Uber driverless car in fatal accident
Discussion
Lord Marylebone said:
I believe this to be sarcasm and/or a joke.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No sarcasm. Autonomous vehicles need very tight regulations. Can't let them get out of hand. Think of the children. People saying it's okay the technology will mature and until then it's kind of ok for people to get hurt is like saying a new driver driving like a turd is okay he/she will mature out and its kind of ok for people to get hurt during that period Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Edited by captainaverage on Tuesday 20th March 13:21
I think we will need a true AI, a living AI to beable to reach the level of automation and safety that is being discussed. Why? I think the AI will need to learn, much like we do as babies/children/adults. The AI will need to see and be taught what sheep in a field looks like, it will have to learn like the driving test what the signs mean and how to obey them, it will have to learn how things in life can be unpredictable. it will have to beable to learn and also teach itself from its own observations. The AI may well be linked so that all AI share and learn and propagate that knowledge.
We then have a much more of an issue of AI being in charge of humans and where that road will lead more then just asking will a car see x y or z risk on the road.
True AI is very interesting and scary at the same time. I don't think we will get the desired benefits unless AI is "alive" and "aware" but then enter a much more dangerous and moral land as we then have a new species of living being.
We then have a much more of an issue of AI being in charge of humans and where that road will lead more then just asking will a car see x y or z risk on the road.
True AI is very interesting and scary at the same time. I don't think we will get the desired benefits unless AI is "alive" and "aware" but then enter a much more dangerous and moral land as we then have a new species of living being.
otolith said:
And you don't think that our lives would be improved by reducing death and injury on the roads, or enabling independent personal mobility for those with disabilities which stop them driving or even just by enabling people to go to a country pub for lunch and a few pints?
Actually, I don't - not for many decades.Ultimately, I have no doubt that autonomy is where we will end up with transport (it already exists in some limited sectors).
As I keep saying - the transition from where we are now to autonomy on the roads will be long, difficult and possibly very painful - from an economic, humane and political point of view.
The road ahead for autonomous road vehicles will not be smooth.
Eric Mc said:
The have forgotten the reason why technology exists. It is not there for technology sake - it is to better our lives. If it doesn't do this - it's pointless.
Modern cars are absolutely rammed with tech to make our lives safer and more comfortable, and therefore better.ABS, Stability control, Traction control, 4 wheel steering, 4 wheel drive, air bags, crumple zones, Adaptive headlights, Suspension that detects pot holes, crash detection and avoidance, lane departure warning, sensors that detect if you are falling asleep, auto braking, reader guided cruise control, the list is pretty much endless now.
I appreciate that totally autonomous driving is quite a big step forward from all those things, but they have all contributed to where we are now.
I was chauffeured to a ski resort recently in a Model X Tesla, and the driver said he had done over 15,000 miles on Autopilot without having to intervene once, which is pretty amazing really. He was doing 2000 miles a week in it.
I think it will be a good 5-10 years before we actually see the first totally autonomous cars on the road though.
Eric Mc said:
Nope - I've seen the reaction of people on here who are gung ho tecchies. If things go wrong, they always want to blame the human being. It's a fairly obvious trait in many.
The have forgotten the reason why technology exists. It is not there for technology sake - it is to better our lives. If it doesn't do this - it's pointless.
Well, this is the first incident and the human being was to blame, it will get used to improve the cars ability to allow for this same human error in future. Which makes your final sentence rather incongruous. These systems will save lives and will get better at this as time passes.The have forgotten the reason why technology exists. It is not there for technology sake - it is to better our lives. If it doesn't do this - it's pointless.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 20th March 13:37
The AI will learn and pass data back and forth, it will learn from every situation and all the cars equipped with it will share data, as opposed to every human learning in isolation and that knowledge and experience dies with them, it doesn't get old, tired, stressed, distracted, drunk or angry.
It is still very early days, there is no way it wont happen though it is coming, it is just down to how long it takes to get it right,.
It is still very early days, there is no way it wont happen though it is coming, it is just down to how long it takes to get it right,.
Lord Marylebone said:
Modern cars are absolutely rammed with tech to make our lives safer and more comfortable, and therefore better.
ABS, Stability control, Traction control, 4 wheel steering, 4 wheel drive, air bags, crumple zones, Adaptive headlights, Suspension that detects pot holes, crash detection and avoidance, lane departure warning, sensors that detect if you are falling asleep, auto braking, reader guided cruise control, the list is pretty much endless now.
I appreciate that totally autonomous driving is quite a big step forward from all those things, but they have all contributed to where we are now.
I was chauffeured to a ski resort recently in a Model X Tesla, and the driver said he had done over 15,000 miles on Autopilot without having to intervene once, which is pretty amazing really. He was doing 2000 miles a week in it.
I think it will be a good 5-10 years before we actually see the first totally autonomous cars on the road though.
It's the interaction with what we have right now that will make things difficult - and the legal aspects. I have no doubt that the technology can be made to work most of the time. What I have doubts about is how it works in the real world during a time frame when there will be lots of old technology around for a very long time.ABS, Stability control, Traction control, 4 wheel steering, 4 wheel drive, air bags, crumple zones, Adaptive headlights, Suspension that detects pot holes, crash detection and avoidance, lane departure warning, sensors that detect if you are falling asleep, auto braking, reader guided cruise control, the list is pretty much endless now.
I appreciate that totally autonomous driving is quite a big step forward from all those things, but they have all contributed to where we are now.
I was chauffeured to a ski resort recently in a Model X Tesla, and the driver said he had done over 15,000 miles on Autopilot without having to intervene once, which is pretty amazing really. He was doing 2000 miles a week in it.
I think it will be a good 5-10 years before we actually see the first totally autonomous cars on the road though.
4x4Tyke said:
Well, this is the first incident and the human being was to blame, it will get used to improve the cars ability to allow for this same human error in future. Which makes your final sentence rather incongruous. These systems will save lives and will get better at this as time passes.
Actually, it's not the first incident. Indeed, it's not even the first fatality.Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 20th March 13:37
Eric Mc said:
otolith said:
And you don't think that our lives would be improved by reducing death and injury on the roads, or enabling independent personal mobility for those with disabilities which stop them driving or even just by enabling people to go to a country pub for lunch and a few pints?
Actually, I don't - not for many decades.Ultimately, I have no doubt that autonomy is where we will end up with transport (it already exists in some limited sectors).
As I keep saying - the transition from where we are now to autonomy on the roads will be long, difficult and possibly very painful - from an economic, humane and political point of view.
The road ahead for autonomous road vehicles will not be smooth.
Eric Mc said:
Actually, it's not the first incident. Indeed, it's not even the first fatality.
Do you have a source for this? It doesn't matter anyhow, in the grand scheme of things they are isolated incidents and the latest was the victims fault.When steam travel was invented people were scared, someone ran along in front with a red flag to warn them. The first person to get killed by a steam loco? The man with the red flag. Did it stop us? No. Do people still get run over by trains? Yes.
It's history repeating itself.
98elise said:
Thesprucegoose said:
Anticipation is the key. See school kids you slow down. An algorithm cannot program stuff like that.
Why not?if you detect school kids you slow down, That's not remotely hard to program. More to the point if you do it will always slow down.
The issue at the moment is getting the computers to accurately understand whats being detected. Sensors can detect far better than we can, and computers can think faster, and obey rules far better than we can. When the combined perception of objects and people is better than ours then Autonomous cars will be a no brainer.
Computers can think faster than we can - yet I have not run over a pedestrian that has unexpectedly moved out into the road, either because I slow down, buying time, or anticipate (and therefore slow down, buying time!). So, if computers are so fast, what went wrong?
Computers can obey rules far better than we can - true, but works both ways, code them wrongly and they will follow those 'rules' blindly - whereas a human can apply intelligence and know when not to obey a rule (e.g. speed up to avoid an accident despite breaking the speed limit) - I haven't run over a pedestrian (I guess that must be a rule?!
) yet this car did, so if computers are that reliable in obeying rules - what went wrong?So - all your statements are correct in isolation - and appear in this incident to have not been sufficient / or maybe have been incorrect...
the reality is of course that computers are fab - assuming that they have been programmed correctly (GIGO), which is presumably what went wrong...
Autonomous cars take the decision making process from the human who is there in the situation, and has a far greater contextual understanding - and moves those decisions to the imagination of a coder who is stuck elsewhere in a room anticipating everything that might happen - not surprisingly, flaws occur. Autonomous car coding is not AI - it is basically a brute force approach to understanding all scenarios and having an answer - but in all the assumptions, all the planning, and even in millions of miles, some scenarios will not surface, so the first time that combination exists, the car may get it wrong, and someone may die.
I have no doubt that eventually they will be a good solution to cut out the average ability drivers and lower - with a reduction in fatalities - but the issue at the moment is that the public are being told a load of rubbish around capabilities - it will not be live for a number of years, there are loads of flaws, it doesn't fully work yet - why, because it is coded by humans - all the wonderful attributes of a computer are no use if the code has flaws - and the coding needs are so complex it is almost impossible to code without flaws...
Lord Marylebone said:
Eric Mc said:
The have forgotten the reason why technology exists. It is not there for technology sake - it is to better our lives. If it doesn't do this - it's pointless.
