3 ms·

Of the finalists: > Zbigniew Wojna (co-author of Inception-v3, one of the first better-than-humans perception models), object detection and instance segmentati

by icc97 9y ago

Of the finalists: > Zbigniew Wojna (co-author of Inception-v3, one of the first better-than-humans perception models), object detection and instance segmentation for small objects This looks really important. At the moment there's no way that Tesla's can avoid small animals and birds. This means that both the animal gets killed and it's likely that the human will crash after from the panic of hitting an animal. The list in general is interesting as it shows what people are working on, so it's insight into current research even before a paper or results are released.

freehunter 9y ago
It's incredibly dangerous to brake, swerve, or otherwise alter your course for a non-life-threatening object in the road. People have died from this, and people have gone to jail doing this [1]. If people are likely to crash from panic after hitting a small animal, they're more likely to crash when the car swerves and then can't regain control afterwards. When you're about to hit a deer, the advice is to brake hard, but never swerve. Because you're never going to keep control of your car when you're both braking and swerving, and if you hit someone in the oncoming lane while swerving, you are at fault. I don't like it either, but occasionally hitting animals crossing the road is the price we pay for millions of miles of high-speed pavement crossing the country. Hitting small animals is the best outcome in that situation, as opposed to hitting larger animals like deer (where the driver can be killed or seriously injured too). Please don't brake or swerve for small animals. You could very likely end up killing another person in the process. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-ducklings-highway-fatal-court/20513845/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-...
- icc97 9y ago
  Precisely why we want collision-detection to be able to spot the animal and brake earlier than the human could. I agree swerving is a problem, but I see no problem with braking. If you brake and the car behind you crashes into you that is their fault not yours. Cars should be maintaining a 3-4s gap precisely because the car in front could brake suddenly at any point.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    That's why I linked to an article where a woman went to jail for stopping on the freeway for a small animal. There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you. The law disagrees with you, and that's what matters.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      > There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you. The driver is too close if they cannot stop in time. It's not complicated. It is always the following driver's fault, unless the car in front has defective brake lights.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        You guys keep saying that like your opinion on the law outweighs that of a judge. It obviously is not always the following driver's fault, or that woman wouldn't have gone to jail. You're wrong. It doesn't matter your argument. I provided proof that you're wrong and you're still arguing your wrong argument wrongly and continuing to be wrong. You can argue with me until I give up and then you can declare victory but you're still wrong, and not only that, you're completely oblivious to the idea that you're wrong. The fact that a woman went to jail for literally this exact thing proves that you are wrong. Hopefully that makes it clear, even to those of you who didn't read the link that I took the time to find and provide to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're so obviously wrong and yet still arguing against the law that I feel like I have to make it very clear that you are wrong. Go back and read the link I provided. You're wrong.
        icc97 9y ago
        She wasn't braking. She was parked. The car was stopped, there were no brake lights. She had no hazard lights on.
    - icc97 9y ago
      The article is about a woman literally parking on the freeway and trying to ferry ducks off the road. There is a significant difference between that and braking sharply.

by icc97 9y ago

freehunter 9y ago

It's incredibly dangerous to brake, swerve, or otherwise alter your course for a non-life-threatening object in the road. People have died from this, and people have gone to jail doing this [1]. If people are likely to crash from panic after hitting a small animal, they're more likely to crash when the car swerves and then can't regain control afterwards. When you're about to hit a deer, the advice is to brake hard, but never swerve. Because you're never going to keep control of your car when you're both braking and swerving, and if you hit someone in the oncoming lane while swerving, you are at fault. I don't like it either, but occasionally hitting animals crossing the road is the price we pay for millions of miles of high-speed pavement crossing the country. Hitting small animals is the best outcome in that situation, as opposed to hitting larger animals like deer (where the driver can be killed or seriously injured too). Please don't brake or swerve for small animals. You could very likely end up killing another person in the process. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-ducklings-highway-fatal-court/20513845/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-...

icc97 9y ago
Precisely why we want collision-detection to be able to spot the animal and brake earlier than the human could. I agree swerving is a problem, but I see no problem with braking. If you brake and the car behind you crashes into you that is their fault not yours. Cars should be maintaining a 3-4s gap precisely because the car in front could brake suddenly at any point.
- freehunter 9y ago
  That's why I linked to an article where a woman went to jail for stopping on the freeway for a small animal. There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you. The law disagrees with you, and that's what matters.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you. The driver is too close if they cannot stop in time. It's not complicated. It is always the following driver's fault, unless the car in front has defective brake lights.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      You guys keep saying that like your opinion on the law outweighs that of a judge. It obviously is not always the following driver's fault, or that woman wouldn't have gone to jail. You're wrong. It doesn't matter your argument. I provided proof that you're wrong and you're still arguing your wrong argument wrongly and continuing to be wrong. You can argue with me until I give up and then you can declare victory but you're still wrong, and not only that, you're completely oblivious to the idea that you're wrong. The fact that a woman went to jail for literally this exact thing proves that you are wrong. Hopefully that makes it clear, even to those of you who didn't read the link that I took the time to find and provide to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're so obviously wrong and yet still arguing against the law that I feel like I have to make it very clear that you are wrong. Go back and read the link I provided. You're wrong.
      - icc97 9y ago
        She wasn't braking. She was parked. The car was stopped, there were no brake lights. She had no hazard lights on.
  - icc97 9y ago
    The article is about a woman literally parking on the freeway and trying to ferry ducks off the road. There is a significant difference between that and braking sharply.