Uber driverless car in fatal accident
Discussion
hyphen said:
simoid said:
Is the driver gonna get f
ked for this 
He can handle jail if it comes to it.ked for this Seeing as he is a twice convicted felon already... (benefit fraud and then armed robbery).
Not to mention a string of traffic violations, you know the usual nothing to worry about, driving whilst suspended, going through a red light, speeding...
Uber on the other hand will need to demonstrate how their vetting passed him as a fit and proper person for this role, I'm sure it was more than the fact he would work for 1 cent an hour. Right????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5527575/Op...
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 24th May 22:22
skwdenyer said:
NTSB preliminary report:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR2...
Volvo safety systems turned off.
Uber computer identified that emergency braking was required.
Emergency braking was turned off to avoid "erratic" driving and was not set up to deliver any warnings to the driver.
System relied upon human operator to emergency brake.
Driver was monitoring the software (allegedly) not the road, did not start to brake until 1 second after impact.
Quite simply staggering. I *very* much hope such lax approaches are not allowed on UK roads?
Uber don't have a stellar reputation when it comes to following regulations. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR2...
Volvo safety systems turned off.
Uber computer identified that emergency braking was required.
Emergency braking was turned off to avoid "erratic" driving and was not set up to deliver any warnings to the driver.
System relied upon human operator to emergency brake.
Driver was monitoring the software (allegedly) not the road, did not start to brake until 1 second after impact.
Quite simply staggering. I *very* much hope such lax approaches are not allowed on UK roads?
cptsideways said:
cptsideways said:
100% at fault in my book
Driver is on their phone obviously & not paying attention, 10% attention level tops.
A driver would have seen into what appears to be shadows in the vid easily if looking
The standard Volvo with safety systems would have reacted imho, are these disabled?
The system fitted obviously does not work, or anywhere near as well at it should do.
On observant good driver "would have seen more than in the video" & at least reacted.
I think this is a very good example of what drivers will do in semi autonomous vehicles let alone fully, as we have been saying all along.
This video shows what a 2015 xc90 see's & does (though it looks a bit fakey to me) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgWE5nIyG0
Looks like I was bang on the moneyDriver is on their phone obviously & not paying attention, 10% attention level tops.
A driver would have seen into what appears to be shadows in the vid easily if looking
The standard Volvo with safety systems would have reacted imho, are these disabled?
The system fitted obviously does not work, or anywhere near as well at it should do.
On observant good driver "would have seen more than in the video" & at least reacted.
I think this is a very good example of what drivers will do in semi autonomous vehicles let alone fully, as we have been saying all along.
This video shows what a 2015 xc90 see's & does (though it looks a bit fakey to me) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgWE5nIyG0
That said monitoring the cars test equipment is worse than using a phone because doing their job meant taking their eyes off the road.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 25th May 08:52
https://jalopnik.com/why-volvo-s-auto-braking-syst...
This article suggests that Volvo's systems could have reduced the speed of the car to 15mph.
From 62mph the car can stop in 36m.
This article suggests that Volvo's systems could have reduced the speed of the car to 15mph.
From 62mph the car can stop in 36m.
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5320397/uber-fatal-aut...
NTSB report - accident would have been avoided had the driver been watching the road rather than 'The Voice' on their mobile...
Last part involving the officer shows him/her to be pretty astute in the aftermath.
I do hope the driver is prosecuted, the standard of general driving is the US is horrendous...
NTSB report - accident would have been avoided had the driver been watching the road rather than 'The Voice' on their mobile...
Last part involving the officer shows him/her to be pretty astute in the aftermath.
I do hope the driver is prosecuted, the standard of general driving is the US is horrendous...
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
buggalugs said:
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
This to me is the biggest problem at the moment. You're expecting someone to potentially sit and do nothing for hours on end, but take over and avert an emergency at a moment's notice. People just don't work like that, and will become distracted incredibly quickly.So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
buggalugs said:
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
But a standard Volvo - with a form of automatic braking - doesn't stop all the time. So what's happening there?So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
As I understand it, the automatic emergency brakes on cars you can buy now don't necessarily avoid a collision - presumably for that reason? i.e. they don't trigger until the risk of a false positive is negligible, which is after the point at which a collision can reliably be avoided. But they certainly tilt the odds a long way towards making the crash "annoying" rather than "fatal".
The bit tech companies are working on is trickier, lacking the determinism of normal safety systems. We do need innovation to be allowed, and to accept that mistakes will be made, because what we're currently operating with is a dumpster fire. But disabling the simple, brutal, and effective safety systems that came with the car is neither of those things - it's corporate manslaughter. Anyone who can't tell the difference has no business innovating in this sphere.
An Uber exec needs to go to prison for this. Sparing them is not encouraging innovation.
buggalugs said:
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
I've made this point at work in coffee machine chats with colleagues who work on what my employer knows as "driver assistance" projects. Whatever idiot came up with/approved the autopilot name for that feature should be shot in front of their families /Clarkson.So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
jet_noise said:
buggalugs said:
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
I've made this point at work in coffee machine chats with colleagues who work on what my employer knows as "driver assistance" projects. Whatever idiot came up with/approved the autopilot name for that feature should be shot in front of their families /Clarkson.So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
I'm a fan of autonomous vehicles for mass transport, but this demonstrates that drivers are too dumb to deal with the lower levels of autonomy (those that need the driver to be ready to take over).
It needs to be a jump to Level 4 before usage becomes widespread.
paranoid airbag said:
buggalugs said:
The automatic braking was turned off because of too many false positives, the car would have been emergency stopping all the time.
So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
But a standard Volvo - with a form of automatic braking - doesn't stop all the time. So what's happening there?So basically yes they’re not very far along with it. Autonomous driving is nowhere near what the marketing would have people believe at the moment. Which is dangerous because of the gap between peoples expectations of what it does and what it actually does. You can explain it to people and put it in the manual but they hear the word Autopilot and think they can pick the Sunday Times up on the M6.
As I understand it, the automatic emergency brakes on cars you can buy now don't necessarily avoid a collision - presumably for that reason? i.e. they don't trigger until the risk of a false positive is negligible, which is after the point at which a collision can reliably be avoided. But they certainly tilt the odds a long way towards making the crash "annoying" rather than "fatal".
The bit tech companies are working on is trickier, lacking the determinism of normal safety systems. We do need innovation to be allowed, and to accept that mistakes will be made, because what we're currently operating with is a dumpster fire. But disabling the simple, brutal, and effective safety systems that came with the car is neither of those things - it's corporate manslaughter. Anyone who can't tell the difference has no business innovating in this sphere.
An Uber exec needs to go to prison for this. Sparing them is not encouraging innovation.
buggalugs said:
As I understand it the Volvo system was disabled so that Uber could test their autonomous driving system, which obivously is different / much more ambitious than the Volvo system, does steering, hands off driving etc. An exec should go to jail but let's face it it will most likley be the poor sap they stuck behind the wheel.
That is true about the volvo system which came with the car, but is not the whole story.The uber self driving kit, had several behaviours in the software, collision avoidance, route planning, emergency braking, etc. It was the uber self-driving system that had the emergency braking system disabled as well. During testing, uber had found that their emergency braking system was too sensitive, and had too many false positives. As a result, they disabled it. So, in this collision, the self driving system spotted the person in the road well ahead, correctly identified the hazard as a bicycle, and started action to avoid. However, emergency evasion had been manually disabled, so instead of emergency braking or aggressive steering/swerving, only a very mild steering input was generated, resulting in a severe impact.
skyrover said:
The problem is level 4 is essentially unattainable for the forseable future.
Technology is just not good enough yet.
And certainly not safe to creep out in some cut down form.Technology is just not good enough yet.
What the 'driver' did in this Uber is typical of what the average human would do after a while - get engrossed in some distraction and not be paying attention when needed.
98elise said:
davepoth said:
glazbagun said:
Teslas have badly named Cruise control (which shouldn't be allowed IMO) but as far as I'm aware the only problem they've had was when they hit the back of a truck after misjudging the distance.
Have there been more disasters?
The one he's talking about is where a Tesla drove into the side of a truck that turned across the road. Fairly macabre reading since the car kept driving...Have there been more disasters?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/20/tesla_dea...
Edited to add...here is a diagram of the accident:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/01/bus...
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 25th March 13:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff