ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th March 2018, 06:20 AM   #361
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,961
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
A human appearing in front of a car is not an edge case. It's pretty damned common.
It's not uncommon and it's also something human drivers are less adept at coping with than we might like.

From a previous thread, the most effective method for getting yourself killed as a pedestrian in the US is to cross a road at night, not at an intersection and while drunk. (Can't say anything about the 'drunk' bit in this particular case, but I imagine its contribution is to do with the pedestrian's lack of attention and their not taking avoiding action, since it seems silly to suppose it has any effect on the car or driver involved.)
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 08:39 AM   #362
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,360
So Uber's system of a single lidar can see to witihin 10' of the vehicle.

You couldn't respond and stop your car if a ped ran in front of you from within 10' either.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 08:52 AM   #363
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
But (since the cars have been handling this for a while now) something about this is different, hence the use of the term "edge case".

The drivers do not seem to be needing to intervene every time a pedestrian appears.
The car's failure to respond properly was a failure, but that doesn't make the situation it failed to respond to an edge case. It could have been a perfectly average situation but a bug in the code or hardware.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 09:13 AM   #364
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
Hardware possibly, but for it to be a software bug then it would have been recently introduced (hence my comment about a newer version of the code) as there are a number of these tests going on with Uber.

I would (albeit with a very limited amount of detail on the situation) still plump for there being something odd about this instance.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 09:50 AM   #365
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,999
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Hardware possibly, but for it to be a software bug then it would have been recently introduced (hence my comment about a newer version of the code) as there are a number of these tests going on with Uber.

I would (albeit with a very limited amount of detail on the situation) still plump for there being something odd about this instance.
It expects people.
It expects people on bikes.
It doesn't expect a person walking a bike?
(and other possibilities)

I agree with your comment about a new release being buggy, though, especially if it didn't go through proper controlled testing. Somebody assumed the change was trivial? Been there and done that in my 20+ years in IT, though it was never 'process control' s/w, just boring business stuff.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 10:58 AM   #366
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,510
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It expects people.
It expects people on bikes.
It doesn't expect a person walking a bike?
(and other possibilities)
Mm. Well, this is why I still push back on the description of this as an edge case. If I'm writing user stories for the requirements, I would not be this granular. The user story I'd have signed off on would be more inclusive 'Condition: large object crosses in front of car, will be hit if car does not brake / Action: brake'.



Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I agree with your comment about a new release being buggy, though, especially if it didn't go through proper controlled testing. Somebody assumed the change was trivial? Been there and done that in my 20+ years in IT, though it was never 'process control' s/w, just boring business stuff.
This is my suspicion as well. Too early to tell, nobody's telling us what the logs say. Did the sensors fail, or did the sensors send the processor great information that just wasn't processed properly. And the accountability question surrounding did anybody know there was an elevated risk.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 11:22 AM   #367
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Mm. Well, this is why I still push back on the description of this as an edge case. If I'm writing user stories for the requirements, I would not be this granular. The user story I'd have signed off on would be more inclusive 'Condition: large object crosses in front of car, will be hit if car does not brake / Action: brake'.
It seems fantastically unlikely to me that the root cause of this was that the automation detected a large object in front of it, realised that the paths intersected, and then did nothing. My assumption is that either it believed no object was in its path, or an insubstantial object was in it's path. This will be because of something unusual about the circumstances of the accident. A hardware failure may well be part of the unusual circumstances. It could be compounded by a recent update, but they haven't really done enough miles in my book to rule out this being an issue from day 1. Even if it is a recent update, something must still be relatively unusual and specific in these circumstances, or Ubers would have been crashing into things left and right.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 11:34 AM   #368
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,903
Occam's razor sez ....it didn't see it at all. Remember Uber only switched to single Lidar recently and even the manufacturer says one is not enough.

