7 ms·

Yes, the report you'd hope to be hearing from Uber is along the lines of "0.2 seconds after the pedestrian entered the travel lane the automated system identifi

by dzdt 9y ago

Yes, the report you'd hope to be hearing from Uber is along the lines of "0.2 seconds after the pedestrian entered the travel lane the automated system identified her as a hazard and initiated an avoidance maneuver. Despite braking and beginning to swerve away, the car impacted the pedestrian 1.2 seconds later." Thats the promise the automated vehicle people are selling. But in this case it seems the car was clueless.

Jackalopiate 9y ago
As was the driver, mind you
TillE 9y ago
I'm really skeptical about swerving as an evasive maneuver. It's complicated to get that right. But yes, if it didn't at least slam the brakes then something went badly wrong. Maybe you can't prevent an accident, but you can at least reduce momentum and demonstrate that your system was working correctly.
- PunchTornado 9y ago
  Why didn't the human hit the brake? I don't understand how this is even news to be honest. There was a human in the driving seat and he failed to stop just like the computer.
  - Scaevolus 9y ago
    Computers have better reaction times than humans. Forcibly braking is a simple maneuver.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      > Computers have better reaction times than humans. Forcibly braking is a simple maneuver. The question isn't about the MHZ speed of a computer or the theoretical reaction time but the lack of reaction by the computer in the actual real world. It doesn't matter if this is a sensor failure, a software bug, or a slow reaction by a computer. The result is the same. A person died. From the article: *"... the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision.”
  - dzdt 9y ago
    Probably the human wasn't paying close attention. That is the problem with level 3-4 automated vehicles: a human who is not in primary control of the vehicle has trouble paying attention and is unable to take over control quickly if it is needed.
    - branchan 9y ago
      Wait, are you now blaming level 3-4 automated vehicles for the inattention of the human?
      - ben_w 9y ago
        It’s a problem people knew about back when “autopilot” was just for aircraft, not cars. https://blog.prototypr.io/automation-is-making-us-dumber-and-thats-a-good-thing-e58fba16118a https://blog.prototypr.io/automation-is-making-us-dumber-and...
      - makomk 9y ago
        Ultimately, we have to design systems for the humans that actually exist, not some hypothetical superhuman. If it's not safe for actual humans to use then it's not safe full stop. It's not like this is some new issue; it's one of the main reasons why experts have been pessimistic about the prospects of self-driving cars and why existing car companies have been reluctant to deploy heavy automation in the field.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        I think he's blaming the folks who put level 3-4 vehicles on the road presumably knowing full well that said human inattention would put people at serious risk of injury and death in the car's edge cases.
    - u801e 9y ago
      That's why I think vehicle automation development follow the path where the computer is not in primary control of the vehicle and can take over quickly when needed. Unlike humans, computers don't have trouble paying attention.
  - vha32oiwe 9y ago
    Maybe read the article: "The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," Moir said, referring to the backup driver who was behind the wheel but not operating the vehicle. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."
- gmueckl 9y ago
  You can (and should!) brake and swerve at the same time. Unless you are driving an oldtimer, the car is capable of doing that. In my driving lessons I got told to swerve for humans. Pedestrians and cyclists are the least protected participants in traffic. If you swerve and hit another car, the resulting crash will cause a lot of damage, but injuries to humans will likely be much less severe, if they even happen. Animals, especially small ones are a different matter. Using the same argument, it is better to risk hitting the animal than risking sverving into other traffic.
  - rconti 9y ago
    Yes and no. The very action of braking will reduce available grip for the swerve. However, ABS and stability control mean you are at least quite unlikely to lose control if you try to do both at the same time. And of course, in this case, only a mild swerve would have been required, and adding braking would help scrub speed in the event that the obstacle moves in a manner that your swerve does not avoid.
  - looeee 9y ago
    There are so many variable here. If you are travelling at 30kmph and swerve into the path of a car going the opposite direction at 80kmph, that's a massive crash.
- rconti 9y ago
  Swerving is a better way to avoid a collision, but braking would have at least reduced the severity. Of course, this all presumes you can quickly analyze the situation and conclude that it is safe to swerve (which, in theory, the computer can do far faster than a human can).
branchan 9y ago
If the woman suddenly walked in front of the car at the last minute, I don't see how the situation could have been avoided, no matter how fast a computer is able to process the information from the sensors. There was also a driver behind the wheel, so it would suggest that humans are just as clueless.
- setr 9y ago
  But, ideally, the machinery should be much, much faster at becoming less clueless than the human driver; as the parent said, the ideal is that it should successfully identify, and fail to resolve, the impossible situation. It should not have no awareness it's in an impossible situation (because that implies it will have no awareness is similar, possible, situations)
- Someone 9y ago
  ”If the woman suddenly walked in front of the car at the last minute, I don't see how the situation could have been avoided” Likely, but not necessarily. Depending (hugely!) on what actually happened, it might be that the car should have started slowing down before the woman changed course. As an extreme example, if you’re driving at 50 mph and come up behind a kid cycling at the side of the road with a foot separation between the extrapolated trajectories of the bike and your car, should it be OK to continue your course at full speed, or should drivers take into account that kids are kids, and may move erratically? Also (again purely hypothetical), if the car had already had several similar events on that road that resulted in near misses, should it have slowed down before it even entered the street, knowing the road segment to be particularly dangerous? I think human drivers, even though they are horrible at attending to the road for extended periods, get into accidents relatively rarely because they know when they really need to pay attention. Finally, I do not rule out that that “driver behind the wheel” reacted slower than would have happened if (s)he was actually driving the car. Disclaimer: I’m a layman, and haven’t seen the video ⇒ Let’s wait and see what the NTSB will say about this.
  - Taniwha 9y ago
    or that at 50mph, a foot away, you're likely to blow the cyclist over ....
yndoendo 9y ago
Not in the field but I am assuming that the AI/ML cannot handle the ability to see possible road hazards with in the human peripheral vision area Such as a kid attempting to chase down a ball that is rolling towards the road (object vector path collision), specially with the ball and or kid suddenly hidden from view because of a parked car (real environment vs visual environment). Or a group playing basketball in a driveway. Both where slowing down is always the safer bet.
BurningFrog 9y ago
Sure, but I don't think you can expect that kind of information the next day or even the next month. Someone is dead and there may well be one or more trials as a result. Facts will take a s long as they take to surface.
xbeta 9y ago
Even the reaction is within 0.1s for the machine, you cannot brake and stop immediately. This is physics, and a mechanical problems. Please remove the software mindset when looking into this.
- sgustard 9y ago
  The car can begin to brake right away, and must certainly be expected to have a faster reaction time than a human. Whether it started to brake seems like the most important question here.

by dzdt 9y ago

Jackalopiate 9y ago

As was the driver, mind you

TillE 9y ago

I'm really skeptical about swerving as an evasive maneuver. It's complicated to get that right. But yes, if it didn't at least slam the brakes then something went badly wrong. Maybe you can't prevent an accident, but you can at least reduce momentum and demonstrate that your system was working correctly.

PunchTornado 9y ago
Why didn't the human hit the brake? I don't understand how this is even news to be honest. There was a human in the driving seat and he failed to stop just like the computer.
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  Computers have better reaction times than humans. Forcibly braking is a simple maneuver.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    > Computers have better reaction times than humans. Forcibly braking is a simple maneuver. The question isn't about the MHZ speed of a computer or the theoretical reaction time but the lack of reaction by the computer in the actual real world. It doesn't matter if this is a sensor failure, a software bug, or a slow reaction by a computer. The result is the same. A person died. From the article: *"... the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision.”
- dzdt 9y ago
  Probably the human wasn't paying close attention. That is the problem with level 3-4 automated vehicles: a human who is not in primary control of the vehicle has trouble paying attention and is unable to take over control quickly if it is needed.
  - branchan 9y ago
    Wait, are you now blaming level 3-4 automated vehicles for the inattention of the human?
    - ben_w 9y ago
      It’s a problem people knew about back when “autopilot” was just for aircraft, not cars. https://blog.prototypr.io/automation-is-making-us-dumber-and-thats-a-good-thing-e58fba16118a https://blog.prototypr.io/automation-is-making-us-dumber-and...
    - makomk 9y ago
      Ultimately, we have to design systems for the humans that actually exist, not some hypothetical superhuman. If it's not safe for actual humans to use then it's not safe full stop. It's not like this is some new issue; it's one of the main reasons why experts have been pessimistic about the prospects of self-driving cars and why existing car companies have been reluctant to deploy heavy automation in the field.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      I think he's blaming the folks who put level 3-4 vehicles on the road presumably knowing full well that said human inattention would put people at serious risk of injury and death in the car's edge cases.
  - u801e 9y ago
    That's why I think vehicle automation development follow the path where the computer is not in primary control of the vehicle and can take over quickly when needed. Unlike humans, computers don't have trouble paying attention.
- vha32oiwe 9y ago
  Maybe read the article: "The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," Moir said, referring to the backup driver who was behind the wheel but not operating the vehicle. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."
gmueckl 9y ago
You can (and should!) brake and swerve at the same time. Unless you are driving an oldtimer, the car is capable of doing that. In my driving lessons I got told to swerve for humans. Pedestrians and cyclists are the least protected participants in traffic. If you swerve and hit another car, the resulting crash will cause a lot of damage, but injuries to humans will likely be much less severe, if they even happen. Animals, especially small ones are a different matter. Using the same argument, it is better to risk hitting the animal than risking sverving into other traffic.
- rconti 9y ago
  Yes and no. The very action of braking will reduce available grip for the swerve. However, ABS and stability control mean you are at least quite unlikely to lose control if you try to do both at the same time. And of course, in this case, only a mild swerve would have been required, and adding braking would help scrub speed in the event that the obstacle moves in a manner that your swerve does not avoid.
- looeee 9y ago
  There are so many variable here. If you are travelling at 30kmph and swerve into the path of a car going the opposite direction at 80kmph, that's a massive crash.
rconti 9y ago
Swerving is a better way to avoid a collision, but braking would have at least reduced the severity. Of course, this all presumes you can quickly analyze the situation and conclude that it is safe to swerve (which, in theory, the computer can do far faster than a human can).

branchan 9y ago

If the woman suddenly walked in front of the car at the last minute, I don't see how the situation could have been avoided, no matter how fast a computer is able to process the information from the sensors. There was also a driver behind the wheel, so it would suggest that humans are just as clueless.

setr 9y ago
But, ideally, the machinery should be much, much faster at becoming less clueless than the human driver; as the parent said, the ideal is that it should successfully identify, and fail to resolve, the impossible situation. It should not have no awareness it's in an impossible situation (because that implies it will have no awareness is similar, possible, situations)
Someone 9y ago
”If the woman suddenly walked in front of the car at the last minute, I don't see how the situation could have been avoided” Likely, but not necessarily. Depending (hugely!) on what actually happened, it might be that the car should have started slowing down before the woman changed course. As an extreme example, if you’re driving at 50 mph and come up behind a kid cycling at the side of the road with a foot separation between the extrapolated trajectories of the bike and your car, should it be OK to continue your course at full speed, or should drivers take into account that kids are kids, and may move erratically? Also (again purely hypothetical), if the car had already had several similar events on that road that resulted in near misses, should it have slowed down before it even entered the street, knowing the road segment to be particularly dangerous? I think human drivers, even though they are horrible at attending to the road for extended periods, get into accidents relatively rarely because they know when they really need to pay attention. Finally, I do not rule out that that “driver behind the wheel” reacted slower than would have happened if (s)he was actually driving the car. Disclaimer: I’m a layman, and haven’t seen the video ⇒ Let’s wait and see what the NTSB will say about this.
- Taniwha 9y ago
  or that at 50mph, a foot away, you're likely to blow the cyclist over ....

yndoendo 9y ago

Not in the field but I am assuming that the AI/ML cannot handle the ability to see possible road hazards with in the human peripheral vision area Such as a kid attempting to chase down a ball that is rolling towards the road (object vector path collision), specially with the ball and or kid suddenly hidden from view because of a parked car (real environment vs visual environment). Or a group playing basketball in a driveway. Both where slowing down is always the safer bet.

BurningFrog 9y ago

Sure, but I don't think you can expect that kind of information the next day or even the next month. Someone is dead and there may well be one or more trials as a result. Facts will take a s long as they take to surface.

xbeta 9y ago

Even the reaction is within 0.1s for the machine, you cannot brake and stop immediately. This is physics, and a mechanical problems. Please remove the software mindset when looking into this.

sgustard 9y ago
The car can begin to brake right away, and must certainly be expected to have a faster reaction time than a human. Whether it started to brake seems like the most important question here.