4 ms·

>It should be frightening to anyone on the streets that Uber managers are making decisions to put self driving cars on the road. Something that probably should

>It should be frightening to anyone on the streets that Uber managers are making decisions to put self driving cars on the road. Something that probably should have been in the article's title that this accident occurred because the human driver in the other car failed to yield. While Uber is certainly a very flawed company, neither its technology nor its people were at fault here.

ubernostrum 10y ago
In theory one of the benefits of an autonomous car is its many-times-faster-than-human reaction and the fact that it doesn't ever get "distracted". Meanwhile, multiple brands of existing, human-driven cars already have the ability to detect an impending collision and avoid it, either through automatic emergency braking or other mechanisms. If Uber isn't even caught up to the stuff that's in cars for the general public, then what the hell are they doing?
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  > Meanwhile, multiple brands of existing, human-driven cars already have the ability to detect an impending collision and avoid it, either through automatic emergency braking or other mechanisms. Without more details we can't say whether this accident would have been avoidable with those systems.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  While I agree in general, I don't think we have enough details here to say that this was preventable by the Uber car, or any existing car. It's possible that the officially-at-fault car was sufficiently outside the envelope of expected behavior that no system could have prevented the crash. Stuff like predicting whether someone else will yield is basically mind reading, a Hard Problem in the general case.
- nradov 10y ago
  Existing active collision avoidance systems only work in the front aspect. Passive warning systems will give warnings about crossing traffic in some limited cases but it's still on the driver to react. That's about it for human-driven cars right now.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    There are collision-avoidance systems which can detect when you're making a dangerous turn into or, I believe, in front of other traffic.
notblackNwhite 10y ago
This. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who reads this headline and gets a quick summary. This headline makes it sound like Uber isn't confident of its technology and they think their technology might be the cause and hence they are suspending it. In this case, it seems pretty clear, as confirmed by the police officer, that Uber's car wasn't at fault.
- feross 10y ago
  It's normal for drivers to fail to yield legally. A human driver would respond by letting the other car go. If Uber tech can't handle this completely standard situation and results in a high-speed collision when another driver makes a minor error then Uber tech is not ready for prime time.
bdcravens 10y ago
> the human driver in the other car failed to yield Driving around Houston this happens to me several times a day. Obviously the technology wasn't designed for essentially "normal" driving conditions.
- kyledrake 10y ago
  Interesting thought. Anecdotally, I do probably make frequent subconscious decisions to avoid dangerous situations when I am able to predict the other driver is about to do something stupid, even if I have the right-of-way.
  - sethhochberg 10y ago
    Its like looking both ways before crossing a one-way street - nobody should ever be coming at me from the wrong way, but if someone was.... I want to be prepared to deal with that.
    - tunap 10y ago
      I live in an area popular with walkers & bicyclists due to the winding, undulating roads. They often travel against traffic on one-ways in the heart of town(roundabouts and one-way streets) and on the shoulderless two lanes. Anecdote related to TFA:, a couple months back an SUV stopped at a marked crosswalk with ped traffic. I stopped in right lane next to it. When peds cleared it began rolling before I did, and once I commenced it braked hard. I braked, looking for unseen peds and noticed it's nav gear & small uber decal. No additional peds were in crosswalk. There were dozens og people on either sidewalk for an art fair. I wonder if human intervention caused the hard braking or the large amount of data points on the periphery.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
And this is the 'hard bit' about self driving cars. If they are too passive and cautious human drivers will exploit them, if they assume the other cars will follow the rules, they will hit them.No amount of LIDAR magic and deep learning can fix that problem yet.
maddyboo 10y ago
We don't know about the specifics of the accident, but I just want to say that simply not being "at fault" is not the same thing as driving safely. A large number of accidents can be avoided by the non-"at fault" party alone exercising caution – something autonomous vehicles should be far superior at than humans. Say you're approaching an intersection with a green light while another car is traveling perpendicular at a moderately high rate of speed – perhaps just 5mph faster than their maximum safe stopping speed. You're completely allowed to just keep driving through the intersection, and when they hit you, they will be at fault. However, you could have avoided the collision by recognizing the situation and slowing down – and this is a type of analysis that autonomous vehicles are specially suited for compared to human drivers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mwfunk 10y ago
This one of the many reasons why self-driving cars are such a hard problem though. They don't just have to drive better than humans based on knowing the road and the conditions, they also have to deal with other drivers (who are perhaps also automated) behaving in unexpected ways. Self-driving cars have to be robust even when (especially when) normal assumptions about the road or other drivers aren't valid. This isn't tangential to the engineering problems surrounding self-driving cars, rather it's at the heart of those problems and why it's an order of magnitude (or more) harder than what so many people assume. It's not insurmountable, but whenever I hear people making comments like "self-driving cars are a solved problem, and are an inevitability in the near future", I cringe so hard. With a lot of care and skepticism, we can all make self-driving cars a thing in our lifetimes. Or, with a lot of overenthusiastic credulousness, we can make self-driving cars briefly a thing in the very near future, which get regulated out of existence for the remainder of our lives by a relatively small number of high-profile accidents like this.
- emiliobumachar 10y ago
  I agree with you about the hardness of the self driving car problem. But I think your other point about the inevitability of regulators killing self driving cars if they are short of perfect is just as cringe-worthy, as at least as harmful. Self-driving cars should be allowed to roll if they are better than humans, which might be the case already. It is hard, but not impossible, for government to do the right thing.
the_unknown 10y ago
When I learned to drive I was taught to always drive defensively - basically to avoid situations that could result in the 'chance of a risk of an accident'. Sure, 16-year old me and my friends joked about the terminology but the lesson stuck with me. Other driver going faster than they should? Switch lanes and avoid the situation. Turning into traffic and there is a car in your intended lane signalling that they're going to move out of the lane? Wait for them to actually move and make space for you - don't trust that their lights are the whole truth. Being a safe driver means not causing accidents but it also is on you to avoid being in situations with greater risk - "identify and reduce".

ubernostrum 10y ago

In theory one of the benefits of an autonomous car is its many-times-faster-than-human reaction and the fact that it doesn't ever get "distracted". Meanwhile, multiple brands of existing, human-driven cars already have the ability to detect an impending collision and avoid it, either through automatic emergency braking or other mechanisms. If Uber isn't even caught up to the stuff that's in cars for the general public, then what the hell are they doing?

Jtsummers 10y ago
> Meanwhile, multiple brands of existing, human-driven cars already have the ability to detect an impending collision and avoid it, either through automatic emergency braking or other mechanisms. Without more details we can't say whether this accident would have been avoidable with those systems.
andrewflnr 10y ago
While I agree in general, I don't think we have enough details here to say that this was preventable by the Uber car, or any existing car. It's possible that the officially-at-fault car was sufficiently outside the envelope of expected behavior that no system could have prevented the crash. Stuff like predicting whether someone else will yield is basically mind reading, a Hard Problem in the general case.
nradov 10y ago
Existing active collision avoidance systems only work in the front aspect. Passive warning systems will give warnings about crossing traffic in some limited cases but it's still on the driver to react. That's about it for human-driven cars right now.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  There are collision-avoidance systems which can detect when you're making a dangerous turn into or, I believe, in front of other traffic.

notblackNwhite 10y ago

This. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of someone who reads this headline and gets a quick summary. This headline makes it sound like Uber isn't confident of its technology and they think their technology might be the cause and hence they are suspending it. In this case, it seems pretty clear, as confirmed by the police officer, that Uber's car wasn't at fault.

feross 10y ago
It's normal for drivers to fail to yield legally. A human driver would respond by letting the other car go. If Uber tech can't handle this completely standard situation and results in a high-speed collision when another driver makes a minor error then Uber tech is not ready for prime time.

