11 ms·

I have to agree. Just like a normal camera has issues in low-light, it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was. While I ca

I have to agree. Just like a normal camera has issues in low-light, it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was. While I can't say confidently that I would have been able to stop to prevent hitting them, watching the video in full screen does lead me to believe that I would have seen them and been able to apply the brakes at least enough to reduce the impact. Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else just prior to the impact. This alone leaves me skeptical to just how much could have been done to prevent this accident.

sydd 9y ago
The footage from a normal camera should not matter, a self driving car is equipped with stuff that works regardless of light conditions like LIDAR oor IR cameras. This looks to me like a software failure.
- danso 9y ago
  The footage from the normal camera does matter in that it's the main way that we (humans) can process the scene. The parent comments are just pointing out that the camera footage is likely darker than the actual scene in person.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Even so, I count a full second from when a human paying attention would have seen something just using this video as eyes, until impact. The stopping distance at 35mph is 136ft, which is 2.65 seconds at 35mph, so the accident would still happen but the impact speed could be lower.
    - zo1 9y ago
      Yeah, but at that speed, it's more than possible to swerve around an obstacle rather than screeching to a halt before touching it. Even turning slightly to the left/right would have made a dramatic difference in the outcome to this person's life. Not to mention the person in the car that might have also been severely injured if this was a heavier obstacle. This was purely bad software, and no failure scenario being programmed in. I really don't think it's that difficult to program split-second reaction to obstacles that appear into the driving path. We need to get to a point where these vehicles can do stuff like this, even in a 2-dimensional way: https://youtu.be/uLasBsoZBi0?t=1m40s https://youtu.be/uLasBsoZBi0?t=1m40s
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Well, there's also a question of whether the hardware is up to the task.
    - acdha 9y ago
      That’s a pretty significant difference — check out how quickly the fatality rates increase over 30mph or so: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_... Getting hit at 10mph still is going to suck but it’s a lot more likely to be broken bones and road-rash.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Even if it had just managed to slow from the 38 mph that it was clocked at to 30 mph would lower the probability of death from about 45% to 10%.
    - sbov 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance They seem to use 2.5 seconds as the standard for drivers to perceive and react to an obstacle, which based upon studies covers 90% of all drivers. 1.5 seconds to perceive, 1 second to react. Then you have maneuver time on top of that 2.5 seconds. Given this, 1 second seems very low. A large percentage of drivers would probably plow into them at full speed.
      - hnaccy 9y ago
        Your link says that 2.5 is to allow for worst case situation and below average drivers. If all but the slowest 10% can react in 2.5 seconds than I would think many would do a fair bit better. Edit: Apparently the average person is closer to 1.1 seconds. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.2748&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372...
  - estebank 9y ago
    The video footage being presented is beyond useless because it is misleading. The important data to determine wether the system misbehaved would look like this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2017/mar/16/google-waymo-self-driving-car-video-woman-bird https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2017/mar/16/goo... Waymo cars are capable of sensing vehicles and pedestrians at least half a block away in every directions. I was reserving any judgement on wether this collision could have been prevented, but seeing the video tells me that 1) a human driver might have hit the victim regardless, and 2) I'm very surprised that the LIDAR sensor didn't cause the car to stop to a halt much, much earlier. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect self-driving cars to be better than human drivers.
    - sitkack 9y ago
      The human driver didn't have their eyes on the road the majority of the the time. And yes, the video footage is _nearly_ useless. Maybe the outcome will be that thermal infrared will be mandated on all sensor packs?
      - Tempest1981 9y ago
        Any chance the backup driver was looking at a driving-related computer screen? (Speedometer/Video of road/LIDAR/IR camera)
        sesqu 9y ago
        That screen is mounted high in Uber's cars. The driver was looking low.
      - wiz21c 9y ago
        This 100%. When I drive, I watch the road. I don't watch my mobile phone, I don't watch the kids behind, I don't watch my wife. I don't watch the sky. I don't watch the GPS. I just watch the road in front of me. My idea is that the car has been behaving well for a long time and consequently the driver lowered is vigilance. Big mistake.
- 6841iam 9y ago
  why havent they released the Infra Red footage? that will be less deceiving
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    That's probably the exact reason it wasn't released.
  - c22 9y ago
    This dashcam footage was released by the local police. It's likely they don't have the ability to access the autonomous car's working telemetry. Given Uber's legal history I doubt they'll release anything until they're compelled to by law. Personally I find it borderline irresponsible of Tempe PD to release this video and statements based on this video so early in the investigation.
mehrdadn 9y ago
> apply the brakes Or swerve out of the way.
- throwaway010718 9y ago
  Or flick your high beams, quick beeps, adjust speed... I do all these things if I see anything on a collision course with my vehicle. It is surprising to learn that these vehicles are operating at night. To collect training data, since nighttime driving is inevitable, perhaps there are ways to simulate night to the computer vision systems during daytime so the human supervisor can still see clearly.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    Lol, the "human supervisor", looking at his knees, probably on reddit or tweeting. Would you trust this system that didn't even manage to slow down at all with a pedestrian slowly pushing a bike directly in front of it, artificially adjusted to be even worse, driving during the day?? I wouldn't.
walrus01 9y ago
This is pretty much the experience I have with my dash cam, a Yi. In its recorded video, its automatic exposure control make it look like everything outside of the headline cone is pitch black, but it is actually not. I have seen deer and possums by the side of the road, and debris etc, that did not show up when I later checked the video for the same period. There is enough spillover light from modern headlights that a human whose eyes are dilated and adjusted to dark conditions will see a pedestrian standing on the median, stepping off it, crossing the inner lane towards the car's current lane. More than enough time to begin to brake and possibly swerve. I have dodged animals in a situation similar to this.
- jeffmould 9y ago
  I compare it to the backup camera in my car. While close up at night it is good, if something or someone is a short distance away I can barely make them out. However, looking in my mirrors I can see them or at least make out that someone or something is there.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night, but it needs a big sensor, a huge lens to operate with a fast shutter speed. In the video, you can already see the motion blur, indicating shutter speed is slower than what it needs to be to identify nearby objects in low light. Autonomous cars are never going to be viable. Just looking at the cost of high-end SLR sensors and lenses that you'd need to match human eye dynamic range, and you're already looking at an expensive setup, before we even get to things like 360-degree vision and IR/LIDAR/Hyperspectral imaging. And that's in addition to all the compute problems. Sorry Silicon Valley tech-bros, but it's a fantasy you're chasing that's never going to happen. The quicker we can end this scam industry, the better. People really need to be told "no". Probably better to chase after flying cars..
    - jader201 9y ago
      I think you’re comparing object detection to high quality photography though. There are plenty of options that can detect objects at night. Even cheap infrared technology, I would think, would be sufficient for picking up moving objects at night.
ct520 9y ago
Uh I think it’s a girl
- grzm 9y ago
  The driver has been described as male in news reports: > "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." > "The driver, Rafael Vasquez, 44, …" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-shows-woman-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-sho...
  - JorgeGT 9y ago
    Apparently she identifies as a woman: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/934713/uber-self-driving-car-crash-Rafaela-Vasquez-Elaine-Herzberg-Tempe-Arizona https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/934713/uber-self-drivin...
    - grzm 9y ago
      Cheers!
    - spacehome 9y ago
      What do doctors identify him or her as?
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Human eyes have the same issue: if you are next to a bright light source, the areas without or less light will look much more dark. I assume cameras work the same way?
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  Cameras work the same way, but much much more poorly. A human eye can see multiple orders of magnitude higher range of light to dark areas at the same time. The accepted estimate is that the human eye can detect a 1 million: 1 range from light to dark in terms of photon intensity.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
djsumdog 9y ago
But this has got to be just the black-box camera, right? Surely the actual camera they use as a driving sensor is much better than this? Not to mention the LIDAR and all the other sensors that should have caught this.
buvanshak 9y ago
> clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something ... Seriously, what else can you expect. These companies who do put these things on the road with the justification that "There is a human behind the wheel" should be taken out back and shot in the head...Just pull the plug. No more self driving cars for them. Those are just the kind of tech companies we don't want around... See, it is not a mistake that they are making. They know well enough that this human behind this wheel is a useless as a dummy. But they do it any way. What does it say about them?
- VectorLock 9y ago
  So you think having a driver behind the wheel who could potentially intervene is as bad having absolutely no humans in the car at all?
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    He was clearly not paying attention. So why not cut the crap and say it like it is: the car is driving itself with no supervision.
    - bluetwo 9y ago
      You are so right. To me this clearly looks like they are reading something below the dash. A book or phone perhaps. Looking forward to seeing this play out in court.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      BTW isn't it a she?
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    1. A driver who is not looking at the road cannot "potentially intervene", and is as good as no driver at all.. 2. These companies seem to be doing nothing to make sure that the drivers will pay attention always and is always in a position to intervene. They even seemed to allow smart phone usage while they are in the car. So, according to them, the human behind the wheel is just a decoy to prevent backlash from officials and the public, so that they can always say, "look, there is a human behind the wheel if something goes wrong"... Also, even if they implement some measures, they can only make sure that the driver has eyes on the road. Not that they are actually paying attention. A driver who is actively driving the car will notice a lot more stuff than a passenger who is just looking at the road. There is no way to make a human pay that kind of attention with out actually driving the car. So at best, your "driver behind the wheel" is as good as a passive passenger. And as told before, the companies are not even trying to make sure of that.
isaachier 9y ago
I am pretty sure Uber uses an iPad app for its autonomous vehicles. The driver is looking at that iPad application periodically along with the physical windshield view.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  What kind of things does the iPad display? Should the safety driver even be tasked with looking at it while in 'control' of the vehicle?
  - isaachier 9y ago
    If you search "Uber autonomous vehicle" you can see some videos of the display. From what I gather, basically gathers the signals into a human readable model. In general I wouldn't have recommended this driving style but it might have been too dark to see much anyway.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      I don’t understand this, I’ve seen a few people comment in the same vein. People can safely drive in total darkness with the aid of their amazing human eyes and high-beams. If for some other reason visibility is low you slow down - not rely on glancing at a backlit display ruining your own night vision and taking your eyes off the road for seconds at a time.
foolinaround 9y ago
I can confidently assert that Asian or atleast Indian drivers will almost assuredly not hit the pedestrian in this scenario; We have trained our eyes and senses to watch out for these as it happens all the time. EDIT: what i meant, in light of the downvotes is that humans can train themselves to see, and just that folks driving in Asia have heightened sense of alertness, due to their environment. Hope it came out alright.
shard972 9y ago
> Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else just prior to the impact. This alone leaves me skeptical to just how much could have been done to prevent this accident. Wait, aren't you mean to have your hands on the wheels at all times? I don't see what to be skeptical about when if he just followed the law this could have been avoided. It seems to me the driver might be in for some legal trouble.
zer00eyz 9y ago
> it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was Someone else thought the same thing and went to get their own footage of the road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0
- alvis 9y ago
  This shows how worrying is autonomous cars in a low-light environment. I suppose LIDAR should be able to pick that up, but sadly it failed miserably.
- codedokode 9y ago
  Even if there were no street lights, the car's headlights should give enough light to see the pedestrian on an empty road.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Low beams at high speed do not give enough advance warning to reliably prevent a collision; as your lights are turned downward, you see a pedestrian only when they're quite close. In general, traffic safety requires that road planners ensure that one of three conditions always applies: a) the roads are lighted from above; b) cars are able to use high beams; c) there are no pedestrians crossing the highway. This can be done in general, mostly by investments in infrastructure to ensure lighting or isolated highways wherever the density doesn't allow to drive with high beams.
wklauss 9y ago
> Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else. Probably checking the computer installed for diagnostics of the autopilot system. If it's in self driving mode and you are the engineer in charge, you'd want to constantly check what the system is seeing vs the actual conditions on the road.
- garrettgrimsley 9y ago
  The driver, Rafaela Vasquez, is a "vehicle operator," not an engineer. https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-self-driving-crash-killed-pedestrian/ https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-s...
- lolc 9y ago
  If you're the driver of a car you're supposed to ensure safety by looking out, not verifying sensory information. If Uber designed their cars to show a rendering of the computer's perception to the driver, or other sensory output, they would violate that principle. To me it looks like the guy is just falling asleep at a boring job. In all likelihood that was not an engineer more than any other taxi driver is an engineer.
  - dfxm12 9y ago
    If you're the driver of a car... The software is the "driver" of this car. Not the human behind the wheel. Take a look at job descriptions [0] for this. They always include a bit about "operating in vehicle computers". The fact, we don't know what the person is doing. 0 - https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=597616bf7d02d899&tk=1c96slh7gafe6bpu&from=serp&vjs=3 https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=597616bf7d02d899&tk=1c96sl...
    - lolc 9y ago
      From that description: "Ensure the safe operation of our test vehicles on public roads." I don't know about current regulations. Are companies now allowed to operate autonomous cars without a driver that pays attention?
edelans 9y ago
also note that pushing the brakes was not the only option : steering the wheel to avoid collision was another, maybe more efficient. Still, I feel the same as you do : I cannot guarantee I would have avoided this.

sydd 9y ago

The footage from a normal camera should not matter, a self driving car is equipped with stuff that works regardless of light conditions like LIDAR oor IR cameras. This looks to me like a software failure.

danso 9y ago
The footage from the normal camera does matter in that it's the main way that we (humans) can process the scene. The parent comments are just pointing out that the camera footage is likely darker than the actual scene in person.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Even so, I count a full second from when a human paying attention would have seen something just using this video as eyes, until impact. The stopping distance at 35mph is 136ft, which is 2.65 seconds at 35mph, so the accident would still happen but the impact speed could be lower.
  - zo1 9y ago
    Yeah, but at that speed, it's more than possible to swerve around an obstacle rather than screeching to a halt before touching it. Even turning slightly to the left/right would have made a dramatic difference in the outcome to this person's life. Not to mention the person in the car that might have also been severely injured if this was a heavier obstacle. This was purely bad software, and no failure scenario being programmed in. I really don't think it's that difficult to program split-second reaction to obstacles that appear into the driving path. We need to get to a point where these vehicles can do stuff like this, even in a 2-dimensional way: https://youtu.be/uLasBsoZBi0?t=1m40s https://youtu.be/uLasBsoZBi0?t=1m40s
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Well, there's also a question of whether the hardware is up to the task.
  - acdha 9y ago
    That’s a pretty significant difference — check out how quickly the fatality rates increase over 30mph or so: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_... Getting hit at 10mph still is going to suck but it’s a lot more likely to be broken bones and road-rash.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Even if it had just managed to slow from the 38 mph that it was clocked at to 30 mph would lower the probability of death from about 45% to 10%.
  - sbov 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance They seem to use 2.5 seconds as the standard for drivers to perceive and react to an obstacle, which based upon studies covers 90% of all drivers. 1.5 seconds to perceive, 1 second to react. Then you have maneuver time on top of that 2.5 seconds. Given this, 1 second seems very low. A large percentage of drivers would probably plow into them at full speed.
    - hnaccy 9y ago
      Your link says that 2.5 is to allow for worst case situation and below average drivers. If all but the slowest 10% can react in 2.5 seconds than I would think many would do a fair bit better. Edit: Apparently the average person is closer to 1.1 seconds. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.2748&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372...
- estebank 9y ago
  The video footage being presented is beyond useless because it is misleading. The important data to determine wether the system misbehaved would look like this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2017/mar/16/google-waymo-self-driving-car-video-woman-bird https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2017/mar/16/goo... Waymo cars are capable of sensing vehicles and pedestrians at least half a block away in every directions. I was reserving any judgement on wether this collision could have been prevented, but seeing the video tells me that 1) a human driver might have hit the victim regardless, and 2) I'm very surprised that the LIDAR sensor didn't cause the car to stop to a halt much, much earlier. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect self-driving cars to be better than human drivers.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    The human driver didn't have their eyes on the road the majority of the the time. And yes, the video footage is _nearly_ useless. Maybe the outcome will be that thermal infrared will be mandated on all sensor packs?
    - Tempest1981 9y ago
      Any chance the backup driver was looking at a driving-related computer screen? (Speedometer/Video of road/LIDAR/IR camera)
      - sesqu 9y ago
        That screen is mounted high in Uber's cars. The driver was looking low.
    - wiz21c 9y ago
      This 100%. When I drive, I watch the road. I don't watch my mobile phone, I don't watch the kids behind, I don't watch my wife. I don't watch the sky. I don't watch the GPS. I just watch the road in front of me. My idea is that the car has been behaving well for a long time and consequently the driver lowered is vigilance. Big mistake.
6841iam 9y ago
why havent they released the Infra Red footage? that will be less deceiving
- IncRnd 9y ago
  That's probably the exact reason it wasn't released.
- c22 9y ago
  This dashcam footage was released by the local police. It's likely they don't have the ability to access the autonomous car's working telemetry. Given Uber's legal history I doubt they'll release anything until they're compelled to by law. Personally I find it borderline irresponsible of Tempe PD to release this video and statements based on this video so early in the investigation.

mehrdadn 9y ago

> apply the brakes Or swerve out of the way.

throwaway010718 9y ago
Or flick your high beams, quick beeps, adjust speed... I do all these things if I see anything on a collision course with my vehicle. It is surprising to learn that these vehicles are operating at night. To collect training data, since nighttime driving is inevitable, perhaps there are ways to simulate night to the computer vision systems during daytime so the human supervisor can still see clearly.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  Lol, the "human supervisor", looking at his knees, probably on reddit or tweeting. Would you trust this system that didn't even manage to slow down at all with a pedestrian slowly pushing a bike directly in front of it, artificially adjusted to be even worse, driving during the day?? I wouldn't.

walrus01 9y ago

This is pretty much the experience I have with my dash cam, a Yi. In its recorded video, its automatic exposure control make it look like everything outside of the headline cone is pitch black, but it is actually not. I have seen deer and possums by the side of the road, and debris etc, that did not show up when I later checked the video for the same period. There is enough spillover light from modern headlights that a human whose eyes are dilated and adjusted to dark conditions will see a pedestrian standing on the median, stepping off it, crossing the inner lane towards the car's current lane. More than enough time to begin to brake and possibly swerve. I have dodged animals in a situation similar to this.

jeffmould 9y ago
I compare it to the backup camera in my car. While close up at night it is good, if something or someone is a short distance away I can barely make them out. However, looking in my mirrors I can see them or at least make out that someone or something is there.
- mozumder 9y ago
  A camera can have pretty good dynamic range at night, but it needs a big sensor, a huge lens to operate with a fast shutter speed. In the video, you can already see the motion blur, indicating shutter speed is slower than what it needs to be to identify nearby objects in low light. Autonomous cars are never going to be viable. Just looking at the cost of high-end SLR sensors and lenses that you'd need to match human eye dynamic range, and you're already looking at an expensive setup, before we even get to things like 360-degree vision and IR/LIDAR/Hyperspectral imaging. And that's in addition to all the compute problems. Sorry Silicon Valley tech-bros, but it's a fantasy you're chasing that's never going to happen. The quicker we can end this scam industry, the better. People really need to be told "no". Probably better to chase after flying cars..
  - jader201 9y ago
    I think you’re comparing object detection to high quality photography though. There are plenty of options that can detect objects at night. Even cheap infrared technology, I would think, would be sufficient for picking up moving objects at night.

ct520 9y ago

Uh I think it’s a girl

grzm 9y ago
The driver has been described as male in news reports: > "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." > "The driver, Rafael Vasquez, 44, …" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-shows-woman-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-sho...
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  Apparently she identifies as a woman: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/934713/uber-self-driving-car-crash-Rafaela-Vasquez-Elaine-Herzberg-Tempe-Arizona https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/934713/uber-self-drivin...
  - grzm 9y ago
    Cheers!
  - spacehome 9y ago
    What do doctors identify him or her as?

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Human eyes have the same issue: if you are next to a bright light source, the areas without or less light will look much more dark. I assume cameras work the same way?

hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Cameras work the same way, but much much more poorly. A human eye can see multiple orders of magnitude higher range of light to dark areas at the same time. The accepted estimate is that the human eye can detect a 1 million: 1 range from light to dark in terms of photon intensity.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

djsumdog 9y ago

But this has got to be just the black-box camera, right? Surely the actual camera they use as a driving sensor is much better than this? Not to mention the LIDAR and all the other sensors that should have caught this.

buvanshak 9y ago

> clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something ... Seriously, what else can you expect. These companies who do put these things on the road with the justification that "There is a human behind the wheel" should be taken out back and shot in the head...Just pull the plug. No more self driving cars for them. Those are just the kind of tech companies we don't want around... See, it is not a mistake that they are making. They know well enough that this human behind this wheel is a useless as a dummy. But they do it any way. What does it say about them?

VectorLock 9y ago
So you think having a driver behind the wheel who could potentially intervene is as bad having absolutely no humans in the car at all?
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  He was clearly not paying attention. So why not cut the crap and say it like it is: the car is driving itself with no supervision.
  - bluetwo 9y ago
    You are so right. To me this clearly looks like they are reading something below the dash. A book or phone perhaps. Looking forward to seeing this play out in court.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    BTW isn't it a she?
- buvanshak 9y ago
  1. A driver who is not looking at the road cannot "potentially intervene", and is as good as no driver at all.. 2. These companies seem to be doing nothing to make sure that the drivers will pay attention always and is always in a position to intervene. They even seemed to allow smart phone usage while they are in the car. So, according to them, the human behind the wheel is just a decoy to prevent backlash from officials and the public, so that they can always say, "look, there is a human behind the wheel if something goes wrong"... Also, even if they implement some measures, they can only make sure that the driver has eyes on the road. Not that they are actually paying attention. A driver who is actively driving the car will notice a lot more stuff than a passenger who is just looking at the road. There is no way to make a human pay that kind of attention with out actually driving the car. So at best, your "driver behind the wheel" is as good as a passive passenger. And as told before, the companies are not even trying to make sure of that.

isaachier 9y ago

I am pretty sure Uber uses an iPad app for its autonomous vehicles. The driver is looking at that iPad application periodically along with the physical windshield view.

jackvalentine 9y ago
What kind of things does the iPad display? Should the safety driver even be tasked with looking at it while in 'control' of the vehicle?
- isaachier 9y ago
  If you search "Uber autonomous vehicle" you can see some videos of the display. From what I gather, basically gathers the signals into a human readable model. In general I wouldn't have recommended this driving style but it might have been too dark to see much anyway.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    I don’t understand this, I’ve seen a few people comment in the same vein. People can safely drive in total darkness with the aid of their amazing human eyes and high-beams. If for some other reason visibility is low you slow down - not rely on glancing at a backlit display ruining your own night vision and taking your eyes off the road for seconds at a time.

foolinaround 9y ago

I can confidently assert that Asian or atleast Indian drivers will almost assuredly not hit the pedestrian in this scenario; We have trained our eyes and senses to watch out for these as it happens all the time. EDIT: what i meant, in light of the downvotes is that humans can train themselves to see, and just that folks driving in Asia have heightened sense of alertness, due to their environment. Hope it came out alright.

shard972 9y ago

> Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else just prior to the impact. This alone leaves me skeptical to just how much could have been done to prevent this accident. Wait, aren't you mean to have your hands on the wheels at all times? I don't see what to be skeptical about when if he just followed the law this could have been avoided. It seems to me the driver might be in for some legal trouble.

zer00eyz 9y ago

> it is clear that this camera is diminishing exactly how light the road ahead was Someone else thought the same thing and went to get their own footage of the road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0

alvis 9y ago
This shows how worrying is autonomous cars in a low-light environment. I suppose LIDAR should be able to pick that up, but sadly it failed miserably.
codedokode 9y ago
Even if there were no street lights, the car's headlights should give enough light to see the pedestrian on an empty road.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Low beams at high speed do not give enough advance warning to reliably prevent a collision; as your lights are turned downward, you see a pedestrian only when they're quite close. In general, traffic safety requires that road planners ensure that one of three conditions always applies: a) the roads are lighted from above; b) cars are able to use high beams; c) there are no pedestrians crossing the highway. This can be done in general, mostly by investments in infrastructure to ensure lighting or isolated highways wherever the density doesn't allow to drive with high beams.

wklauss 9y ago

> Also, watching the video of the interior it is clear the driver was looking at his phone or doing something else. Probably checking the computer installed for diagnostics of the autopilot system. If it's in self driving mode and you are the engineer in charge, you'd want to constantly check what the system is seeing vs the actual conditions on the road.

garrettgrimsley 9y ago
The driver, Rafaela Vasquez, is a "vehicle operator," not an engineer. https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-self-driving-crash-killed-pedestrian/ https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/rafaela-vasquez-uber-driver-s...
lolc 9y ago
If you're the driver of a car you're supposed to ensure safety by looking out, not verifying sensory information. If Uber designed their cars to show a rendering of the computer's perception to the driver, or other sensory output, they would violate that principle. To me it looks like the guy is just falling asleep at a boring job. In all likelihood that was not an engineer more than any other taxi driver is an engineer.
- dfxm12 9y ago
  If you're the driver of a car... The software is the "driver" of this car. Not the human behind the wheel. Take a look at job descriptions [0] for this. They always include a bit about "operating in vehicle computers". The fact, we don't know what the person is doing. 0 - https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=597616bf7d02d899&tk=1c96slh7gafe6bpu&from=serp&vjs=3 https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=597616bf7d02d899&tk=1c96sl...
  - lolc 9y ago
    From that description: "Ensure the safe operation of our test vehicles on public roads." I don't know about current regulations. Are companies now allowed to operate autonomous cars without a driver that pays attention?

edelans 9y ago

also note that pushing the brakes was not the only option : steering the wheel to avoid collision was another, maybe more efficient. Still, I feel the same as you do : I cannot guarantee I would have avoided this.