Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian (Tempe: transport, eat, arena)

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by cattastic

Unlike Cloudy Dayz who is stuck 40 years in the past, everyone else recognizes this is a net positive for society. But we are navigating unknown waters and there will be unforeseen issues to figure out. Airline travel was much more dangerous when it first started.

Yes, I'm stuck 40 years in the past. BTW, how are you enjoying your cheap, unlimited, atomic energy? Oh wait, you are not. Because that was just a broken promise. It turned out to be more expensive and extremely dangerous, just like these self-driving cars.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by elkotronics

Looking at the video of the accident, it looks like it would've been tough to stop hitting her in a conventional automobile, much less one with accident avoidance. Shouldn't this Uber autonomous vehicle have snappy accident avoidance equipment installed? The woman walking her bike came out of nowhere right across the path of the vehicle. I'd say ban Uber like they have and ban Waymo, too. The Waymo CEO has already said his vehicles would have automatically stopped in time with their auto-stop feature. Ban 'em all until things are fully and completely sorted out for safety.

The Uber car had its Volvo tech turned off!

I suspect a major punitive judgement.

https://www.thenational.ae/business/...ident-1.716390

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/...al-uber-crash/

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Hoonose

The Uber car had its Volvo tech turned off!

I suspect a major punitive judgement.

https://www.thenational.ae/business/...ident-1.716390

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/...al-uber-crash/

That actually would be expected. But the higher level system of the UBER car should have been much better than the Volvo system.

You turn the Volvo system off because it will conflict with the UBER system. If you wished to use both you would have to integrate them which would be a long and complex task.

[flint8ball]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

Now that Uber's had its AV license yanked in Arizona, what other companies are operating AVs on Arizona city streets?

There are multiple companies testing autonomous vehicles in AZ/CA and other locations. Within the next year there will be autonomous ride share options available in select urban cities. In other words, it's coming soon, but it will be a much longer time before autonomous vehicles will be for sale to the general public. You'll see autonomous trucking before that happens. There will be plenty of time for people to get used to the idea... or think the sky is falling.

[PhoenixSomeday]

I'm amazed self driving cars are even possible at this point (and I'm a software developer). Going thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of miles in a rural setting is miracle enough. Doing it in a metropolitan setting is an amazing feat of engineering, and going even 5,600 miles is a pretty legitimate accomplishment.

Think of all the crap these things have to watch out for and react to, not just in terms of people and animals, but in terms of the road infrastructure itself:

• Stoplights in many different configurations (full light hanging over the forward lanes, a little post on the corner, lights that are sideways (Texas), lights that blink, dedicated left turn light, combined go/left light, etc.
• Traffic lights that have lost power (requiring treatment as a stop sign), and having to know when it's their turn to go
• Dedicated left turn lanes
• Shared forward / left turn lanes
• No Right On Red signs (especially with hours attached to it)
• Temporarily reduced speed signs, such as for construction
• No lane markings
• Old and new lane markings that, at certain angles of sunlight, look equally new
• Reversible lanes
• 24/7 carpool lanes and carpool lanes that only exist as such during certain hours
• Traffic warning signs that are the same shape and color but with different messages
• Local road laws from one city or state to the next
• Left turn out of a driveway on a major, busy road (and if there is no sign forbidding it at that spot)

That's just off the top of my head and says nothing of the sheer stupidity and terror that is other human drivers on the road. It is utterly amazing they've managed to go even 500 feet, let alone millions of combined miles. I imagine this software starts life in a simulator, then moves to a private proving ground before even having a glimmer of a hope at real road testing.

Originally Posted by Boompa

What I'm waiting for is for two of those that park themselves to fight it out over a parking spot

I don't think anyone responded to it, but I'm legitimately wondering this myself If they are an equal distance from the spot, and both are totally driverless (there are systems where you can have the car drop you off and it goes to park itself), there has to be some kind of protocol for that, haha.

[fluffythewondercat]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Yes, I'm stuck 40 years in the past. BTW, how are you enjoying your cheap, unlimited, atomic energy? Oh wait, you are not. Because that was just a broken promise. It turned out to be more expensive and extremely dangerous, just like these self-driving cars.

