. But the state of Arizona can't? Who died and made Arizona the dictator?

"We can't be sued because we are the government" sounds like a dictatorship like China or Russia. As far as I know we aren't quite there yet but with clowns like Trump and Pence in office it may not be long, so you may get your wish soon enough.

[tonedevil]

33. Can you stick to debating what I wrote?

What did I write that you think can be interpreted as "We can't be sued because we are the government"? What I am saying is there would be no basis for a suit against Arizona allowing autonomous cars. Your suit would have to cite something the state did that wasn't within their jurisdiction or is in violation of existing law which caused you harm. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Arizona has no jurisdiction to allow autonomous cars on the highways?

[gyroscope]

38. So you admit there is no law barring a lawsuit

against the state re: autonomous cars. got it.

The state of Arizona has authorized TESTING of robocars on public roads, which by definition makes every person on the road a human guinea pig. But human beings may not be experimented on without their express written consent, per the Geneva Convention. Arizona and other states are in violation of at least one international treaty that the US is a party to, as well as potentially other US laws in that regard.

The Nazis used to conduct experiments on living human subjects because it was for "the greater good." Who cares if a few dozen or few hundreds of people are killed in the process? It's for the greater good!

[tonedevil]

40. Let me know how that goes...

I want to see the complaint you think you can swear out for this one. The Nazi angle is really strong be sure to use that. Arizona has gone full Mengele with this one for sure. I will admit there is absolutely no law that states you can't sue Arizona for allowing the TESTING of autonomous cars on public roads. With that said I am also certain your fantasy lawsuit would have the effectiveness of those filed by Orly Taitz.