4 ms·

The NTSB just released their report: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf "If the

by jefftk 7y ago

The NTSB just released their report: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf "If the collision cannot be avoided with the application of the maximum allowed braking, the system is designed to provide an auditory warning to the vehicle operator while simultaneously initiating gradual vehicle slowdown. In such circumstance, ADS would not apply the maximum braking to only mitigate the collision." "Certain object classifications— other—are not assigned goals. For such objects, their currently detected location is viewed as a static location; unless that location is directly on the path of the automated vehicle, that object is not considered as a possible obstacle. Additionally, pedestrians outside a vicinity of a crosswalk are also not assigned an explicit goal. However, they may be predicted a trajectory based on the observed velocities, when continually detected as a pedestrian."

DougBTX 7y ago
> continually detected as a pedestrian Interesting, from the article and this, it sounds like the system can’t maintain position tracking of an object if it’s classification changes. So even if it could detect a pedestrian, something that could be ambiguous like a pedestrian pushing a bike might have no motion tracking data from one moment to the next, so the car would have no ability to predict its trajectory.
- tjungblut 7y ago
  I had the same impression from reading the table. Looking at the map and trajectories though, how could the human not see the car coming? Or was she thinking that the car would stop/slow down? Same question holds for the vehicle operator. edit after reading the other reports: the victim apparently was under the influence of methamphetamine and the vehicle operator was busy watching Hulu.
  - DougBTX 7y ago
    As far as I recall the driver was looking at the car's status screen which they'd been instructed by Uber to monitor rather than at the road at the time of the crash, so didn't notice the pedestrian until too late. I can't say much about what the pedestrian saw, the Uber car killed them so we can't ask.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    The pedestrian was about 3/4 of the way across the road when she was struck, and was walking a bicycle that was partially laden with goods. That suggests that quick evasion on the pedestrian's part would have been somewhat difficult, but given that the road was empty of other vehicles, there was a long clear sight distance to the pedestrian, and there was ample space to maneuver, any reasonable driver would have been able to stop or switch lanes to evade the pedestrian. The driver was not paying attention to the road and was incapable of performing a timely emergency maneuver (be it a stop or lane change).
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      Yeah but when you cross the street you generally keep an eye out for traffic, and the sight-line is such that if the car had headlights on it should have been visible for more than 6 seconds before the collision. The victim might well have expected the car to yield somewhat. However, I don't know if the car did have any external lights on, so it might have been hard to see until it was closer than 6 seconds away.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    The driver was the Uber engineering department, the human supervisor in the driver seat was distracted by their phone. Why the victim didn't pay attention isn't known as far as I can tell, but from the released video they do appear inattentive.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- chance_state 7y ago
  I think this is key. Had the system been able to retrieve tracking history as the classification was changing, it would have realized that she was moving perpendicular to the vehicle's path (not, for example, an object traveling alongside the vehicle). Page 10-11 of the NTSB report make this very clear: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf
fabian2k 7y ago
I found the "action suppression" system very interesting, and I think that is new information. Essentially, for 1 whole second after an emergency situation is detected, the system does nothing at all by design. It even suppresses planned breaking maneuvers. If the operator doesn't take over control after one second, the car will slow down slowly, not even using the full allowed braking power for regular driving (not to speak of actual emergency braking, which the system wasn't allowed to do at all).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  To me it indicates that at the time of the crash the software was still in a state of development where false positives massively outnumbered situations where action was warranted.
  - jraptors 7y ago
    The insane and arguably negligent part of this is that in a situation where false positives result in braking and false negatives result in death, that as an engineer you don't go with braking

by jefftk 7y ago

DougBTX 7y ago

> continually detected as a pedestrian Interesting, from the article and this, it sounds like the system can’t maintain position tracking of an object if it’s classification changes. So even if it could detect a pedestrian, something that could be ambiguous like a pedestrian pushing a bike might have no motion tracking data from one moment to the next, so the car would have no ability to predict its trajectory.

tjungblut 7y ago
I had the same impression from reading the table. Looking at the map and trajectories though, how could the human not see the car coming? Or was she thinking that the car would stop/slow down? Same question holds for the vehicle operator. edit after reading the other reports: the victim apparently was under the influence of methamphetamine and the vehicle operator was busy watching Hulu.
- DougBTX 7y ago
  As far as I recall the driver was looking at the car's status screen which they'd been instructed by Uber to monitor rather than at the road at the time of the crash, so didn't notice the pedestrian until too late. I can't say much about what the pedestrian saw, the Uber car killed them so we can't ask.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  The pedestrian was about 3/4 of the way across the road when she was struck, and was walking a bicycle that was partially laden with goods. That suggests that quick evasion on the pedestrian's part would have been somewhat difficult, but given that the road was empty of other vehicles, there was a long clear sight distance to the pedestrian, and there was ample space to maneuver, any reasonable driver would have been able to stop or switch lanes to evade the pedestrian. The driver was not paying attention to the road and was incapable of performing a timely emergency maneuver (be it a stop or lane change).
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Yeah but when you cross the street you generally keep an eye out for traffic, and the sight-line is such that if the car had headlights on it should have been visible for more than 6 seconds before the collision. The victim might well have expected the car to yield somewhat. However, I don't know if the car did have any external lights on, so it might have been hard to see until it was closer than 6 seconds away.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The driver was the Uber engineering department, the human supervisor in the driver seat was distracted by their phone. Why the victim didn't pay attention isn't known as far as I can tell, but from the released video they do appear inattentive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
chance_state 7y ago
I think this is key. Had the system been able to retrieve tracking history as the classification was changing, it would have realized that she was moving perpendicular to the vehicle's path (not, for example, an object traveling alongside the vehicle). Page 10-11 of the NTSB report make this very clear: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/62500-62999/62978/629713.pdf

fabian2k 7y ago

I found the "action suppression" system very interesting, and I think that is new information. Essentially, for 1 whole second after an emergency situation is detected, the system does nothing at all by design. It even suppresses planned breaking maneuvers. If the operator doesn't take over control after one second, the car will slow down slowly, not even using the full allowed braking power for regular driving (not to speak of actual emergency braking, which the system wasn't allowed to do at all).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
To me it indicates that at the time of the crash the software was still in a state of development where false positives massively outnumbered situations where action was warranted.
- jraptors 7y ago
  The insane and arguably negligent part of this is that in a situation where false positives result in braking and false negatives result in death, that as an engineer you don't go with braking