4 ms·

>One lesson from this accident might well be to map "illegal, but likely crossings" Good write-up but I don’t understand this part. I would not be comfortable

>One lesson from this accident might well be to map "illegal, but likely crossings" Good write-up but I don’t understand this part. I would not be comfortable with these cars making moves based on calculations of the legality of observed behavior. EDIT: Nevermind! I thought about it some more and realized they mean mapping the geographical locations where pedestrians are likely to be crossing the road. Much more humane than I previously thought! But I remain uneasy about any system with room to benefit from selective inquiry like such.

rcthompson 9y ago
I didn't read that as a suggestion to take the legality of a crossing into account. In fact, the suggestion is to do the opposite: instead of only mapping legal crossings, map all likely crossings without regard to their legality.
TomMarius 9y ago
It doesn't mean that it will take legality into account, it means that they should have a database of illegal crossings as well (they already have one of legal ones - a map).
- garyfirestorm 9y ago
  How do you propose on building a database like that? Any patch of road which is not a legal crossing is inherently a potential* illegal crossing. I think illegal crossings are non deterministic and hence unpredictable. Edits
  - gojomo 9y ago
    This particular illegal/discouraged crossing was apparently enough well-known to local road authorities that they'd put up a street sign, discouraging crossing. (Yet also: median areas were paved so as to suggest walking there.) A giant like Google may have enough sufficient-resolution geolocation data to know non-crosswalks where many walkers tend to cross. (How did the tech giant know the chicken crossed the road? The chicken's phone logged their approximate location every few seconds.)
dtech 9y ago
The meat of the article is about how LIDAR, Radar, or any number of systems could have detected the pedesetrian/obstacle on the road and should have stopped the car. If those worked, considering likely crossing locations in addition to certain crossing locations like zebra crossings should only improve safety, not be required for it.
- extralego 9y ago
  Makes total sense! I would just be tempted to apply the extra safety measures which would be applied to the crossing zones, to every zone.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Still, IMO it's a workaround, not a solution.
thisisit 9y ago
This can get interesting in Asian countries. As pointed out by wiradikusuma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16646415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16646415 people tend to cross ignoring the traffic laws.
developer2 9y ago
The technology should be good enough that every single meter of road is considered a "likely crossing". There shouldn't be an iota of difference between a supposed "likely crossing", versus any other section of road. If the sensors and decision engines aren't good enough to be driving under normal conditions, then perhaps they should not be on the road (yet). I think it's absurd these vehicles are on the road today. The process is being rushed for the financial gain of corporations. No matter how far up the list safety of these cars is, it's not priority #1. The greed of companies vying to be the first to stake a majority share of this new market is the only real priority.
bradtemp 9y ago
Neither humans nor robots can treat everywhere like a crosswalk. We human drivers see pedestrians standing on the edge of the road all the time, often getting ready to cross. If we slowed down every time we saw that, roads would flow poorly. On the other hand, we do slow down when we see people poised to cross at an actual crosswalk, and the law demands we do that. Right now, live humans are better at reading the body language of pedestrians than machines are, and this is an area of research. My suggestion is that mapping places where people are likely to cross allows you to dial up your caution in those locations. Not to dial it all the way up to what the law demands in legal crosswalks, but not to have it at the most basic level. Of course, once a ped enters the roadway, you will dial up the caution. On 45mph roads, peds know to expect cars not to keep them safe. You wait for a long clearing in the traffic and you run if you have to. On low speed roads, we cross even with cars coming, expecting them to see us and react.

rcthompson 9y ago

I didn't read that as a suggestion to take the legality of a crossing into account. In fact, the suggestion is to do the opposite: instead of only mapping legal crossings, map all likely crossings without regard to their legality.

TomMarius 9y ago

It doesn't mean that it will take legality into account, it means that they should have a database of illegal crossings as well (they already have one of legal ones - a map).

garyfirestorm 9y ago
How do you propose on building a database like that? Any patch of road which is not a legal crossing is inherently a potential* illegal crossing. I think illegal crossings are non deterministic and hence unpredictable. Edits
- gojomo 9y ago
  This particular illegal/discouraged crossing was apparently enough well-known to local road authorities that they'd put up a street sign, discouraging crossing. (Yet also: median areas were paved so as to suggest walking there.) A giant like Google may have enough sufficient-resolution geolocation data to know non-crosswalks where many walkers tend to cross. (How did the tech giant know the chicken crossed the road? The chicken's phone logged their approximate location every few seconds.)

dtech 9y ago

The meat of the article is about how LIDAR, Radar, or any number of systems could have detected the pedesetrian/obstacle on the road and should have stopped the car. If those worked, considering likely crossing locations in addition to certain crossing locations like zebra crossings should only improve safety, not be required for it.

extralego 9y ago
Makes total sense! I would just be tempted to apply the extra safety measures which would be applied to the crossing zones, to every zone.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Still, IMO it's a workaround, not a solution.

thisisit 9y ago

This can get interesting in Asian countries. As pointed out by wiradikusuma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16646415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16646415 people tend to cross ignoring the traffic laws.

developer2 9y ago

The technology should be good enough that every single meter of road is considered a "likely crossing". There shouldn't be an iota of difference between a supposed "likely crossing", versus any other section of road. If the sensors and decision engines aren't good enough to be driving under normal conditions, then perhaps they should not be on the road (yet). I think it's absurd these vehicles are on the road today. The process is being rushed for the financial gain of corporations. No matter how far up the list safety of these cars is, it's not priority #1. The greed of companies vying to be the first to stake a majority share of this new market is the only real priority.

bradtemp 9y ago

Neither humans nor robots can treat everywhere like a crosswalk. We human drivers see pedestrians standing on the edge of the road all the time, often getting ready to cross. If we slowed down every time we saw that, roads would flow poorly. On the other hand, we do slow down when we see people poised to cross at an actual crosswalk, and the law demands we do that. Right now, live humans are better at reading the body language of pedestrians than machines are, and this is an area of research. My suggestion is that mapping places where people are likely to cross allows you to dial up your caution in those locations. Not to dial it all the way up to what the law demands in legal crosswalks, but not to have it at the most basic level. Of course, once a ped enters the roadway, you will dial up the caution. On 45mph roads, peds know to expect cars not to keep them safe. You wait for a long clearing in the traffic and you run if you have to. On low speed roads, we cross even with cars coming, expecting them to see us and react.