Modern cars are absolutely rammed with tech to make our lives safer and more comfortable, and therefore better.ABS, Stability control, Traction control, 4 wheel steering, 4 wheel drive, air bags, crumple zones, Adaptive headlights, Suspension that detects pot holes, crash detection and avoidance, lane departure warning, sensors that detect if you are falling asleep, auto braking, reader guided cruise control, the list is pretty much endless now.
I appreciate that totally autonomous driving is quite a big step forward from all those things, but they have all contributed to where we are now.
I was chauffeured to a ski resort recently in a Model X Tesla, and the driver said he had done over 15,000 miles on Autopilot without having to intervene once, which is pretty amazing really. He was doing 2000 miles a week in it.
I think it will be a good 5-10 years before we actually see the first totally autonomous cars on the road though.
Tuna said:
The Selfish Gene said:
erm because his entire job was to sit there and do nothing unless there was a risk, and avert an accident.
He didn't perform his basic function, therefore an idiot.
I'd fire one of my testers on the spot for a lot less than that.
Glad I don't work for you then.He didn't perform his basic function, therefore an idiot.
I'd fire one of my testers on the spot for a lot less than that.
NASA have done some interesting tests on how quickly a 'passenger' can respond if the thing doing the driving makes an incorrect decision... response time drops off massively because humans are just not able to keep attention up when someone else is doing the work. It's a serious issue (one of many) with autonomous cars, and believed to be partly to blame for the death that occurred last year.
This is safety critical software..........they have put a failsafe in place.
Granted, if the cyclist was deemed to have done something that was impossible to avoid........I could go lighter, but even then, the fact there was a cyclist in striking range should have meant the human tester was in control.
This is a HUMAN life. Due to an incompetent testing procedure.
227bhp said:
Do you have a source for this? It doesn't matter anyhow, in the grand scheme of things they are isolated incidents and the latest was the victims fault.
When steam travel was invented people were scared, someone ran along in front with a red flag to warn them. The first person to get killed by a steam loco? The man with the red flag. Did it stop us? No. Do people still get run over by trains? Yes.
It's history repeating itself.
Source for the red flag man incident please? It would be an interesting read thanks. When steam travel was invented people were scared, someone ran along in front with a red flag to warn them. The first person to get killed by a steam loco? The man with the red flag. Did it stop us? No. Do people still get run over by trains? Yes.
It's history repeating itself.
akirk said:
So sensors can detect far better than we can - yet I have not run over a pedestrian, who with bags and bikes on a pavement with no parked cars is hardly difficult to spot! So, if sensors are that good - what went wrong?
Allegedly the lady stepped out into the road in front of the vehicle.The Police have stated that at this stage, it looks like the car was not at fault.
All the sensors in the world won't be able to stop 2 tons of car in a few feet at 35mph if someone steps out in front of it.
Im not sure what you were expecting from the car?
A friend of mine ran over and killed an elderly lady who was crossing the road with shopping bags about 5 years ago and it was deemed 100% not his fault by the police.
He was doing 40mph in a 40 limit and she hadn't seen him, just stepped out.
Accidents happen.
Lord Marylebone said:
Allegedly the lady stepped out into the road in front of the vehicle.
The Police have stated that at this stage, it looks like the car was not at fault.
All the sensors in the world won't be able to stop 2 tons of car in a few feet at 35mph if someone steps out in front of it.
Im not sure what you were expecting from the car?
A friend of mine ran over and killed an elderly lady who was crossing the road with shopping bags about 5 years ago and it was deemed 100% not his fault by the police.
He was doing 40mph in a 40 limit and she hadn't seen him, just stepped out.
Accidents happen.
But I thought autonomous/driverless cars were made of magic and they could do the impossible? The Police have stated that at this stage, it looks like the car was not at fault.
All the sensors in the world won't be able to stop 2 tons of car in a few feet at 35mph if someone steps out in front of it.
Im not sure what you were expecting from the car?
A friend of mine ran over and killed an elderly lady who was crossing the road with shopping bags about 5 years ago and it was deemed 100% not his fault by the police.
He was doing 40mph in a 40 limit and she hadn't seen him, just stepped out.
Accidents happen.
On the logical side, a good driver could've been a bit more aware of the pedestrian and maybe made a larger gap upon seeing the pedestrian. Don't you create a larger gap by moving to the right when you see a broken down vehicle on the motorway or A road on the left? Ofcourse as long as it's clear on the right.
Or don't you get ready to hit the brakes when passing a stopped bus/lorry incase some fool steps out without looking? No?