bdcravens 10y ago

> the human driver in the other car failed to yield Driving around Houston this happens to me several times a day. Obviously the technology wasn't designed for essentially "normal" driving conditions.

kyledrake 10y ago
Interesting thought. Anecdotally, I do probably make frequent subconscious decisions to avoid dangerous situations when I am able to predict the other driver is about to do something stupid, even if I have the right-of-way.
- sethhochberg 10y ago
  Its like looking both ways before crossing a one-way street - nobody should ever be coming at me from the wrong way, but if someone was.... I want to be prepared to deal with that.
  - tunap 10y ago
    I live in an area popular with walkers & bicyclists due to the winding, undulating roads. They often travel against traffic on one-ways in the heart of town(roundabouts and one-way streets) and on the shoulderless two lanes. Anecdote related to TFA:, a couple months back an SUV stopped at a marked crosswalk with ped traffic. I stopped in right lane next to it. When peds cleared it began rolling before I did, and once I commenced it braked hard. I braked, looking for unseen peds and noticed it's nav gear & small uber decal. No additional peds were in crosswalk. There were dozens og people on either sidewalk for an art fair. I wonder if human intervention caused the hard braking or the large amount of data points on the periphery.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

And this is the 'hard bit' about self driving cars. If they are too passive and cautious human drivers will exploit them, if they assume the other cars will follow the rules, they will hit them.No amount of LIDAR magic and deep learning can fix that problem yet.

maddyboo 10y ago

We don't know about the specifics of the accident, but I just want to say that simply not being "at fault" is not the same thing as driving safely. A large number of accidents can be avoided by the non-"at fault" party alone exercising caution – something autonomous vehicles should be far superior at than humans. Say you're approaching an intersection with a green light while another car is traveling perpendicular at a moderately high rate of speed – perhaps just 5mph faster than their maximum safe stopping speed. You're completely allowed to just keep driving through the intersection, and when they hit you, they will be at fault. However, you could have avoided the collision by recognizing the situation and slowing down – and this is a type of analysis that autonomous vehicles are specially suited for compared to human drivers.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mwfunk 10y ago

This one of the many reasons why self-driving cars are such a hard problem though. They don't just have to drive better than humans based on knowing the road and the conditions, they also have to deal with other drivers (who are perhaps also automated) behaving in unexpected ways. Self-driving cars have to be robust even when (especially when) normal assumptions about the road or other drivers aren't valid. This isn't tangential to the engineering problems surrounding self-driving cars, rather it's at the heart of those problems and why it's an order of magnitude (or more) harder than what so many people assume. It's not insurmountable, but whenever I hear people making comments like "self-driving cars are a solved problem, and are an inevitability in the near future", I cringe so hard. With a lot of care and skepticism, we can all make self-driving cars a thing in our lifetimes. Or, with a lot of overenthusiastic credulousness, we can make self-driving cars briefly a thing in the very near future, which get regulated out of existence for the remainder of our lives by a relatively small number of high-profile accidents like this.

emiliobumachar 10y ago
I agree with you about the hardness of the self driving car problem. But I think your other point about the inevitability of regulators killing self driving cars if they are short of perfect is just as cringe-worthy, as at least as harmful. Self-driving cars should be allowed to roll if they are better than humans, which might be the case already. It is hard, but not impossible, for government to do the right thing.

the_unknown 10y ago

When I learned to drive I was taught to always drive defensively - basically to avoid situations that could result in the 'chance of a risk of an accident'. Sure, 16-year old me and my friends joked about the terminology but the lesson stuck with me. Other driver going faster than they should? Switch lanes and avoid the situation. Turning into traffic and there is a car in your intended lane signalling that they're going to move out of the lane? Wait for them to actually move and make space for you - don't trust that their lights are the whole truth. Being a safe driver means not causing accidents but it also is on you to avoid being in situations with greater risk - "identify and reduce".