Oops. You stepped in it. This is an ARIZONA forum. And they've got a nuke.

Anyhoo, next time you're in Arizona on I-10, check out the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Plant. Supplies electricity to about four million people. I don't know if it's cheap but it's a lot less than we pay here in the Bay Area.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by PhoenixSomeday

I'm amazed self driving cars are even possible at this point (and I'm a software developer). Going thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of miles in a rural setting is miracle enough. Doing it in a metropolitan setting is an amazing feat of engineering, and going even 5,600 miles is a pretty legitimate accomplishment.

Think of all the crap these things have to watch out for and react to, not just in terms of people and animals, but in terms of the road infrastructure itself:

• Stoplights in many different configurations (full light hanging over the forward lanes, a little post on the corner, lights that are sideways (Texas), lights that blink, dedicated left turn light, combined go/left light, etc.
• Traffic lights that have lost power (requiring treatment as a stop sign), and having to know when it's their turn to go
• Dedicated left turn lanes
• Shared forward / left turn lanes
• No Right On Red signs (especially with hours attached to it)
• Temporarily reduced speed signs, such as for construction
• No lane markings
• Old and new lane markings that, at certain angles of sunlight, look equally new
• Reversible lanes
• 24/7 carpool lanes and carpool lanes that only exist as such during certain hours
• Traffic warning signs that are the same shape and color but with different messages
• Local road laws from one city or state to the next
• Left turn out of a driveway on a major, busy road (and if there is no sign forbidding it at that spot)

That's just off the top of my head and says nothing of the sheer stupidity and terror that is other human drivers on the road. It is utterly amazing they've managed to go even 500 feet, let alone millions of combined miles. I imagine this software starts life in a simulator, then moves to a private proving ground before even having a glimmer of a hope at real road testing.

These cars can't do any of that. That's why they operate in only a few locations. They program all of that information into the local software. No right turns on red at this intersection. No lane markings at this location. So a human driver will guide the car though it dozens of times until the car learns the route by itself. When they are traveling on uncharted routes, they are totally nonfunctional. For example Teslas when operating on autopilot will not even attempt to navigate any road without lane markings. It can't. The car will just stop and prompt the driver to take over.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

Oops. You stepped in it. This is an ARIZONA forum. And they've got a nuke.

Anyhoo, next time you're in Arizona on I-10, check out the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Plant. Supplies electricity to about four million people. I don't know if it's cheap but it's a lot less than we pay here in the Bay Area.

The Bay Area has Diablo Canyon too, but it is not cheap, and it is not unlimited, and it's sitting on an earthquake fault ready for a repeat of Fukushima. The point is that the promoters of these worthless technologies lie and promise anything to get their projects approved. From promises of cheap unlimited nuclear energy, to roads that will suddenly magically become safe with self-driving cars. It's all lies, lies, lies to get people to buy into it, so the promoters can make a fortune.

[Valley Native]

I'm mixed about this whole issue of self driving vehicles. Technology is great when it works correctly, and can produce the same (or greater) intelligence as humans. With that, however, I see lots of issues with self driving cars. As advanced as technology has become, it can't possibly have the same reaction time as most humans. I'm 55 and have very strong reflexes, and this is one reason why I've never been in an accident (and have prevented a fair share from occurring). Relying on a machine to react to every possible traffic situation is not possible. Could the self driving car have slammed on the brakes and swerved to avoid hitting the pedestrian? If it were me in full control of the car, the answer would be a likely yes.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I'm mixed about this whole issue of self driving vehicles. Technology is great when it works correctly, and can produce the same (or greater) intelligence as humans. With that, however, I see lots of issues with self driving cars. As advanced as technology has become, it can't possibly have the same reaction time as most humans. I'm 55 and have very strong reflexes, and this is one reason why I've never been in an accident (and have prevented a fair share from occurring). Relying on a machine to react to every possible traffic situation is not possible. Could the self driving car have slammed on the brakes and swerved to avoid hitting the pedestrian? If it were me in full control of the car, the answer would be a likely yes.

Actually that machine can see in the dark and is much faster than a human. That lady should never have been hit. The thing was likely too quick for a human but should have been easy for the machine.

That is why all the outcry and the shutdown of the UBER tests. It could not have happened...but it did.