Edited by captainaverage on Tuesday 20th March 14:35
superlightr said:
I think we will need a true AI, a living AI to beable to reach the level of automation and safety that is being discussed. Why? I think the AI will need to learn, much like we do as babies/children/adults. The AI will need to see and be taught what sheep in a field looks like, it will have to learn like the driving test what the signs mean and how to obey them, it will have to learn how things in life can be unpredictable. it will have to beable to learn and also teach itself from its own observations. The AI may well be linked so that all AI share and learn and propagate that knowledge.
We then have a much more of an issue of AI being in charge of humans and where that road will lead more then just asking will a car see x y or z risk on the road.
True AI is very interesting and scary at the same time. I don't think we will get the desired benefits unless AI is "alive" and "aware" but then enter a much more dangerous and moral land as we then have a new species of living being.
Is this ‘collective’ information what much of car autonomy is about? Isn’t there going to be a database of statistics collected in much the same way as Google collects everything from its users? We see this with Waze etc. The database is going to use all the sat nav data along with all the road statistics, be reading all physical road signs (that pranksters haven’t changed), it’s going to be tracking every mobile phone or device in the vicinity. It has google earth to know where every wall, gate or door is in addition. We then have a much more of an issue of AI being in charge of humans and where that road will lead more then just asking will a car see x y or z risk on the road.
True AI is very interesting and scary at the same time. I don't think we will get the desired benefits unless AI is "alive" and "aware" but then enter a much more dangerous and moral land as we then have a new species of living being.
I suspect that an autonomous car can already drive around grid cities such as Vancouver where the pedestrian population are highly compliant quite successfully and probably already much better than the average driver. Can it drive across Mumbai or the centr of London where only the fear of being hit by a car keeps a significant number of pedestrians on the pavement? I don’t think we are anywhere near that capability.
The snippet I took from today’s news is that the autonomous car apparently never slowed. Even when the obstacle was in sight the vehicle apparently did not respond. That’s quite a big issue as that is the precise sort of event where you’d expect this tech to excel over humans who may well see the obstacle but freeze or be too slow to react.
A further aspect that I dread emanating from this news over the weeks to come is that this lady is described as having been transporting a bag of cans which suggests she was a homeless lady and America has a bad habit of placing distinct commercial values on different types of humans.
227bhp said:
Do you have a source for this? It doesn't matter anyhow, in the grand scheme of things they are isolated incidents and the latest was the victims fault.
When steam travel was invented people were scared, someone ran along in front with a red flag to warn them. The first person to get killed by a steam loco? The man with the red flag. Did it stop us? No. Do people still get run over by trains? Yes.
It's history repeating itself.
A man was killed in the USA a year or so ago when his autonomous Tesla rammed a dump truck. It was fooled by the bright sunlight - apparently. There have been at least a dozen serious but non fatal accidents involving autonomous cars. And this is from a tiny, tiny number of vehicles.When steam travel was invented people were scared, someone ran along in front with a red flag to warn them. The first person to get killed by a steam loco? The man with the red flag. Did it stop us? No. Do people still get run over by trains? Yes.
It's history repeating itself.
But, of course, when the technology fails, it's always the human that is really at fault. But guess what, there always will be humans involved. After all, why are we developing this technology if not for us humans?
As I keep saying, I do not doubt that autonomy is coming - but it's not going to be the norm for many, many years.
captainaverage said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Allegedly the lady stepped out into the road in front of the vehicle.
The Police have stated that at this stage, it looks like the car was not at fault.
All the sensors in the world won't be able to stop 2 tons of car in a few feet at 35mph if someone steps out in front of it.
Im not sure what you were expecting from the car?
A friend of mine ran over and killed an elderly lady who was crossing the road with shopping bags about 5 years ago and it was deemed 100% not his fault by the police.
He was doing 40mph in a 40 limit and she hadn't seen him, just stepped out.
Accidents happen.
But I thought autonomous/driverless cars were made of magic and they could do the impossible? The Police have stated that at this stage, it looks like the car was not at fault.
All the sensors in the world won't be able to stop 2 tons of car in a few feet at 35mph if someone steps out in front of it.
Im not sure what you were expecting from the car?
A friend of mine ran over and killed an elderly lady who was crossing the road with shopping bags about 5 years ago and it was deemed 100% not his fault by the police.
He was doing 40mph in a 40 limit and she hadn't seen him, just stepped out.
Accidents happen.
On the logical side, a good driver could've been a bit more aware of the pedestrian and maybe made a larger gap upon seeing the pedestrian. Don't you create a larger gap by moving to the right when you see a broken down vehicle on the motorway or A road on the left?
I'm confident in that they will certainly have better concentration than the average motorist.
I don't know about you, but I don't drive away from the pavement when I see pedestrians. I simply assume they won't step out in front of me.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th March 14:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff