Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The woman was visible for 2 seconds before the video freezes. (0:02 - 0:04) So by your own statement, an attentive driver should have been able to react.
And the human driver is seen in the last frame reacting. Reacting when you are on top of the pedestrian doesn't matter much.
Someone asked about the speed, oddly enough I know the answer to that. Self driving cars are often set to speed a little-because human drivers speed a LOT. I do 60 in a 55, and get passed a lot. If I was doing 55 I would actually impeded traffic. And they have discovered just that-if they do the exact speed limit they would cause accidents. IE more people die.
As for how they know the speed-it varies. Some use known speeds, other pull from speed signs as they pass them. And some a mixture.
Its one of those funny things-NOT speeding causes accidents and road rage. In fact they had issues with turning into traffic. If they do it in a 100% safe manner know what happens? People behind them cut around them thinking they have broken down, or just tired of waiting for them. And thats riskier.
Those holding a prototype AV to a higher standard then a human being are being unreasonable at this point. The human driver had a JOB. It was to prevent EXACTLY this.
I also would not assume that the video shown reflects actual visual conditions. The camera used is NOT as good as the human eye. So the human may have had even more time to react then the video shows. As for why the Lidar (and probably radar) did not see her? That is the question.
Ubers solution is 3 years behind Googles. They should have a driver, and a vehicle monitor both in these vehicles. They're trying to catch up with google, and they are taking shortcuts. The driver was extremely distracted by something.
And the human driver is seen in the last frame reacting. Reacting when you are on top of the pedestrian doesn't matter much.
Someone asked about the speed, oddly enough I know the answer to that. Self driving cars are often set to speed a little-because human drivers speed a LOT. I do 60 in a 55, and get passed a lot. If I was doing 55 I would actually impeded traffic. And they have discovered just that-if they do the exact speed limit they would cause accidents. IE more people die.
As for how they know the speed-it varies. Some use known speeds, other pull from speed signs as they pass them. And some a mixture.
Its one of those funny things-NOT speeding causes accidents and road rage. In fact they had issues with turning into traffic. If they do it in a 100% safe manner know what happens? People behind them cut around them thinking they have broken down, or just tired of waiting for them. And thats riskier.
Those holding a prototype AV to a higher standard then a human being are being unreasonable at this point. The human driver had a JOB. It was to prevent EXACTLY this.
I also would not assume that the video shown reflects actual visual conditions. The camera used is NOT as good as the human eye. So the human may have had even more time to react then the video shows. As for why the Lidar (and probably radar) did not see her? That is the question.
Ubers solution is 3 years behind Googles. They should have a driver, and a vehicle monitor both in these vehicles. They're trying to catch up with google, and they are taking shortcuts. The driver was extremely distracted by something.
Oh boy. There is a lot to talk about here.
First, speed limit laws are in place for a reason. The law deems going faster than a certain speed to be potentially dangerous. Had the car in the case been going slower, perhaps the pedestrian would have gotten out of the way just barely in time to avoid being struck. Isn't it true that the reason you claim that slow speeds are dangerous is just because other drivers choose to speed. If other drivers chose to obey the traffic laws wouldn't the slower speed be safer? I wonder if the state of Arizona knows that autonomous vehicles are being set to violate the speed limit laws on roads? I wonder how Arizona citizens would feel about that if they knew it was true. Are the cars set to go faster than 20 miles an hour in a school zone?
Second, of course prototype AV's should be held to a higher standard than humans. Its the major reason for developing this technology. I've heard that time and time again. The argument goes: Human beings are bad at driving cars. We get distracted. We exceed speed limits. We don't see things that we should. Therefore, AI can do this better than humans can. If you eliminate improvements in safety as a reason for having autonomous vehicles, you are left with convenience issues and serving disabled people. I would submit convenience isn't a strong enough justification to implement a technology this revolutionary. Disabled people's needs can be met in other ways. It can be met through public transportation, cab services, traditional Uber (with a driver), and by groups like senior centers which transport seniors around in buses.
Third, I have been assuming the vehicle had radar. If it didn't, I submit that putting such a car on the road amounts to gross negligence on Uber's part.
The tape is very unsettling. The heart of this issue does not involve a pedestrian's negligence. It involves why this technology did not detect this pedestrian and stop in time to avoid running her down.
