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 22nd March 2018, 11:23 AM   #161
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,275
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Some people aren't going to be happy until it is shown that the women's unborn son was destined to grow up to lead us against the machine uprising.
Thread!
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 22nd March 2018, 11:25 AM   #162
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You ask for evidence of all these things then deny without evidence the possibility that a human could have seen the pedestrian at a significantly further distance than you can in that low resolution video

It's entirely possible that a person paying attention could have had more time to react than that video seems to imply.


If that video shows all the information available to the driver, I think I would have hit her.

I don't think it does though.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 22nd March 2018, 11:32 AM   #163
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If that video shows all the information available to the driver, I think I would have hit her.

I don't think it does though.
If that video shows all the information available to the driver, their vision is so impaired they shouldn't have a license.
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 22nd March 2018, 11:34 AM   #164
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's possible they want to get data from single sources (Visual, thermal, IR, Lidar, Radar) before trying to advance the system to taking data from multiple sources.
Should already be to the point if multiple sources if they are testing on the roads, others are doing so. If they aren't at the point of having redundant safety systems, they have no business testing in populated cities.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 11:38 AM   #165
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,865
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Should already be to the point if multiple sources if they are testing on the roads, others are doing so. If they aren't at the point of having redundant safety systems, they have no business testing in populated cities.
It would be a wonderful world if the testing you could gather "in the lab" ended at exactly the point where you could test "in the wild" with zero risk, but that's not how reality works.

Again if we applied the same standards to human drivers it would be impossible to ever become a driver because you'd have to pass your driver's license test before they ever gave you a learner's permit because if you aren't already a license driver you'd have no business out on the road in populated areas learning to drive.

The fact that this is a single (or small number) of systems that only have to be trained once instead of millions of people that all have to be trained over the course of... all the time only makes this more ludicrous.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd March 2018 at 11:41 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   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 22nd March 2018, 12:39 PM   #166
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It would be a wonderful world if the testing you could gather "in the lab" ended at exactly the point where you could test "in the wild" with zero risk, but that's not how reality works.

Again if we applied the same standards to human drivers it would be impossible to ever become a driver because you'd have to pass your driver's license test before they ever gave you a learner's permit because if you aren't already a license driver you'd have no business out on the road in populated areas learning to drive.

The fact that this is a single (or small number) of systems that only have to be trained once instead of millions of people that all have to be trained over the course of... all the time only makes this more ludicrous.
What I'm saying is that there are autonomous vehicles being tested that have multiple data sources already, so it is not an impossible expectation. In fact, Uber's is similar to that from Waymo (or stolen from), so it should have that capability from the get go. I am all for testing, but you have to make sure that what is being tested is going to be as safe as realistically possible. This wasn't a one in a million choice for the car, it was a pretty clear cut case where it should have been better than a human driver.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 12:50 PM   #167
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If that video shows all the information available to the driver, I think I would have hit her.
It doesn't, it's a dash cam and like all dash cams, even the best ones, it has a very high contrast ratio at night. It's quite possible you would have hit her, but it's equally likely you would have applied the brakes at least enough to avoid killing her.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 22nd March 2018, 01:02 PM   #168
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,795
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again if we applied the same standards to human drivers it would be impossible to ever become a driver because you'd have to pass your driver's license test before they ever gave you a learner's permit because if you aren't already a license driver you'd have no business out on the road in populated areas learning to drive.
I actually had the idea that instead of comparing driverless cars to the average human driver, we should compare them to the average new human driver - but then place limitations on the numbers of driverless vehicles on open routes, on the number of passengers at once, the type of cargo carried, all that, until the average for driverless matches or exceeds the average for experienced human drivers.

That way, they don't need to be as good as you or me, they only need to be as good as that hormonal 16 year-old across the street. Like the teenager's parents, we give the carbots more freedom as they get better at it. (Which is kind of what we are actually doing.)

Last edited by crescent; 22nd March 2018 at 01:59 PM.
crescent 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 22nd March 2018, 01:03 PM   #169
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You ask for evidence of all these things then deny without evidence the possibility that a human could have seen the pedestrian at a significantly further distance than you can in that low resolution video
If you have evidence that a person could have seen more than the video showed, then its your burden of proof to do so.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It's entirely possible that a person paying attention could have had more time to react than that video seems to imply.
Its is extremely unlikely.

Some months back, I was driving my sister back to her home on a rural road (at night, two-lane, sealed). As we were driving through Ruby Bay (at that time a 70km/h zone), suddenly, something flashed past me on my right (past my driver's window) before I had a chance to say "what was that?". I jammed on the anchors and stopped. My sister saw what it was, because she looked back and identified it in the glare of my brake lights.

It was a pony standing on the centreline (it was a WHITE pony, it should have been visible to me... it wasn't. My eyesight is very good.

If that horse had not been standing in the middle, and instead had walked out of the shadows into the beam of my headlights, I would have hit it before ever having a chance to brake.

As regards the pedestrian, someone with excellent eyesight, paying 100% attention, expecting something to happen, MIGHT have seen the pedestrian before she become visible on the camera, but that would only be a matter of about a second... not enough to avoid hitting her at speed. That might apply to a tiny percentage of drivers on the road... the vast majority would not have reacted in time.

Also keep in mind that even if a driver was paying attention, in a country where you drive on the right, you are more likely to be looking down the right side of the road, not the left side.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
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 22nd March 2018, 01:05 PM   #170
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It would be a wonderful world if the testing you could gather "in the lab" ended at exactly the point where you could test "in the wild" with zero risk, but that's not how reality works.
Yet the testing results for autonomous cars are woeful. Human interventions were rife in most of the studies I saw, and performance in others was either highly limited or laughably poor.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again if we applied the same standards to human drivers it would be impossible to ever become a driver because you'd have to pass your driver's license test before they ever gave you a learner's permit because if you aren't already a license driver you'd have no business out on the road in populated areas learning to drive.
There's no equivalent. A human being is already equipped with the knowledge that crashing and killing people is a bad thing, best to be avoided, and already has almost all the skills needed to drive a car. Machines are not and do not.

Also, you're missing the important point. A failure in one car equals a failure in all cars, assuming identical technology. A better analogy would be a human falling into a diabetic coma at the wheel. That person is clearly a risk on the roads until their condition is addressed, but if it somehow followed that every human driver was equally liable to slip into a coma whilst driving then that's a big problem.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 22nd March 2018, 01:31 PM   #171
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you have evidence that a person could have seen more than the video showed, then its your burden of proof to do so.
You have the burden of proof backwards here. You are claiming that crappy dashcam footage is better than human vision and it's impossible anyone could see better than it could.

If you want proof, just scale the video to size that you would see the scene in real life, and if the pixels look blocky, congrats, your eyes have higher resolution than a video camera.
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 22nd March 2018, 01:41 PM   #172
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Show me the evidence of these things.
Why would I want to do that?


Quote:
There is nothing wrong with my math. It is definitive and it is 100% correct based in ALL the available information (not on your speculation about what a human ca or cannot see).
Your math is fine. Your data.....is as good as the available information.

But if you look at the frame where the tennis shoes appear, ask yourself where the shoes were in the frame before.
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 22nd March 2018, 02:19 PM   #173
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You have the burden of proof backwards here. You are claiming that crappy dashcam footage is better than human vision and it's impossible anyone could see better than it could.
No, you have it backwards. You are making the claim (that human eyes have a better dynamic range)... you prove it

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
If you want proof, just scale the video to size that you would see the scene in real life, and if the pixels look blocky, congrats, your eyes have higher resolution than a video camera.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with resolution, it has to with dynamic range (the range of which a camera can successfully capture the lightest and darkest areas of an image without losing detail) But even if resolution was an issue, the resolution of the crappy video being played on the internet is not necessarily the original resolution of the camera that look it.

Further, here is something else for you to think about. If the video on the internet has been converted to match the requirements of the website playing it (and it almost certainly has) then I can tell you for a fact that dynamic range will badly affected by the conversion. Taking a, say 1920 x 1080 MP4 file and converting to a 640 x 480 FLV loses a tremendous amount of dynamic range, as much as three or four stops in most cases.

Now, I can tell you that while a human eye might be better that the crappy video we see on the internet, I would be absolutely horrified if the autodrive system was actually using a video camera with such a poor dynamic range.