Last edited by macdoc; 28th March 2018 at 11:45 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 11:45 AM   #369
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Occam's razor sez ....it didn't see it at all. Remember Uber only switched to single Lidar recently.
I think that is probably the case too.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 11:55 AM   #370
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Occam's razor sez ....it didn't see it at all. Remember Uber only switched to single Lidar recently and even the manufacturer says one is not enough.
Yeah but the reason for that second lidar isn't redundancy, it's to cover the blind spot in the first lidar, which doesn't see the ground close to the car. This pedestrian was way outside that area, in the middle of a wide flat road, with no other cars, clear weather, etc. Basically in ideal conditions for the lidar to see her.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 12:22 PM   #371
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,903
You have no idea of that....look at the video, she was emerging from the Lidar blind spot right next to the car......even it saw her before ....she "disappeared" into the blind spot.
She literally comes in from the left fender.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4098252/...led-pedestrian

Last edited by macdoc; 28th March 2018 at 12:24 PM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 02:44 PM   #372
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,360
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Humans aren't 100% safe and we allow them to drive in residential areas. Sometimes they even run people down deliberately. Self drive isn't 100% safe and isn't going to be 100% safe, though it will probably get to the point where is is safer than human drivers at some point. Being surprised by fatal accidents caused by self drive is not rational.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
I am surprised by how trivially avoidable accident AV caused. But then it is under Uber, os likely to have been expected.

So far, they are even worse drivers then most of humans.

Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
But (since the cars have been handling this for a while now) something about this is different, hence the use of the term "edge case".

The drivers do not seem to be needing to intervene every time a pedestrian appears.
Yet it was textbook case for AVs. No traffic, no obstruction just slow large object moving into path of vehicle.

Originally Posted by casebro View Post
So Uber's system of a single lidar can see to witihin 10' of the vehicle.

You couldn't respond and stop your car if a ped ran in front of you from within 10' either.
WRONG!!!
if visibility is 300m and I cannot stop safely, then I am guilty of dangerous driving, because I was driving too fast. Same thing goes for AV cars. If they cannot stop in time then they are no better then human drivers. Then they are bad idea...

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
You have no idea of that....look at the video, she was emerging from the Lidar blind spot right next to the car......even it saw her before ....she "disappeared" into the blind spot.
She literally comes in from the left fender.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4098252/...led-pedestrian
WRONG!
She started in well visible place and crossed bloody entire lane before she got into lane Uber car was in! Therefore AV car had far longer time span to detect her and react to her. She was never in any blind spot.

Also Uber video has multiple problems on its own, like bing too dark for place in question.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

Suggested reading:
Video suggests huge problems with Uber’s driverless car program
Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows”—don’t believe it
Uber told to stop testing driverless tech in Arizona
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 03:01 PM   #373
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
WRONG!
She started in well visible place and crossed bloody entire lane before she got into lane Uber car was in! Therefore AV car had far longer time span to detect her and react to her. She was never in any blind spot.
Do we know what the blind spots on Uber's self drive are? It would be shocking if that was what happened, but I haven't seen a diagram of the blind spot.


Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 03:08 PM   #374
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 22,781
It's hard to figure just why an auto driving car should have any blind spots.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 03:13 PM   #375
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It's hard to figure just why an auto driving car should have any blind spots.
The lidar is on the roof, so presumably close in to the car its view is going to be restricted. It was mentioned earlier that additional lidar units in other systems were there to give better coverage and in this case it couldn't see things closer than 10' (oops, corrected spinal tap style feet/inches error) in front of the car.

Last edited by shuttlt; 28th March 2018 at 03:32 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 03:51 PM   #376
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,799
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The lidar is on the roof, so presumably close in to the car its view is going to be restricted. It was mentioned earlier that additional lidar units in other systems were there to give better coverage and in this case it couldn't see things closer than 10' (oops, corrected spinal tap style feet/inches error) in front of the car.
Would it also miss a person standing 2 feet in front of the car in a crosswalk and run them over when the light turns green? Most people are tall enough for a roof mounted sensor to pickup I would think.

As stated, if it has a blindspot then that sounds like a problem that needs to be solved, at least before I'm willing to accept these cars.

A saw a headline today where an autonomous car was ticketed (cited?) for driving too close to a pedestrian. Disclaimer: I didn't read the story.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 05:10 PM   #377
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The lidar is on the roof, so presumably close in to the car its view is going to be restricted. It was mentioned earlier that additional lidar units in other systems were there to give better coverage and in this case it couldn't see things closer than 10' (oops, corrected spinal tap style feet/inches error) in front of the car.
In which case, you add extra sensors to cover these, not necessarily LIDAR, and mounted in position to cover these.

Different types of sensor would be good anyway.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 05:13 PM   #378
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Would it also miss a person standing 2 feet in front of the car in a crosswalk and run them over when the light turns green? Most people are tall enough for a roof mounted sensor to pickup I would think.

As stated, if it has a blindspot then that sounds like a problem that needs to be solved, at least before I'm willing to accept these cars.

A saw a headline today where an autonomous car was ticketed (cited?) for driving too close to a pedestrian. Disclaimer: I didn't read the story.
Indeed and I would add...
most people, but not kids, and it's generally... frowned upon to run over pets if you can avoid it - like from a start.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 28th March 2018 at 05:15 PM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2018, 11:12 PM   #379
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,520
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Yeah but the reason for that second lidar isn't redundancy, it's to cover the blind spot in the first lidar, which doesn't see the ground close to the car. This pedestrian was way outside that area, in the middle of a wide flat road, with no other cars, clear weather, etc. Basically in ideal conditions for the lidar to see her.
Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, it detected the woman pushing the bike as an object such as another car, travelling or stopped, in the other lane, and then that object disappeared into the LIDAR blind spot before the AV software could detect that she was moving into its path.

I don't believe that the AV would have detected her moving into its path and then did nothing. Nor do I see how she could have been not detected at all. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that she was detected, but as something other than a person moving into its path.
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2018, 04:16 AM   #380
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,865
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, it detected the woman pushing the bike as an object such as another car, travelling or stopped, in the other lane, and then that object disappeared into the LIDAR blind spot before the AV software could detect that she was moving into its path.

I don't believe that the AV would have detected her moving into its path and then did nothing. Nor do I see how she could have been not detected at all. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that she was detected, but as something other than a person moving into its path.
Seems very likely.

And while there might be a lidar blind spot, I can't believe that there is a complete sensor blind spot. Some other sensor, presumably a camera, must have had her in the field of view, but didn't correctly identify her.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2018, 05:52 AM   #381
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, it detected the woman pushing the bike as an object such as another car, travelling or stopped, in the other lane, and then that object disappeared into the LIDAR blind spot before the AV software could detect that she was moving into its path.
If the LIDAR blind spot is 10' around the car and it was travelling at 40 mph (59 fps) then the pedestrian would have been outside of the blind spot until within 0.17 seconds of being hit. If the decision on how to handle the potential threat wasn't made by then there would have been not have been time to react once it entered the blind spot anyway.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2018, 06:10 AM   #382
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,537
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seems very likely.

And while there might be a lidar blind spot, I can't believe that there is a complete sensor blind spot. Some other sensor, presumably a camera, must have had her in the field of view, but didn't correctly identify her.
Or more likely could not make a decision based upon the speed. While 40 is not that fast, it could easily be depending on the refresh rate of the lidar.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2018, 08:52 AM   #383
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,033
Well, she was coming from the left, and impacted the right side of the car. That means she made it all the way across the car's own lane of travel, right? Yet there was no reaction from the car or the driver.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2018, 07:01 PM   #384
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,344
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
And the accountability question surrounding did anybody know there was an elevated risk.
There's no right answer there for Uber. If they knew, very bad. If they didn't know, still very bad. Did it not occur to them to wonder? They even reportedly disabled a safety feature already in the Volvo SUV - apparently because Uber thought the one roof-mounted sensor could replace it and gather more data than the six sensors used in the Ford Fusion.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Well, she was coming from the left, and impacted the right side of the car. That means she made it all the way across the car's own lane of travel, right? Yet there was no reaction from the car or the driver.
There was a reaction from the driver when she realized holy ----, I'm going to hit that person. (My impression is that she did look up before the collision, but I could be wrong). If she'd had her eyes on the road the whole time, IMO, she would have swerved to the left. I don't know how the human-override system is supposed to work - does grabbing the wheel do anything at all? This is a case where swerving isn't necessarily the safest thing to do, but it would be almost instinctive for a human driver to avoid a human target.

If the human driver isn't going to have her eyes on the road what is really the point of having a person there? It makes things almost worse for Uber. I'm not making the point that AVs (not sure what everyone's preferred term is) must be totally safe - I'm just following a chain of reasoning. I've read the whole thread and though I am not an expert on sensors or angles of coverage and blind spots etc., I think Uber is not only civilly liable in this case, it is quite possibly criminally liable.

I think the person most at fault here is the pedestrian, but the stories about Uber's after-market tampering with the Volvo tick me off.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 02:13 AM   #385
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,360
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Do we know what the blind spots on Uber's self drive are? It would be shocking if that was what happened, but I haven't seen a diagram of the blind spot.


Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
If car ahs blind spot that far ahead, then it is broken by design and doesn't belong on public roads.

Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Or more likely could not make a decision based upon the speed. While 40 is not that fast, it could easily be depending on the refresh rate of the lidar.
If refresh rate of sensors and reaction time of software is slower then necessary for such speed, then car was going faster then it should have and therefore in the wrong.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 02:44 AM   #386
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
There's no right answer there for Uber. If they knew, very bad. If they didn't know, still very bad. Did it not occur to them to wonder? They even reportedly disabled a safety feature already in the Volvo SUV - apparently because Uber thought the one roof-mounted sensor could replace it and gather more data than the six sensors used in the Ford Fusion.

There was a reaction from the driver when she realized holy ----, I'm going to hit that person. (My impression is that she did look up before the collision, but I could be wrong). If she'd had her eyes on the road the whole time, IMO, she would have swerved to the left. I don't know how the human-override system is supposed to work - does grabbing the wheel do anything at all? This is a case where swerving isn't necessarily the safest thing to do, but it would be almost instinctive for a human driver to avoid a human target.

If the human driver isn't going to have her eyes on the road what is really the point of having a person there? It makes things almost worse for Uber. I'm not making the point that AVs (not sure what everyone's preferred term is) must be totally safe - I'm just following a chain of reasoning. I've read the whole thread and though I am not an expert on sensors or angles of coverage and blind spots etc., I think Uber is not only civilly liable in this case, it is quite possibly criminally liable.

I think the person most at fault here is the pedestrian, but the stories about Uber's after-market tampering with the Volvo tick me off.
There are well-established protocols in the automotive industry for assessing risks (Google FMEA) and the reduction of LIDAR sensors should have been highlighted in that if it had been done and in aremotely competent manner. I would think there's a good case for criminal negligence.

Coming from a country where the laws are slightly less skewed in favour of automobiles (jay walking should not be a crime) I *really* don't blame the pedestrian. People *do* walk out on roads, and some of them are children or toddlers who can't be expected to know about safety, so the person in charge of the dangerous machine has to be presumed to be responsible.

I have seen reports that the human co-drivers are working full days, basically as passangers who intervene very rarely - the figure of once every 5,000 miles, would mean that hundreds of hours might go past with the human doing nothing but being supposed to pay full attention all day. It's not possible. I don't think that absolves Uber, if they are relying on humans to dosomething that humans are bad at.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 02:45 AM   #387
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
If car ahs blind spot that far ahead, then it is broken by design and doesn't belong on public roads.



If refresh rate of sensors and reaction time of software is slower then necessary for such speed, then car was going faster then it should have and therefore in the wrong.
Yes, if your stopping distance is further than you can see, you are travelling too fast. It is that simple.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 03:00 AM   #388
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,409
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Coming from a country where the laws are slightly less skewed in favour of automobiles (jay walking should not be a crime) I *really* don't blame the pedestrian. People *do* walk out on roads, and some of them are children or toddlers who can't be expected to know about safety, so the person in charge of the dangerous machine has to be presumed to be responsible.
If a child or toddler walks out in front of a car whose (sober, competent and law abiding) driver is unable to stop in time to avoid hitting them then the person responsible is the adult who should have been supervising the child or toddler.

In this case it was an adult who pushed her bike straight in front of the car. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to determine if the car could and should have taken evasive action, but the bulk of the responsibility must surely lie with the pedestrian.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 04:12 AM   #389
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,749
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If a child or toddler walks out in front of a car whose (sober, competent and law abiding) driver is unable to stop in time to avoid hitting them then the person responsible is the adult who should have been supervising the child or toddler.

In this case it was an adult who pushed her bike straight in front of the car. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to determine if the car could and should have taken evasive action, but the bulk of the responsibility must surely lie with the pedestrian.
That is complete nonsense. It suggests all current licenced drivers would have killed this woman.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 04:52 AM   #390
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,360
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If a child or toddler walks out in front of a car whose (sober, competent and law abiding) driver is unable to stop in time to avoid hitting them then the person responsible is the adult who should have been supervising the child or toddler.

In this case it was an adult who pushed her bike straight in front of the car. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to determine if the car could and should have taken evasive action, but the bulk of the responsibility must surely lie with the pedestrian.
There is massive difference between somebody, walking out suddenly form between cars and pedestrian being visible for more then 5 seconds who moves quite slowly across lane to the left of your own lane! (about 300 meters)
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 05:07 AM   #391
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,082
Klimax: PLEASE! Learn the difference between THEN and THAN! It's important and critical.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 05:39 AM   #392
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,119
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
There are well-established protocols in the automotive industry for assessing risks (Google FMEA) and the reduction of LIDAR sensors should have been highlighted in that if it had been done and in aremotely competent manner. I would think there's a good case for criminal negligence.

Coming from a country where the laws are slightly less skewed in favour of automobiles (jay walking should not be a crime) I *really* don't blame the pedestrian. People *do* walk out on roads, and some of them are children or toddlers who can't be expected to know about safety, so the person in charge of the dangerous machine has to be presumed to be responsible.

I have seen reports that the human co-drivers are working full days, basically as passangers who intervene very rarely - the figure of once every 5,000 miles, would mean that hundreds of hours might go past with the human doing nothing but being supposed to pay full attention all day. It's not possible. I don't think that absolves Uber, if they are relying on humans to dosomething that humans are bad at.
Perhaps they should look at automating that role?

__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 05:57 AM   #393
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,409
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That is complete nonsense. It suggests all current licenced drivers would have killed this woman.
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
There is massive difference between somebody, walking out suddenly form between cars and pedestrian being visible for more then 5 seconds who moves quite slowly across lane to the left of your own lane! (about 300 meters)
I don't know whether a sober and competent human driver could have avoided hitting her or not, that's what needs to be established by the investigation. But the pedestrian who walks in front of a car bears the principle responsibility for the consequences, not the driver whose reactions are not fast enough to avoid hitting them.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 09:05 AM   #394
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Perhaps they should look at automating that role?

Yes.

That's what driver assist does currently.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 07:22 PM   #395
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 22,781
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If a child or toddler walks out in front of a car whose (sober, competent and law abiding) driver is unable to stop in time to avoid hitting them then the person responsible is the adult who should have been supervising the child or toddler.

In this case it was an adult who pushed her bike straight in front of the car. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to determine if the car could and should have taken evasive action, but the bulk of the responsibility must surely lie with the pedestrian.
I think often, and in this case for example, we mistakenly conflate legal or even civil culpability with a broader sense of responsibility. You do not need to commit a chargeable crime in order to be seen to do your job badly. Indeed, the pedestrian was largely at fault, and despite the chance that a better system or a better driver might have avoided killing her, it remains her fault if they don't. But that is in part a post facto finding, because we know after the accident that she was an adult, and judge that she was at fault. Can the system judge whether there's a crosswalk and where? Or what is customary in the area? Can the system judge if the person is an adult? If the system cannot make the judgment of what sort of obstacle she is, and what the relative responsibility is, then whatever the legal fallout from this case, if the system is not corrected, future responsibility may be different, and that makes for a different sort of responsibility for correcting the shortcomings of the system.

I don't think anyone or anything must be charged with a crime or even a violation for this accident to be a big wake up call.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 10:31 PM   #396
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,360
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Klimax: PLEASE! Learn the difference between THEN and THAN! It's important and critical.
Would you kindly point out where did I make that mistake? I can't find it and you haven't quoted any post.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2018, 11:31 PM   #397
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,752
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
<snip>
So far, they are even worse drivers then most of humans.



Yet it was textbook case for AVs. No traffic, no obstruction just slow large object moving into path of vehicle.

<snip>
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Would you kindly point out where did I make that mistake? I can't find it and you haven't quoted any post.
I think he is referring to this post. Though why it is "important and critical" and not cosmetic (you do not need a huge intelligence to work out what you meant) I do not know. He even ignored the other mistake in that sentence. But again that is only a cosmetic error. Says more about the person pointing out the error than the person who made it.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 12:10 AM   #398
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,360
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I think he is referring to this post. Though why it is "important and critical" and not cosmetic (you do not need a huge intelligence to work out what you meant) I do not know. He even ignored the other mistake in that sentence. But again that is only a cosmetic error. Says more about the person pointing out the error than the person who made it.
That one. Fairly rare mistake for me.

If that would be the only complaint about my English, I'd think I am doing quite well.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 12:55 AM   #399
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,955
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
That one. Fairly rare mistake for me.

If that would be the only complaint about my English, I'd think I am doing quite well.
It read more like a typo that a linguistic mistake to me.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2018, 10:02 AM   #400
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,999
I hadn't even noticed the fatal Tesla "on autopilot" crash the other day. They should really rename that facility, and Musk should stop publicly pimping its abilities.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.