quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
While I haven't driven in a completely self driving car, I have used some with assistive driving - ie, radar cruise control to drive a speed yet keep a specific distance from the car ahead of you and also give warnings / steering assistance to stay between the lines. It took a little while to get used to the systems, but I'll say I can drive a lot further / longer with those systems in a car than without. It's just easier to drive, much like it's easier for airline pilots today to fly, since the plane is on autopilot for 95% of the flight.

I've driven a Tesla S quite a bit. The self driving mode is fantastic in very low visibility conditions and stop and go traffic. Also nice for long stretches of I-80 that are boring as hell. It sucks around town (and not save, Tesla does not recommend it) but on a congested freeway when all you can see is tail lights for miles it is really nice. Kicks ass on driving my manual Boxster in those conditions. Oh, for everyone freaking out there is also a cool bit of additional technology, it's called an off switch. That makes the Tesla a very fast and very fun car to drive but not for long distances.

quote:

You are also blessed with a better (different) time perception than the video recording. Congratulations.

Maybe that's why my driving skills earned me so much money once upon a time. Perhaps my mind is traveling through time to see things that may occur prior to them actually happening.

That way when they do, I'm not hitting something in the middle of the road.

Personally, I'd jump in front of a car that I was driving before I jumped in front of an Uber. Better odds I believe. I know that my eyes see all sorts of things that my dash cam doesn't when it's dark.

quote:

Autonomous vehicles do categorize objects by type (other car, pedestrian, bicyclist, street sign, etc.) and alter behavior based on the type of objects that are present.

I get that, but is it as good as a human brain? If you see a ball in the street and a kid on the sidewalk you're automatically expecting the kid to run into the street. Do these computers reason in that fashion, or do they simply see them as two unrelated objects that are stationary at the moment?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I only got less than 2 seconds from first seeing her until impact. your eyes must be better than mine.

I am blessed with very good eye sight and reflexes.

In reality, shouldn't the computer be seeing better than we can? Doesn't that thing have some sort of radar that detects objects even in total darkness?

Let's say there's a child running down a sidewalk on the other side of a row of parked cars. As humans we see the child, assume it's going to cut between those cars and out on to the road, and adjust our driving accordingly. Can the computer do that? Or is the computer looking at a moving object over there, and not concerned because it's not moving in front of it.....yet?

Of course everyone is better when looking at a video monitor, after several viewings. Detection, recognition, and reaction times all come into play - and everyone blinks, changes the radio, or gets distracted for a fraction of a second sometime - not as long as the safety driver was, mind you - but hindsight is always 20/20. Well, at least for the crowd that doesn't turn themselves into the law for jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk...

Not sure what the Uber cars use for detection (visual, radar, IR, etc) but obviously the setup isn't picking up people walking bikes across a street in low light. Probably something they'll need to work on.

quote:

Of course everyone is better when looking at a video monitor, after several viewings.

Absolutely. And I have no doubt that had a person been playing on their phone in the same fashion while driving the accident would have still occurred.

I just don't understand why the computer didn't see it coming. It shouldn't have been distracted at all while making these observations at a greater distance and at a faster speed than a human.

Well, gosh, let's try this self-driving car stupidity again in, say, 50 years.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Let's say there's a child running down a sidewalk on the other side of a row of parked cars. As humans we see the child, assume it's going to cut between those cars and out on to the road, and adjust our driving accordingly. Can the computer do that? Or is the computer looking at a moving object over there, and not concerned because it's not moving in front of it.....yet?

Autonomous vehicles do categorize objects by type (other car, pedestrian, bicyclist, street sign, etc.) and alter behavior based on the type of objects that are present.

That’s my understanding of it too. That’s why I’m surprised it didn’t detect her.

I’ve driven a Tesla S 3 tines now. I’ve been so close to ordering one two of those times. It was after my first experience in one that I suddenly believed in this tech. It is amazing what they can do.

Temple Police released the footage.

Looks like somebody wasn't doing their job...




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywydalBYhic

After watching the video, there is no reason that car should not have seen the object and avoided it. The person crossing the street could have been another car, cow, drunk, whatever.

The road appeared straight, visibility appeared to be unimpaired by adverse weather conditions, all of the lane markers appeared to be bright/well defined, there was no oncoming traffic or road lighting that should have interfered, no street signs in close proximity of the deceased, etc.

The wonder car and the driver should have seen the obstacle and avoided it.

I do not want to be anywhere near these things until the engineers and the investors are willing to roll a baby stroller with, their children in it, out in front of one of these things while moving.

Oh... And site that bitch for texting while driving and vehicular manslaughter.

After watching the video several times, I'm fairly sure the IR and radar on my car's Night Vision would have tagged the pedestrian with her bike at least a hundred yards out. It has saved my bacon several times with deer in our neighborhood (outside a wildlife refuge), in similar scenarios sans human. Something is amiss here, either with Uber's proprietary system or the native system on the Volvo - or maybe it was off....

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
After watching the video, there is no reason that car should not have seen the object and avoided it. The person crossing the street could have been another car, cow, drunk, whatever.

Compare that video with the one I posted on the previous page of me avoiding a deer, and you really couldn't have two situations that are more alike except that one car is being driven by a computer and the other by a person--me. Now consider that I was driving about 10 mph faster in an even lower light condition than the computer had to deal with.

Or maybe my eyesight and reflexes are just on par with a1abdj's. You know, superhuman.

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
After watching the video, there is no reason that car should not have seen the object and avoided it.

And yet, it didn't.

This entire thing of autonomous vehicles- two ton battering rams hurtling down the road at 70 mph with no one driving- this is really, really fucking stupid and reckless. This fantasy some people have about bringing the future into the present is going to get more people killed,

Computers aren't smart. They're little bug brains that don't think at all. Garbage in, garbage out. Why did the car hit that person? Are you kidding? It's a freaking machine. That's all it is. It's a machine, and stupid assholes are making automobiles that rely on these machines. They don't think. They're not people. Think about what is being allowed to happen- on roadways that you and I travel. Its insanity.

People are going to die and for no reason other than the silly fantasies of some other people.

Finally, a good video showing what life is like for us outside of a city. Deer do this all the time. One of our very own members has shown his encounter, yet people can't accept that these situations are unavoidable without a damn gadget controlling everything. Human eyes and brains have more processing power than most give them credit for.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the majority still believe that this is the future, we are certainly headed for hard times. The stupids will still continue being killed in stupid ways, no matter what new "protective technology" is brought forth.

Still waiting to hear how this doodad missed seeing in the dark, when it was supposed to. Don't pay no mind to the lady behind the wheel, she was just doing what the car was designed to do. Shirk all responsibility and accountability for the safety of herself, passengers, and those around her.

Fuck this technology and those that advocate it. Someone's science experiment just killed that lady.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
In reality, shouldn't the computer be seeing better than we can? Doesn't that thing have some sort of radar that detects objects even in total darkness?

Let's say there's a child running down a sidewalk on the other side of a row of parked cars. As humans we see the child, assume it's going to cut between those cars and out on to the road, and adjust our driving accordingly. Can the computer do that? Or is the computer looking at a moving object over there, and not concerned because it's not moving in front of it.....yet?

I think this was more of a software/AI issue than hardware. Uber cars are equipped with radar and LIDAR. LIDAR would've seen the lady crossing and her bike but maybe the AI categorized them incorrectly (such as determination whether that's a person or maybe a large garbage bag flying across the road) and picked a wrong action (stop/avoid versus drive thru).

I saw a demo of Google car before.. it tracks with radar and LIDAR around itself, 360. It tracks a child running and kicking a soccer ball on the side of the road and AI projects the likely path of that ball and the child and picks its course of action based on the predetermined possible paths of the ball and the child.

Uber started this self driving project under Kalanick and was way behind Google, who was the first, started in 2009, so Uber had to rush and did some illegal copying early on as well.

Google has racked up over 4 millions miles of self driving (most at level 4/5). If Uber didn't cheat, and this Uber car was indeed at level 4, the driver was OK to take her eyes off the road. Google Pacifica's are running around without a driver, with passengers sleeping in the vans.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
After watching the video, there is no reason that car should not have seen the object and avoided it.

And yet, it didn't.

This entire thing of autonomous vehicles- two ton battering rams hurtling down the road at 70 mph with no one driving- this is really, really fucking stupid and reckless. This fantasy some people have about bringing the future into the present is going to get more people killed,

Computers aren't smart. They're little bug brains that don't think at all. Garbage in, garbage out. Why did the car hit that person? Are you kidding? It's a freaking machine. That's all it is. It's a machine, and stupid assholes are making automobiles that rely on these machines. They don't think. They're not people. Think about what is being allowed to happen- on roadways that you and I travel. Its insanity.

People are going to die and for no reason other than the silly fantasies of some other people.

I understand, but the very same thing could be said about cars in general. For example;

- horses...these cars are insane people will die when they crash into each other. if horses bump, maybe at worst on person falls off.

should we have never allowed cars on the road because "people will die?"

- modern cars that go fast...accidents with the model T weren't that bad. Now idiots allow these things to go 70 mph on the road!!!! people die in these wrecks and will keep dying!

Should we only allow cars to go say 25 mph?

I'm not being smart, I'm just pointing out that the very same argument could be made at any point in transportation history when we made an advancement.

I believe these vehicles will lead to less loss of life eventually as they will have fewer accidents than human drivers. That's why I'm for the exploration of the tech.

Putting cars on the road, telling drivers it’s a level 4 it’s ok to not pay attention, killing a stupid lady is not my definition of exploring tech. It is actual tech on an actual road with actual blood on its hands.

That is the point being made. This tech is being rushed to market and it will kill more people before it’s ready for the market.

This accident should have been a poster child for why this tech could save lives. It isn’t.

To make an analogy, right now we are barely past the Wright brothers stage if we were to compare this to aviation.

There are decades ahead of testing, development, and I’m sure there will be more deaths to come.

Yeah, try this again in 50 years.

Ridiculous. People have lost their minds. They think computers can drive a car and think like a human. Utter foolishness, and people are going to die as a result.

The older I get, the less faith I have in Man's supposed mighty intellect. We're apes, telling machines with bug brains how to control mobile battering rams. Madness

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I don't have a horse in this race but how do you feel about autopilots on planes?

Otto Pilot wrote an excellent post about autopilots on airplanes. I would like to add a few remarks about aspects that he did not cover.

I instruct General Aviation pilots (GA is defined as just about everything other than airline and military). These pilots are required to have a Flight Review every 24 months with an FAA Inspector, a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), or a Certificated Flight Instructor (CFI).

I am a CFI and I conduct these flight reviews for clients. If somebody comes to me and has an autopilot in the airplane, the first question I ask in the flight review is, "How many ways do you know of to take the autopilot out of the picture?" Typically, we will find all or most of these, depending on the specific installation:

• An AP Disconnect button on the yoke (control wheel), usually very convenient to the pilot's left thumb
  
  
• An on / off switch on the AP control unit on the instrument panel
  
  
• A circuit breaker that can be pulled for the AP. I ask the client to put a finger on this without looking. If s/he can not do this, we make a note that this is an item for training and practice.
  
  
• An Avionics Master Switch. This shuts down all radio type equipment. Not required, so not all airplanes have this, but if installed it is something that the pilot needs to keep in mind as yet another way to shut down HAL 9000 if necessary.
  
  
• Electrical Master Switch. This takes the Avionics Maser one step further. It shuts down just about all electrical equipment (other than ignition for the spark plugs). Typically used if there is smoke coming from electrical equipment that is not on the Avionics bus.

So, we have multiple ways of taking the autopilot out of the picture in an airplane. Not sure if this is true on the "self driving" cars.

Couple of other points that differentiate aviation autopilots from self-driving cars: The airplane autopilot must be turned on via a deliberate action from the pilot. Example, I normally turn the AP on after the take-off checklist is completed. Flaps retracted (if used for take-off), gear retracted, engine power reset from take-off power to initial climb power, on-course or initial vector heading established, OK, then it's typically time for me to turn on the AP.

Another point -- when using the AP, especially in the departure and arrival phases of a flight, the pilot is typically very alert and "primed" to disconnect the AP and hand-fly the airplane. This transition might take a second or so, maybe less. On an approach, for example, if I am using the AP there is never a question of whether the AP will be disconnected, it is just a question of exactly when. My thumb is maybe an inch or so away from the disconnect button, I am monitoring everything, and ready to press that button when appropriate.

Bottom line, Rey -- the question that you asked, in this context, is like comparing ornithopters to bird poop. Very, very, different, both in the hardware and the software (mindset of the pilot).

Lots of speculation on the radar seeing the person.

I'm currently driving a Freightliner that is equipped with some of this collision avoidance tech. There is an instructional video that specifically states the radar does not recognize flesh and blood. It will not recognize a deer as an object to avoid. They have programmed it to recognize signs so it won't stop abruptly when it sees a sign on a curve.

It's shit, nice idea but shit in execution. It'll lock the brakes if it thinks an exiting car is in your lane. It give not one shit if the road is ice covered. It has antilock brakes don't you know, those fuggers are a miracle from God himself .

This crap is being pushed by the not ready for prime time programming players. When those SOB's are held personally responsible for the carnage they cause you'll find out how damned proud of their work they are. I'd like the signature of the fella on the damned dash saying he's willing to go to jail with me for trusting his work.

Video cameras in low light settings don't accurately capture what the human eye can see. The video shows a clear line between darkness and light. A SUV with HIDs would easily illuminate a person crossing the street wearing white shoes (though the bike doesn't have any reflectors on the wheels, don't know if they are required or not). The car is wrong, the driver is wrong and someone needs to be held accountable.