First, speed limit laws are in place for a reason. The law deems going faster than a certain speed to be potentially dangerous. Had the car in the case been going slower, perhaps the pedestrian would have gotten out of the way just barely in time to avoid being struck. Isn't it true that the reason you claim that slow speeds are dangerous is just because other drivers choose to speed. If other drivers chose to obey the traffic laws wouldn't the slower speed be safer? I wonder if the state of Arizona knows that autonomous vehicles are being set to violate the speed limit laws on roads? I wonder how Arizona citizens would feel about that if they knew it was true. Are the cars set to go faster than 20 miles an hour in a school zone?
Second, of course prototype AV's should be held to a higher standard than humans. Its the major reason for developing this technology. I've heard that time and time again. The argument goes: Human beings are bad at driving cars. We get distracted. We exceed speed limits. We don't see things that we should. Therefore, AI can do this better than humans can. If you eliminate improvements in safety as a reason for having autonomous vehicles, you are left with convenience issues and serving disabled people. I would submit convenience isn't a strong enough justification to implement a technology this revolutionary. Disabled people's needs can be met in other ways. It can be met through public transportation, cab services, traditional Uber (with a driver), and by groups like senior centers which transport seniors around in buses.
Third, I have been assuming the vehicle had radar. If it didn't, I submit that putting such a car on the road amounts to gross negligence on Uber's part.
The tape is very unsettling. The heart of this issue does not involve a pedestrian's negligence. It involves why this technology did not detect this pedestrian and stop in time to avoid running her down.
This is irrelevant. The vehicle was going 38 mph in a 35 mph zone when the victim was visible for less than two seconds. Speed was not a factor whatsoever. The mention of going 20 over in a school zone is just using hysterics to try to prove a point.
This is irrelevant. The vehicle was going 38 mph in a 35 mph zone when the victim was visible for less than two seconds. Speed was not a factor whatsoever. The mention of going 20 over in a school zone is just using hysterics to try to prove a point.
Are you even going to address the issue of whether the vehicle's radar should have allowed it to identify the pedestrian before this fatal accident occurred?
Seriously, some people here seem to want to excuse this accident because the pedestrian was jaywalking. I'm sorry that isn't good enough for me. I was told these vehicles had technology that would prevent exactly this kind of incident.
Are you even going to address the issue of whether the vehicle's radar should have allowed it to identify the pedestrian before this fatal accident occurred?
Seriously, some people here seem to want to excuse this accident because the pedestrian was jaywalking. I'm sorry that isn't good enough for me. I was told these vehicles had technology that would prevent exactly this kind of incident.
Where did I say anything about jaywalking in my response to your rant about speed? I was simply pointing out that your argument about the vehicle's speed was irrelevant.
And the human driver is seen in the last frame reacting. Reacting when you are on top of the pedestrian doesn't matter much.
Someone asked about the speed, oddly enough I know the answer to that. Self driving cars are often set to speed a little-because human drivers speed a LOT. I do 60 in a 55, and get passed a lot. If I was doing 55 I would actually impeded traffic. And they have discovered just that-if they do the exact speed limit they would cause accidents. IE more people die.
As for how they know the speed-it varies. Some use known speeds, other pull from speed signs as they pass them. And some a mixture.
Its one of those funny things-NOT speeding causes accidents and road rage. In fact they had issues with turning into traffic. If they do it in a 100% safe manner know what happens? People behind them cut around them thinking they have broken down, or just tired of waiting for them. And thats riskier.
Those holding a prototype AV to a higher standard then a human being are being unreasonable at this point. The human driver had a JOB. It was to prevent EXACTLY this.
I also would not assume that the video shown reflects actual visual conditions. The camera used is NOT as good as the human eye. So the human may have had even more time to react then the video shows. As for why the Lidar (and probably radar) did not see her? That is the question.
Ubers solution is 3 years behind Googles. They should have a driver, and a vehicle monitor both in these vehicles. They're trying to catch up with google, and they are taking shortcuts. The driver was extremely distracted by something.
Yes, he reacted after he heard the woman hit the front of his car. The reaction needs to come before the collision. To react before the collision, you need to be paying attention to the road. He had two seconds to react, but he didn't. Because he was relying a buggy bata software to do the driving for him.
Odd the cars infrared never picked up the pedestrian before it was too late,obviously something went wrong ,that said, with technology driving the car the pedestrian might have had a chance, with a human at the controls no chance.
Self-driving cars have driven 10 million miles. As far as we know, they have never killed a law-abiding citizen, as this woman appears to have been jay-walking (and not looking before crossing).
The woman was visible for 2 seconds before the video freezes. (0:02 - 0:04) So by your own statement, an attentive driver should have been able to react.
And at that speed, what reaction would you expect any person (or computer) to do? Nothing would have prevented this lady from being plowed into except her not jaywalking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash
