7 ms·

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 camera

by 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.

by sydd 9y ago

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.