PS: I am professional image finisher with over 20 years experience in the trade. I deal with this stuff every day of the week.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
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 22nd March 2018, 02:35 PM   #174
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, you have it backwards. You are making the claim (that human eyes have a better dynamic range)... you prove it



It has nothing whatsoever to do with resolution, it has to with dynamic range (the range of which a camera can successfully capture the lightest and darkest areas of an image without losing detail) But even if resolution was an issue, the resolution of the crappy video being played on the internet is not necessarily the original resolution of the camera that look it.

Further, here is something else for you to think about. If the video on the internet has been converted to match the requirements of the website playing it (and it almost certainly has) then I can tell you for a fact that dynamic range will badly affected by the conversion. Taking a, say 1920 x 1080 MP4 file and converting to a 640 x 480 FLV loses a tremendous amount of dynamic range, as much as three or four stops in most cases.

Now, I can tell you that while a human eye might be better that the crappy video we see on the internet, I would be absolutely horrified if the autodrive system was actually using a video camera with such a poor dynamic range.

PS: I am professional image finisher with over 20 years experience in the trade. I deal with this stuff every day of the week.
The other missing element in the discussion about dynamic range is that the dashcam we're using for this postmortem is not the equipment the vehicle was using for input into the navigation logic.

This test vehicle had several cameras with varying dynamic ranges, including outside human visual perception (eg: LIDAR). This is a huge failure for the tech's reputation, because a critical salespitch with this technology is that exactly this type of thing - detecting an object in front of the car and braking - is the [i]bare minimum[/] safety functionality that should be nailed down before firing these things off into a public street.

This is where I got anxious when tech's mantra shifted to "move fast and break things" - this 'thing' was a 49 year old woman.
__________________
"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 22nd March 2018, 04:39 PM   #175
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The other missing element in the discussion about dynamic range is that the dashcam we're using for this postmortem is not the equipment the vehicle was using for input into the navigation logic.
Absolutely this, and I be astonished if it was

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
This test vehicle had several cameras with varying dynamic ranges, including outside human visual perception (eg: LIDAR). This is a huge failure for the tech's reputation, because a critical salespitch with this technology is that exactly this type of thing - detecting an object in front of the car and braking - is the [i]bare minimum[/] safety functionality that should be nailed down before firing these things off into a public street.

This is where I got anxious when tech's mantra shifted to "move fast and break things" - this 'thing' was a 49 year old woman.
Well, I am not arguing whether this was a failure or not, I'm arguing that a human could not have done any better, and would certainly not have reacted in time to brake and avoid the accident.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
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 22nd March 2018, 04:58 PM   #176
fibbermcgee
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 99
Two things. The driver seems focused on the speedometer rather than the road. Second the headlights. I have a new car with all the safety features. Auto braking, lane change warning, rear cameras, etc. I also have headlights that are really, really bright. They should easily pick up whats going on from a good distance on both sides of the road. It looks like she is almost past the car when she is hit.
If I am backing out of a parking space I get a beeping if there is a car within 40 feet of me.
By the way the news just announced that the driver is an ex-con who just did four years in the big house before being hired by Uber. Don't know what that has to do with the accident but news is news.
fibbermcgee 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 22nd March 2018, 06:22 PM   #177
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by fibbermcgee View Post
Two things. The driver seems focused on the speedometer rather than the road. Second the headlights. I have a new car with all the safety features. Auto braking, lane change warning, rear cameras, etc. I also have headlights that are really, really bright. They should easily pick up whats going on from a good distance on both sides of the road. It looks like she is almost past the car when she is hit.
If I am backing out of a parking space I get a beeping if there is a car within 40 feet of me.
By the way the news just announced that the driver is an ex-con who just did four years in the big house before being hired by Uber. Don't know what that has to do with the accident but news is news.
I would be really surprised if headlight settings in the US allowed the left beam to shine a long way down the opposite side of the road. That would be highly dangerous for oncoming traffic. Headlights in right hand driving countries are usually required to be set so that the left beam shines down the centre of the driving lane and the right beam shines down the side of the lane so as to illuminate the right edge of the road. The reason for this is obvious... the most likely position of a non/poorly-illuminated object such as a pedestrian or a cyclist is the right edge... that is where a sudden encroachment is most likely to come from. A pedestrian suddenly appearing from the dark on the left side of the car would be a real outlier
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
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 22nd March 2018, 11:04 PM   #178
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,165
bruto has a birthday
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I would be really surprised if headlight settings in the US allowed the left beam to shine a long way down the opposite side of the road. That would be highly dangerous for oncoming traffic. Headlights in right hand driving countries are usually required to be set so that the left beam shines down the centre of the driving lane and the right beam shines down the side of the lane so as to illuminate the right edge of the road. The reason for this is obvious... the most likely position of a non/poorly-illuminated object such as a pedestrian or a cyclist is the right edge... that is where a sudden encroachment is most likely to come from. A pedestrian suddenly appearing from the dark on the left side of the car would be a real outlier
It's party true at least that headlights are biased to the right, and on low beam they don't illuminate the left as well, but the limitation is more on height than width. If the autonomous car (or the non autonomous driver) is forgetting to look to the left, country driving will be a disaster. Things jump out from both sides. I've looked again at the video, from another source that includes post accident pictures, and one thing that strikes me is that the upper portion of the video itself is surprisingly dark. It looks as if the camera's sensor has been fooled by the overhead illumination, which is blown out, and it results in a black area in the picture that moves as the car moves. Look at it again, and you'll see that the view is actually greater at a distance than it is closer. The pedestrian is actually crossing nearly under street lights, but in the video she seems to materialize suddenly in front of the car.

The other thing that is made clear here is that the impact was pretty far over to the right corner of the vehicle, suggesting that it would not have taken a great deal of steering or slowing, if not to avoid the impact, at least to change it. The automated system is supposed to react quickly, but in this case it appears it did not react at all.

Having had my cycling career ended forever by a car, but in this case still walking and talking, I can say with some degree of certainty that it makes a difference how you are hit!

I still am willing to acknowledge that a human might have, even probably would have, hit the pedestrian too, but the automated driver did not distinguish itself here.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 11:20 PM   #179
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,558
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Absolutely this, and I be astonished if it was



Well, I am not arguing whether this was a failure or not, I'm arguing that a human could not have done any better, and would certainly not have reacted in time to brake and avoid the accident.
Considering most of cameras don't have really good dynamic range and it takes them fairly long to adjust for change, so don't get too hung on those black patches in video. Also noise can get very brutal in low light conditions for almost all of camera chips. (And that noise is hard to remove)

In any case it is possible to argue that car was driving too fast for conditions. (If that patch was that dark as suggested) Some drivers actually solve this problem by briefly using long range lights to illuminate such dark corners if there is no on-coming traffic. (Like in this case)
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 12:56 AM   #180
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
I think the video is misleading about what could be seen by the driver.

I believe the driver could see better and more than what is implied by the video, and likely could have braked some if paying attention, but the accident still isn't his fault.

The sensors of course should see far more and much farther ahead.

I would also like to add that if the safety driver is doing something like looking at a smartphone, then his night vision will be poor, and he won't see much outside the car at night.
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 03:03 AM   #181
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well, I am not arguing whether this was a failure or not, I'm arguing that a human could not have done any better, and would certainly not have reacted in time to brake and avoid the accident.
Any competent driver would have had time to brake, that much is obvious from the video.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron 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 23rd March 2018, 03:06 AM   #182
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,785
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I think the video is misleading about what could be seen by the driver.

I believe the driver could see better and more than what is implied by the video, and likely could have braked some if paying attention, but the accident still isn't his fault.

The sensors of course should see far more and much farther ahead.

I would also like to add that if the safety driver is doing something like looking at a smartphone, then his night vision will be poor, and he won't see much outside the car at night.
He's actually a her.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 23rd March 2018, 03:55 AM   #183
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
One thing that I hope comes out of this is that the idea of depending on a "safety driver" in an autonomous vehicle is a really bad idea.

Of course, everyone already knew that, and by "everyone" I mean everyone. There were a number of people, many of whom have financial interests in autonomous vehicles, who were willing to delude themselves, and pretend that the safety driver would and could react, but no one really believed it.

I'm enthusiastic about autonomous vehicles, and I do think that they should continue development, and that someday they will be safer than human drivers. However, until I can get into my car, tell it to take me to Saint Louis, and go to sleep in the back seat confident that I will arrive at my destination safe and sound, those vehicles are not ready to be on the road in the hands of regular drivers.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 23rd March 2018 at 03:58 AM.
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 23rd March 2018, 04:35 AM   #184
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mone...ure/446407002/

Quote:
The Uber employees who spend full-day shifts behind the wheel of the cars said that at night on Mill — when numerous people cross the street amid the restaurants and bars near Arizona State University — the cars are effective at anticipating jaywalkers.

The operators said in the desert area to the north, near the accident scene, the sensors often prompt the cars to stop before operators see pedestrians who are walking in the dark on the side of the road toward the path of the vehicle.
Quote:
However, during a daylight drive around ASU and up and down Scottsdale Road, the operators of the Uber vehicles had to take over the controls for multiple instances when the cars could not negotiate traffic on their own.

In one instance, the driver braked and turned the wheel because he was concerned the autonomous Volvo would not avoid a car in front of it as the Volvo changed lanes to turn onto Rio Salado Parkway.
Quote:
Uber officials have said it can detect objects 100 yards away.
100 yards is about 5 seconds at 40mph or 3.5 seconds at 60mph.

That seems like enough time for the driver to react to an alert from the system, I think?

2-3 seconds is considered a good following distance for cars in daylight.

EDIT: Except if we add in a delay for the safety driver to decide that the car is not going to react? If I'm driving the car, I react however fast I react. If a computer is driving the car, then I probably delay my reaction to see if the computer is going to react.
__________________
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?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 23rd March 2018 at 04:40 AM.
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 23rd March 2018, 04:42 AM   #185
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
I'm assuming the system tells the driver what it sees ahead so the driver knows that action may be necessary.

Maybe it doesn't...
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 05:09 AM   #186
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,446
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Not so. You would have had several seconds warning.

You are judging by what you see on the camera, but the camera does lie. The intensity of the headlights makes most of the vision wash out, so she is not visible until it's too late, but most people's eyes are better than that camera, and the motion of the feet, or the reflectors on the bicycle tire would have caught your attention and even if you didn't realize it was a person, you would have been primed to react when, two seconds before the collision, she came into actual view.

I've had people do that on Woodward Avenue, and very commonly on Ten Mile Road, and I've nearly hit them, but the key word is "nearly".

She was at fault, in a legal sense, but an alert human driver would not have killed her.
If she couldn't see the headlights coming from a mile away, how are you so confident that a driver could have seen her in time?
theprestige 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 23rd March 2018, 06:40 AM   #187
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,165
bruto has a birthday
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If she couldn't see the headlights coming from a mile away, how are you so confident that a driver could have seen her in time?
Who said she couldn't see them? We don't know what she saw, nor what she presumed - such as the presumption that she had room for a normal driver to avoid her. Plenty of people just misjudge. Or, of course, maybe she was stupid, careless, or not paying attention, something that makes the accident her fault but not necessarily unavoidable given that a driver is not expected to be stupid, careless and inattentive.

However, while we're trying to weigh the scanty evidence we should also remember that the camera used has a fairly wide angle, and as those wide angle rear view mirrors always remind us, objects may be closer than they appear. It's very difficult to judge true distance from any focal length that differs from our own eye.

What seems unavoidable, though, is the observation that the car hit the pedestrian on its far right corner without any visible braking or swerving, which leaves open the question of whether the car could have mitigated the result, if not eliminated it altogether. I think that question remains even if we acknowledge that the pedestrian bore the burden of responsibility.
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 08:56 AM   #188
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
He's actually a her.
Duh. ******* female drivers!
Just make all autonomous vehicles male. Problem solved.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
GStan 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 23rd March 2018, 09:06 AM   #189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,446
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Who said she couldn't see them? We don't know what she saw, nor what she presumed - such as the presumption that she had room for a normal driver to avoid her. Plenty of people just misjudge. Or, of course, maybe she was stupid, careless, or not paying attention, something that makes the accident her fault but not necessarily unavoidable given that a driver is not expected to be stupid, careless and inattentive.
Fair enough. But first of all, of course drivers are expected to be stupid, careless, and inattentive. Thus all the attention-lights, signs, high-contrast road markings, etc. As a child, were you taught to "stop, look, and listen" before crossing a street? I was, because drivers are expected to be stupid, careless, and inattentive. You know the concept of defensive driving? It exists, and is recommended, because we have certain expectations about drivers.

Second of all, if we are going to allow for some tolerance of pedestrians being stupid, careless, and inattentive in the middle of the road, then we should allow for some tolerance of drivers and robots doing the same. Both the pedestrian and the motorist are human beings with human flaws. We should not hold the motorist to a higher standard of human function than the pedestrian. And we should probably not demand a higher level of function from our robots, than what society requires from its humans.
theprestige 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 23rd March 2018, 09:39 AM   #190
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,275
Are saying you don't feel a person wielding a deadly weapon should not be held to a higher standard of behavior?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg 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 23rd March 2018, 10:15 AM   #191
Stankeye
Thinker
 
Stankeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 237
Two videos of the road at night that show the area doesn't appear as dark as the released video. This road does not seem as dark as the released video shows.

15-16 sec in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0lpe-puOI


33 sec in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRW0q8i3u6E
Stankeye 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 23rd March 2018, 10:18 AM   #192
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Absolutely this, and I be astonished if it was



Well, I am not arguing whether this was a failure or not, I'm arguing that a human could not have done any better, and would certainly not have reacted in time to brake and avoid the accident.
I actually think a human would have been able to avoid the accident, but we will never really know. The human wasn't watching the road.

It's not about what the car's instruments can detect - it's whether the technology is capable of the ultimate goal of road safety, stopping when it detects an obstacle. I'd say the technology is not at this basic level yet.

Humans are more than just eyes with feet on pedals. We have wetware with motion sensitive peripheral vision. We don't even 'see' those things in our peripheral vision, we don't have colour receptors, just dedicated motion reflexes in that part of the visual cortex. But we react to them like gangbusters. To the point of overcompensating.

So: would a human have fared better? No way to tell IMO, based on the very limited dashcam that doesn't show us what a driver in the driver's seat would have unconsciously detected in the peripheral vision motion reflexes.
__________________
"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 23rd March 2018, 10:25 AM   #193
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I actually think a human would have been able to avoid the accident, but we will never really know. The human wasn't watching the road.

It's not about what the car's instruments can detect - it's whether the technology is capable of the ultimate goal of road safety, stopping when it detects an obstacle. I'd say the technology is not at this basic level yet.

Humans are more than just eyes with feet on pedals. We have wetware with motion sensitive peripheral vision. We don't even 'see' those things in our peripheral vision, we don't have colour receptors, just dedicated motion reflexes in that part of the visual cortex. But we react to them like gangbusters. To the point of overcompensating.

So: would a human have fared better? No way to tell IMO, based on the very limited dashcam that doesn't show us what a driver in the driver's seat would have unconsciously detected in the peripheral vision motion reflexes.
You can't make the assumption that since this particular application failed, that the technology isn't ready. One company or incident does not define the drive to autonomous, so you have to look at what is being done as a whole industry.
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 10:28 AM   #194
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,446
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Are saying you don't feel a person wielding a deadly weapon should not be held to a higher standard of behavior?
Not if they haven't been required to meet a higher standard of competency.

I've got a driver's license. I also have a bicycle. I also try to walk almost everywhere. I don't magically become a more competent human being when I hop on my bike or get behind the wheel of my car. Whatever stupidity, carelessness, and inattention I carry with me afoot, I also carry with me in my car. Driver's education in American public schools doesn't elevate my driving self that far above my natural state.

So if I'm willing to forgive a pedestrian for being stupid, careless, and inattentive and getting into a car accident as a result, then I'm also willing to forgive her doppelganger behind the wheel of the car.
theprestige 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 23rd March 2018, 10:47 AM   #195
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, you have it backwards. You are making the claim (that human eyes have a better dynamic range)... you prove it

No. This started with you making a claim:

Quote:
I downloaded the video (its 25 fps) and measured from the first frame where you catch a glimpse of the tennis shoes, to the moment they stopped the video just before impact. It is 43 frames = 1.72 seconds
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with my math. It is definitive and it is 100% correct based in ALL the available information (not on your speculation about what a human ca or cannot see).

There is no way that ANY driver, no matter how good he or she was, could have avoided hitting that pedestrian at a fatal speed. Not a chance... none!

I asked you to support your claim and you tried to shift the burden of proof to me. It's your claim.

Quote:
Further, here is something else for you to think about. If the video on the internet has been converted to match the requirements of the website playing it (and it almost certainly has) then I can tell you for a fact that dynamic range will badly affected by the conversion. Taking a, say 1920 x 1080 MP4 file and converting to a 640 x 480 FLV loses a tremendous amount of dynamic range, as much as three or four stops in most cases.

Oops, you just blew your own claim out of the water.

At best your analysis puts a lower bound on the time to react. The real view that the driver and the camera had was better than this crappy video by an unknown amount. We don't know how much time someone would actually have to react, only that it's no lower than the number you came up with. It could definitely be higher, by your own logic that the video you analyzed was degraded.

Your argue as if it was at most 1.72 seconds to react, when in reality it's at least 1.72 seconds, and we don't know how much more.
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 23rd March 2018, 11:34 AM   #196
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
You can't make the assumption that since this particular application failed, that the technology isn't ready. One company or incident does not define the drive to autonomous, so you have to look at what is being done as a whole industry.
No, but it's a bad sign, since Uber seems to be in the top three most advanced fleets.

Another reason this is a bad sign is that this is safety 101, which is stopping when an object appears in the path of the vehicle. This car didn't stop too late - it didn't stop at all.

I'm arguing that the onus is on the companies to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they are safe enough for public road testing, I think this is strong evidence that this company cannot. If Uber can't, probably the others can't either, we need to review the slack policy of deploy and only question it when somebody is killed. The next one could be a kid.

ETA: and my motive is because I want these technologies to emerge. Nothing kills a sea change technology like public outcry over an avoidably crippled baby or ten. Rushing and botching it just ends up delaying the benefit.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 23rd March 2018 at 11:38 AM.
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 23rd March 2018, 11:58 AM   #197
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
No, but it's a bad sign, since Uber seems to be in the top three most advanced fleets.
They're probably not even in the top 10.

Quote:
Another reason this is a bad sign is that this is safety 101, which is stopping when an object appears in the path of the vehicle. This car didn't stop too late - it didn't stop at all.
Totally agree, as I noted above. Doesn't mean the technology isn't right, could be that the algorithms are wrong, the wrong technology was used or the right technology was used incorrectly. Not knowing their system or the failure, hard to say.

Quote:
I'm arguing that the onus is on the companies to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they are safe enough for public road testing, I think this is strong evidence that this company cannot. If Uber can't, probably the others can't either, we need to review the slack policy of deploy and only question it when somebody is killed. The next one could be a kid.
That's a big assumption considering we don't know the failure mode to be able to compare how other companies handle this. Of course, we have multiple videos of other companies stopping for riders, vehicles, raccoons, etc. so you once again shouldn't assume based upon this one company's failure.

Quote:
ETA: and my motive is because I want these technologies to emerge. Nothing kills a sea change technology like public outcry over an avoidably crippled baby or ten. Rushing and botching it just ends up delaying the benefit.
It will emerge and I am all for safety and redundant safety systems. There seems to be this assumption that there hasn't already been years of testing these vehicles before they hit the open road. There has been extensive testing to get to this point, but at some time you're going to have to try these in the real world.
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 12:00 PM   #198
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,865
"I'm not against tech, I just want to make sure it's safe enough" is always the battlecry of anti-tech people.

"Safe enough" is an open ended standard you can keep going forever.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   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 23rd March 2018, 12:00 PM   #199
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,477
ars technica article on this

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...s-car-program/

Uber isn't renowned for its conservative approach to risk.
__________________
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 23rd March 2018, 12:16 PM   #200
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"I'm not against tech, I just want to make sure it's safe enough" is always the battlecry of anti-tech people.

"Safe enough" is an open ended standard you can keep going forever.
Exactly! Just look at the Apollo 1 fire. Did we really learn anything from that? We could have made it to the Moon!


Oh ... wait ...


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Elagabalus 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 06:56 AM.
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.