6 ms·

This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be a

This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.

erobbins 9y ago
You don't think most humans would see someone crossing a flat straight road in an area with mediocre lighting? If that's true we should have thousands more deaths a year like this.
- wilde 9y ago
  We have plenty of deaths like this. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fatalities-crash-statistics-us-2016 https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fataliti...
Erlangolem 9y ago
I thought the point of SDV’s was that they would be radically better than human drivers? You can’t have it both ways.
notahacker 9y ago
I also think most current human drivers would also expect to spend significant time in jail for causing death by driving so careless they didn't even try to brake when confronted by an pedestrian in the roadway (even if she shouldn't have been there and an accident may not have been entirely avoidable) I'm fine with Uber's executives and programmers accepting the same level of culpability as an alternative to meeting higher standards than humans to get on the road. Ditto for their culpability for potential bugs which would be considered [attempted] vehicular homicide in the absence of a more logical explanation for the vehicle's actions if driven by humans. Abdicate that responsibility and you'd better be prepared for more stringent tests.
- spaceribs 9y ago
  Tests allow irresponsible people to blame the test when their system fails, I worry that a system like that will cause the opposite of your intentions.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Human drivers don't get to cite their test passes when their driving fails either. The point isn't that [overoptimisation to pass] tests should be the be only thing on which they are judged, the point is that if autonomous driving system developers want the special privilege of not being held as strictly liable as humans for erratic driving resulting from decisions they made, they really ought to expect more stringent testing regimes.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Why do they call it accidents when it is usually negligence? This is nothing new.
  - kw71 9y ago
    I hate that word. I use crash instead.
simmanian 9y ago
This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the Tempe chief of police defending Uber, I'm inclined to believe Uber and some state government officials are working together to sway the public opinion and minimize damage. At the end of the day, the victim is painted as an idiot who practically committed suicide. This is gross injustice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0
- spaceribs 9y ago
  Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.
    - spaceribs 9y ago
      I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved
rgbrenner 9y ago
Most humans can't do large square roots in their head either. I still expect my calculator to do it properly. What's the point of adding lidar to cars if they aren't going to use it?
Retric 9y ago
That video is hardly representative, you don't need street lights to see people at night. Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. The 'driver' was not paying attention and the software failed. An attentive human driver acting alone would have easily stopped.
- kw71 9y ago
  I think that my eyes are better at night than the camera that shot that footage. It looked like she was wearing dark clothing though.
- tetromino_ 9y ago
  > Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. That's a common misconception. You will see the pedestrian in time if they are near a street light or wearing something reflective. In complete darkness, if the pedestrian is wearing bright, colorful clothing (say, a yellow jacket), you will see them from 120 feet or so; often enough to react and come to a full stop, but not if the road is slippery or the driver less than fully attentive. And a pedestrian wearing black in the darkness is a dead pedestrian, basically invisible until the vehicle is on them.
  - Retric 9y ago
    I have stopped at 45MPH to a black dude crossing the street in dark blue clothing viable only in my headlights. Night vision degrades with age, but it's simply unsafe to out-speed your headlights and if you can't see you need to slow down. Now, some mostly older cars have terrible headlights, but that's another story. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 Note Uber hit someone in bluejeans and a pink bike which is not that dark: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-released-of-uber-self-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-rel... PS: Just Starlight aka no moon and no clouds is plenty of light to see and walk around. I can't read small text, but you really should not be blind at night.
    - 9y ago
jumpmanjr 9y ago
I just drove that stretch of road twice. I had no trouble seeing any portion of the road where the pedestrian was crossing, from easily 100 yards away. This human could have stopped. My assessment is that the majority of human drivers in AZ could have also.

erobbins 9y ago

You don't think most humans would see someone crossing a flat straight road in an area with mediocre lighting? If that's true we should have thousands more deaths a year like this.

wilde 9y ago
We have plenty of deaths like this. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fatalities-crash-statistics-us-2016 https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fataliti...

Erlangolem 9y ago

I thought the point of SDV’s was that they would be radically better than human drivers? You can’t have it both ways.

notahacker 9y ago

I also think most current human drivers would also expect to spend significant time in jail for causing death by driving so careless they didn't even try to brake when confronted by an pedestrian in the roadway (even if she shouldn't have been there and an accident may not have been entirely avoidable) I'm fine with Uber's executives and programmers accepting the same level of culpability as an alternative to meeting higher standards than humans to get on the road. Ditto for their culpability for potential bugs which would be considered [attempted] vehicular homicide in the absence of a more logical explanation for the vehicle's actions if driven by humans. Abdicate that responsibility and you'd better be prepared for more stringent tests.

spaceribs 9y ago
Tests allow irresponsible people to blame the test when their system fails, I worry that a system like that will cause the opposite of your intentions.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Human drivers don't get to cite their test passes when their driving fails either. The point isn't that [overoptimisation to pass] tests should be the be only thing on which they are judged, the point is that if autonomous driving system developers want the special privilege of not being held as strictly liable as humans for erratic driving resulting from decisions they made, they really ought to expect more stringent testing regimes.
chillwaves 9y ago
Why do they call it accidents when it is usually negligence? This is nothing new.
- kw71 9y ago
  I hate that word. I use crash instead.

simmanian 9y ago

This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the Tempe chief of police defending Uber, I'm inclined to believe Uber and some state government officials are working together to sway the public opinion and minimize damage. At the end of the day, the victim is painted as an idiot who practically committed suicide. This is gross injustice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0

spaceribs 9y ago
Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.
  - spaceribs 9y ago
    I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in those cases it could be fatal. [1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost." http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved

rgbrenner 9y ago

Most humans can't do large square roots in their head either. I still expect my calculator to do it properly. What's the point of adding lidar to cars if they aren't going to use it?

Retric 9y ago

That video is hardly representative, you don't need street lights to see people at night. Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. The 'driver' was not paying attention and the software failed. An attentive human driver acting alone would have easily stopped.

kw71 9y ago
I think that my eyes are better at night than the camera that shot that footage. It looked like she was wearing dark clothing though.
tetromino_ 9y ago
> Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. That's a common misconception. You will see the pedestrian in time if they are near a street light or wearing something reflective. In complete darkness, if the pedestrian is wearing bright, colorful clothing (say, a yellow jacket), you will see them from 120 feet or so; often enough to react and come to a full stop, but not if the road is slippery or the driver less than fully attentive. And a pedestrian wearing black in the darkness is a dead pedestrian, basically invisible until the vehicle is on them.
- Retric 9y ago
  I have stopped at 45MPH to a black dude crossing the street in dark blue clothing viable only in my headlights. Night vision degrades with age, but it's simply unsafe to out-speed your headlights and if you can't see you need to slow down. Now, some mostly older cars have terrible headlights, but that's another story. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 Note Uber hit someone in bluejeans and a pink bike which is not that dark: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-released-of-uber-self-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-rel... PS: Just Starlight aka no moon and no clouds is plenty of light to see and walk around. I can't read small text, but you really should not be blind at night.
  - 9y ago

jumpmanjr 9y ago

I just drove that stretch of road twice. I had no trouble seeing any portion of the road where the pedestrian was crossing, from easily 100 yards away. This human could have stopped. My assessment is that the majority of human drivers in AZ could have also.