Slashdot Mirror
Experts Say Video of Uber's Self-Driving Car Killing a Pedestrian Suggests Its Technology May Have Failed (4brad.com)
Ever since the Tempe police released a video of Uber's self-driving car hitting and killing a pedestrian, experts have been racing to analyze the footage and determine what exactly went wrong. (If you haven't watched the video, you can do so here. Warning: it's disturbing, though the actual impact is removed.) In a blog post, software architect and entrepreneur Brad Templeton highlights some of the big issues with the video:
1. On this empty road, the LIDAR is very capable of detecting her. If it was operating, there is no way that it did not detect her 3 to 4 seconds before the impact, if not earlier. She would have come into range just over 5 seconds before impact.
2.On the dash-cam style video, we only see her 1.5 seconds before impact. However, the human eye and quality cameras have a much better dynamic range than this video, and should have also been able to see her even before 5 seconds. From just the dash-cam video, no human could brake in time with just 1.5 seconds warning. The best humans react in just under a second, many take 1.5 to 2.5 seconds.
3. The human safety driver did not see her because she was not looking at the road. She seems to spend most of the time before the accident looking down to her right, in a style that suggests looking at a phone.
4.While a basic radar which filters out objects which are not moving towards the car would not necessarily see her, a more advanced radar also should have detected her and her bicycle (though triggered no braking) as soon as she entered the lane to the left, probably 4 seconds before impact at least. Braking could trigger 2 seconds before, in theory enough time.)
To be clear, while the car had the right-of-way and the victim was clearly unwise to cross there, especially without checking regularly in the direction of traffic, this is a situation where any properly operating robocar following "good practices," let alone "best practices," should have avoided the accident regardless of pedestrian error. That would not be true if the pedestrian were crossing the other way, moving immediately into the right lane from the right sidewalk. In that case no technique could have avoided the event. The overall consensus among experts is that one or several pieces of the driverless system may have failed, from the LIDAR system to the logic system that's supposed to identify road objects, to the communications channels that are supposed to apply the brakes, or the car's automatic braking system itself. According to Los Angeles Times, "Driverless car experts from law and academia called on Uber to release technical details of the accident so objective researchers can help figure out what went wrong and relay their findings to other driverless system makers and to the public."
1. On this empty road, the LIDAR is very capable of detecting her. If it was operating, there is no way that it did not detect her 3 to 4 seconds before the impact, if not earlier. She would have come into range just over 5 seconds before impact.
2.On the dash-cam style video, we only see her 1.5 seconds before impact. However, the human eye and quality cameras have a much better dynamic range than this video, and should have also been able to see her even before 5 seconds. From just the dash-cam video, no human could brake in time with just 1.5 seconds warning. The best humans react in just under a second, many take 1.5 to 2.5 seconds.
3. The human safety driver did not see her because she was not looking at the road. She seems to spend most of the time before the accident looking down to her right, in a style that suggests looking at a phone.
4.While a basic radar which filters out objects which are not moving towards the car would not necessarily see her, a more advanced radar also should have detected her and her bicycle (though triggered no braking) as soon as she entered the lane to the left, probably 4 seconds before impact at least. Braking could trigger 2 seconds before, in theory enough time.)
To be clear, while the car had the right-of-way and the victim was clearly unwise to cross there, especially without checking regularly in the direction of traffic, this is a situation where any properly operating robocar following "good practices," let alone "best practices," should have avoided the accident regardless of pedestrian error. That would not be true if the pedestrian were crossing the other way, moving immediately into the right lane from the right sidewalk. In that case no technique could have avoided the event. The overall consensus among experts is that one or several pieces of the driverless system may have failed, from the LIDAR system to the logic system that's supposed to identify road objects, to the communications channels that are supposed to apply the brakes, or the car's automatic braking system itself. According to Los Angeles Times, "Driverless car experts from law and academia called on Uber to release technical details of the accident so objective researchers can help figure out what went wrong and relay their findings to other driverless system makers and to the public."
Forget the Lidar, or lack of (they were testing cameras?). Forget the dude (heh, the first 12 hours thought he was a she. That's gotta hurt).
Had I been driving that car, full alert, I would have killed that chick. I'd have felt bad, even knowing it was her fault. But the fact is, this dumbass walked in front of a fast moving car, at night, when she had no illumination, and the car had headlights. Her best hope of survival was a 100% functioning self driving car, anything less and she's dead.
The released video is very misleading. While the deceased made a stupid decision to cross at that point, it was quite well lit.
No one with even average vision or reflexes would have hit her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
That video definitely shows better lighting. For reference, the impact happens around the 0:33 mark of the above video, there's a sign on the right side of the road for reference.
But, that video is a little bit over-saturated. The light strings on the bridge look like a solid light, they aren't that bright. You can clearly make out the individual lights when you're actually there. Like usual, the reality is somewhere between these videos. I've been to the theater on that corner many times, and I remember it as being a poorly-lit street.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I've got a forward facing car camera, and its very clear that eyes see things far bigger and brighter at the horizon than cameras. You would see her, even in that light.
This is why the moon seems bigger and brighter when its near the horizon. When actually its dimmer due to atmosphere and the same size as normal.
*But*, more than that.
I've also seen the other video of this stretch of road filmed with a normal smartphone camera and its clear the camera in the car had terrible dynamic range. There is absolutely no way a person looking at the road would not have seen her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRW0q8i3u6E
Level 1 self drive is where the car acts as a safety feature for the driver.
Level 2 is where the driver acts as a safety feature for the car!
Which is it!! Is the car safer or the driver?? You cannot have Level 2 because its simply dumping liability on the driver, when he's not party to the decisions the car is making and does not know what it will do, till after its done it.
The car drives, the man observes, then deduces what decision its made from the changes to the car. He cannot be the safety backup for the car. It's not possible, its a legalese get out for self driving car makers.
"Vasquez has felony convictions for attempted armed robbery after plot with Blockbuster video store co-worker to seize their own shop's taking's at gunpoint"
BLOCKBUSTER. That crime must have been AGES ago.
"Vasquez was convicted under her original name Rafael but now identifies as a woman"
Well, that makes me feel less guilty about assuming it was a man driving when I saw the video. XY chromosomal pair is still present.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Aren't bicycle reflectors a legal requirement in the US?
It's a legal (FTC) requirement that bicycles are sold with reflectors. There is no Federal obligation on the buyer to keep them. the State of Arizona or City of Tempe may have statutes, but there's no applicable US Code for riding a bicycle with or without reflectors.