The rest of the sentence was more baseless assumption, specifically, you're assuming the vehicle (or a driver) was able to see the person, and also able to react in time. But no, she was "invisible", let's go with that. Sorry if I don't want to respond to all of your baseless assumptions.
Since this is so full of assumptions, let's start with evidence.
This story shows the stopped vehicle, with damage to the right side. The sign in the photo looks like this sign. Despite articles claiming she was walking in a median, it looks like she was on the right sidewalk, especially considering the right-side damage on the car and the fact that the driver said it "happened in a flash" and that he only became aware of the collision because of the sound. If you look south in the direction where the car was coming from, there's a tree there covering part of the sidewalk. I'm going to assume that's where the woman was, maybe in the grassy area near the bench trying to cross the street to the median and ran or rode her bike off the sidewalk directly into the path of the car, which based on the picture looks like it was entering the right turn lane. The Tempe police chief, Sylvia Moir said this:
From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said.
So, from the evidence I'm looking at, and acknowledging that I haven't seen the video, it sounds like this woman came from behind a tree into the roadway and directly in the path of the car, with the driver first becoming aware that she was there when he heard the impact.
Now, what conclusions are you going to make about the capabilities of the sensor array, cameras, and software of the car? The driver himself says he never saw her - are you going to continue to assert that a human would have performed any differently? Could the driver have even seen the woman from behind the tree from 150 yards away like you keep saying?
If you want me to go look at the current state of that tree I can, I'll even check for recent marks where it may have been trimmed over the last day or two. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, the east side of the street right there does not receive heavy foot traffic at 10pm at night. The only destination is that theater, and it's on the other side of the street.
OK, your turn. Tell me all about how a person definitely would have seen her from 150 yards out and how the car lacks sensors and cameras.
My point about the videos is that there should be more avaliable than the ones being used to drive the car.
Well Jesus Fucking Christ, you need to email Uber and Waymo about this immediately, because in 9 years of research and development I bet not a single one of them has ever had a thought like that enter their mind.
Or, maybe just wait until they actually release videos to the public before we start with the stupid suggestions.
I honestly think they are bad at recognizing objects from far away
Well, try not to worry about it too much, honey. Go to your room, put on some comforting safe music that won't trigger you, I'll make you a cup of tea, and we'll lock out any opinion or fact that in any way threatens what you want to think.
Ok well if they have tested that extensively then I guess there will be a completely believable reason
Do you have to work hard at being that obtuse, or does it just come naturally to you?
You fanbois keep trotting out how fucking safe SDCs are supposed to be, yet here's a case where with all the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in developing them, all the media hype, all the cheerleading by fanbois like you, touting how much SAFER it's going to be, yet right out of the gate here's someone dead.
Did you realistically think that self-driving cars would always avoid every fatality? Have you seen anyone make that claim, and can you cite it? Do you believe that the fact that a computer is controlling the vehicle makes the vehicle immune to the laws of physics, so that it can stop immediately? Is the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road any different if the vehicle is operating autonomously?
Secondly - "right out of the gate?" Self-driving vehicles have been on public roads in the US since 2009. They have driven in the neighborhood of 10 million miles across several different cities during all conditions. That is not "right out of the gate". And, in all of that time, 1 fatality has been produced as the result of a self-driving car hitting a pedestrian. Contrast that with the fact that in 2015 in the US, a car killed a pedestrian on average every 1.6 hours. And if you're going to try to gloss over those facts in pursuit of your weird agenda, then you're the fanboi, buddy.
Won't be the last person dead because of it, either.
No shit. Name any risky major venture that mankind has pursued over decades without anyone dying from it. When the Apollo 1 astronauts died on the launchpad, should we have immediately suspended all space operations until we were 100% certain that no one could possibly die from any possible cause? You can die choking on food, does that mean you're going to stick to a liquid diet for the rest of your life?
It needs to be able to actually think, like we do and be aware like we are.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot of people are pretty shitty drivers.
But what if a human driver would have seen that person while they were still 150 yards down the road?
What if the car spotted her 150 yards down the road? What if she never entered the roadway in the first place? What if she just stayed home that day? What if she were never born?
A human slows down ahead of time, monitors the situation
That's laughable. OK, maybe "a human" does that, but "humans" do not do that, not with any regularity that you can make a statement saying "humans do this".
It is very unlikely that the view of the human was totally obscured
OK, then why did the human in the vehicle not intervene? Huh? If humans are the absolute pinnacle of vehicle controlling technology, like you're saying, then why did the human allow the vehicle to hit the person when it was sooooo obvious it was going to happen?
When does the car start paying attention?
That's its 1 job. It's literally never not paying attention. It doesn't look at the radio, it doesn't look in mirrors, it doesn't look at its phone, or light a cigarette, or take a drink or a bite, it's not thinking about work or what else it has to do that day, it doesn't have to only look in 1 direction at once. It's always reading data from every sensor it has.
It is incapable of knowing the difference between an inanimate object and a human being.
OK, first off, what is your evidence for that claim? Pattern and object recognition in photos and videos is pretty robust, so if you're making a claim like that like it's a fact, exactly what is your evidence? You honestly think that over a decade plus of research and development, no one had the idea to add some video object recognition to have the car guess if something is a person, animal, etc?
Secondly - why the hell does that even matter? Shouldn't the vehicle avoid collisions with any object? Why does it matter if that object is a person or not? It's still going to try to avoid hitting it, right?
There's nobody inside the box to even care that something just happened.
Oh no, the horror, a vehicle driving without emotion and feeling. Yeah, let's program this thing to be happy and sad, that's the ticket! What we need is a fleet of vehicles driving around distraught at the fact that bugs keep bouncing off the windshield.
Goddamn, but there are a lot of you in these threads. Are you the same person, or what?
Doesnt the car have sensors
Yes it does!
that could have detected the person and her bike with bags
Yes they can!
something should have been detected
I bet it was!
the car should have done something to try and avoid the accident
How do you know it didn't?
Maybe these cars are not smart enough yet.
I guess that's in the realm of things that are possible, yeah. But I bet, even right now, they are dozens to hundreds of times safer than human drivers.
Here's the point: we, as in the public, don't have any evidence of what happened here. We haven't seen videos. We haven't seen sensor data. We don't know if this was an accident that was 100% unavoidable (what if the person fell in front of the car, and the car was driving next to a bus?). But that doesn't stop everyone from trying to claim that autonomous cars are crap. What's wrong with waiting for evidence before we start "just asking questions" when we have no data about what actually occurred?
I wonder if they haven't released the actual location, and it was actually on Washington just west of Mill, where the speed limit is 35. They said Curry and Mill, but east of Mill it's Curry, and west of Mill it's Washington.
Not only was this car speeding, but it did not recognise a road side hazard and drive by cautiously.
Are you really 100% confident that you, or most people, would have been able to avoid the accident? Without seeing the video? And with the chief saying it looks like the car wasn't at fault?
There are car crashes every day where the driver made no attempt to brake. That is not an admission of fault, it might just mean that there was no time to brake before the collision.
I almost splattered a girl the other day, because she had her head so deep in her damned phone that she didn't even bother to look up at all before launching herself into the street against the traffic light. If I had, you can be damned sure I'd be suing her estate for the damages to my vehicle and psyche.
No! You're wrong! Drivers should always be aware of everything happening in a sphere of radius 100 meters around their vehicle. If you're driving this van, and you can't avoid that collision, then you shouldn't be on the public right of way! Pedestrians are never in the wrong, in fact I bet that van was driven by an AI.
There has to be some definition of how good they should be before they go on a public road though.
"Better than a person" seems pretty obvious. The reaction time alone can avoid many accidents, combine that with a suite of sensors better than anything a human can see, and the fact that the vehicle is never not paying attention, and I think we're moving in the right direction. After that it's a basic decision tree, with the most safe option likely being "just stop."
I'd like to force them to submit a high definition video of a driver's line of site from the car and use that to determine if a human would have seen something like this accident coming.
I think we would all like to see all of the videos available. It would definitely clear up a lot of the nonsense speculation and assumptions.
Who is expecting self-driven vehicles to be infallible in all conditions?
Several people commenting in this and the other story, apparently. For them this is a reason to remove all autonomous vehicles immediately, and return to the complete safety of human drivers, who definitely always do the right thing.
These pseudo-intelligent machines have no consciousness, no ability to actually 'think', and don't know the difference between a living being and an inanimate object
Why would a machine have trouble seeing someone moving out of a shadow, are they telling us that they didn't bother to use something as simple as infrared sensors for night vision to avoid a dependence on visible light?
Are you telling us you've seen the IR video? No? Is it not possible that the person was in a place where IR couldn't detect them against the background?
Or, you know what, you're exactly right. 9 years of testing, who knows how many man-hours developing and researching, around 10 million miles driven, but all of those people just plain forgot that IR was a thing. Yeah, you're probably right, anonymous genius.
We keep being told that AIs are safer and better. Apparently, not so much.
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S. (roughly one every 1.6 hours). In ~9 years and ~10 million miles driven by autonomous vehicles, one person has been killed in a collision. So, yes, much.
Slashdot Mirror
Why exactly do you think it didn't stop? This photo would suggest it did, where did you hear that it kept driving, and for how long?
Point taken, but I'm refuting the "ban all autonomous driving, the sky is falling and people are dying" rhetoric that is all over these comments.
There are 210 million licensed drivers, so maybe comparing stats for more vehicles than there are drivers isn't the most intelligent analysis.
The rest of the sentence was more baseless assumption, specifically, you're assuming the vehicle (or a driver) was able to see the person, and also able to react in time. But no, she was "invisible", let's go with that. Sorry if I don't want to respond to all of your baseless assumptions.
Since this is so full of assumptions, let's start with evidence.
This story shows the stopped vehicle, with damage to the right side. The sign in the photo looks like this sign. Despite articles claiming she was walking in a median, it looks like she was on the right sidewalk, especially considering the right-side damage on the car and the fact that the driver said it "happened in a flash" and that he only became aware of the collision because of the sound. If you look south in the direction where the car was coming from, there's a tree there covering part of the sidewalk. I'm going to assume that's where the woman was, maybe in the grassy area near the bench trying to cross the street to the median and ran or rode her bike off the sidewalk directly into the path of the car, which based on the picture looks like it was entering the right turn lane. The Tempe police chief, Sylvia Moir said this:
From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said.
So, from the evidence I'm looking at, and acknowledging that I haven't seen the video, it sounds like this woman came from behind a tree into the roadway and directly in the path of the car, with the driver first becoming aware that she was there when he heard the impact.
Now, what conclusions are you going to make about the capabilities of the sensor array, cameras, and software of the car? The driver himself says he never saw her - are you going to continue to assert that a human would have performed any differently? Could the driver have even seen the woman from behind the tree from 150 yards away like you keep saying?
If you want me to go look at the current state of that tree I can, I'll even check for recent marks where it may have been trimmed over the last day or two. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, the east side of the street right there does not receive heavy foot traffic at 10pm at night. The only destination is that theater, and it's on the other side of the street.
OK, your turn. Tell me all about how a person definitely would have seen her from 150 yards out and how the car lacks sensors and cameras.
There's no need to wait! Let's make stupid baseless assumptions today! Look, you're doing it right now!
My point about the videos is that there should be more avaliable than the ones being used to drive the car.
Well Jesus Fucking Christ, you need to email Uber and Waymo about this immediately, because in 9 years of research and development I bet not a single one of them has ever had a thought like that enter their mind.
Or, maybe just wait until they actually release videos to the public before we start with the stupid suggestions.
I honestly think they are bad at recognizing objects from far away
Well, try not to worry about it too much, honey. Go to your room, put on some comforting safe music that won't trigger you, I'll make you a cup of tea, and we'll lock out any opinion or fact that in any way threatens what you want to think.
Ok well if they have tested that extensively then I guess there will be a completely believable reason
Thank you. I agree. End of discussion.
How far do these cars look ahead?
800 meters, minimum. In a sphere.
Are these cars properly watching as they pull up?
Eeeeeverything. They know what you're thinking about. They'll text you to tell you to watch your step before you leave the curb.
If you're wondering where I'm getting my information from, I'm getting it from the same place as everyone who is "just asking questions."
Is that what happened here? The road was "wide open", and the person was "in the middle" of it?
Do you have to work hard at being that obtuse, or does it just come naturally to you?
You fanbois keep trotting out how fucking safe SDCs are supposed to be, yet here's a case where with all the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in developing them, all the media hype, all the cheerleading by fanbois like you, touting how much SAFER it's going to be, yet right out of the gate here's someone dead.
Did you realistically think that self-driving cars would always avoid every fatality? Have you seen anyone make that claim, and can you cite it? Do you believe that the fact that a computer is controlling the vehicle makes the vehicle immune to the laws of physics, so that it can stop immediately? Is the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road any different if the vehicle is operating autonomously?
Secondly - "right out of the gate?" Self-driving vehicles have been on public roads in the US since 2009. They have driven in the neighborhood of 10 million miles across several different cities during all conditions. That is not "right out of the gate". And, in all of that time, 1 fatality has been produced as the result of a self-driving car hitting a pedestrian. Contrast that with the fact that in 2015 in the US, a car killed a pedestrian on average every 1.6 hours. And if you're going to try to gloss over those facts in pursuit of your weird agenda, then you're the fanboi, buddy.
Won't be the last person dead because of it, either.
No shit. Name any risky major venture that mankind has pursued over decades without anyone dying from it. When the Apollo 1 astronauts died on the launchpad, should we have immediately suspended all space operations until we were 100% certain that no one could possibly die from any possible cause? You can die choking on food, does that mean you're going to stick to a liquid diet for the rest of your life?
It needs to be able to actually think, like we do and be aware like we are.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot of people are pretty shitty drivers.
But what if a human driver would have seen that person while they were still 150 yards down the road?
What if the car spotted her 150 yards down the road? What if she never entered the roadway in the first place? What if she just stayed home that day? What if she were never born?
A human slows down ahead of time, monitors the situation
That's laughable. OK, maybe "a human" does that, but "humans" do not do that, not with any regularity that you can make a statement saying "humans do this".
It is very unlikely that the view of the human was totally obscured
OK, then why did the human in the vehicle not intervene? Huh? If humans are the absolute pinnacle of vehicle controlling technology, like you're saying, then why did the human allow the vehicle to hit the person when it was sooooo obvious it was going to happen?
When does the car start paying attention?
That's its 1 job. It's literally never not paying attention. It doesn't look at the radio, it doesn't look in mirrors, it doesn't look at its phone, or light a cigarette, or take a drink or a bite, it's not thinking about work or what else it has to do that day, it doesn't have to only look in 1 direction at once. It's always reading data from every sensor it has.
So just like normal human drivers, then.
It is incapable of knowing the difference between an inanimate object and a human being.
OK, first off, what is your evidence for that claim? Pattern and object recognition in photos and videos is pretty robust, so if you're making a claim like that like it's a fact, exactly what is your evidence? You honestly think that over a decade plus of research and development, no one had the idea to add some video object recognition to have the car guess if something is a person, animal, etc?
Secondly - why the hell does that even matter? Shouldn't the vehicle avoid collisions with any object? Why does it matter if that object is a person or not? It's still going to try to avoid hitting it, right?
There's nobody inside the box to even care that something just happened.
Oh no, the horror, a vehicle driving without emotion and feeling. Yeah, let's program this thing to be happy and sad, that's the ticket! What we need is a fleet of vehicles driving around distraught at the fact that bugs keep bouncing off the windshield.
Goddamn, but there are a lot of you in these threads. Are you the same person, or what?
Doesnt the car have sensors
Yes it does!
that could have detected the person and her bike with bags
Yes they can!
something should have been detected
I bet it was!
the car should have done something to try and avoid the accident
How do you know it didn't?
Maybe these cars are not smart enough yet.
I guess that's in the realm of things that are possible, yeah. But I bet, even right now, they are dozens to hundreds of times safer than human drivers.
Here's the point: we, as in the public, don't have any evidence of what happened here. We haven't seen videos. We haven't seen sensor data. We don't know if this was an accident that was 100% unavoidable (what if the person fell in front of the car, and the car was driving next to a bus?). But that doesn't stop everyone from trying to claim that autonomous cars are crap. What's wrong with waiting for evidence before we start "just asking questions" when we have no data about what actually occurred?
In the same way that you could be a paid shill for taxi drivers, I guess you have a point. If you want to see a conspiracy no one can stop you.
Fuck it, just destroy his character anyway. It's the American thing to do. In fact, threaten any children he might have while you're at it.
I wonder if they haven't released the actual location, and it was actually on Washington just west of Mill, where the speed limit is 35. They said Curry and Mill, but east of Mill it's Curry, and west of Mill it's Washington.
Not only was this car speeding, but it did not recognise a road side hazard and drive by cautiously.
Are you really 100% confident that you, or most people, would have been able to avoid the accident? Without seeing the video? And with the chief saying it looks like the car wasn't at fault?
There are car crashes every day where the driver made no attempt to brake. That is not an admission of fault, it might just mean that there was no time to brake before the collision.
The issue is that of differential of consequences. Driver gets bent fender. Pedestrian is maimed or dies.
You'd think all of the people walking around glued to their cell phones would keep that in mind.
I almost splattered a girl the other day, because she had her head so deep in her damned phone that she didn't even bother to look up at all before launching herself into the street against the traffic light. If I had, you can be damned sure I'd be suing her estate for the damages to my vehicle and psyche.
No! You're wrong! Drivers should always be aware of everything happening in a sphere of radius 100 meters around their vehicle. If you're driving this van, and you can't avoid that collision, then you shouldn't be on the public right of way! Pedestrians are never in the wrong, in fact I bet that van was driven by an AI.
There has to be some definition of how good they should be before they go on a public road though.
"Better than a person" seems pretty obvious. The reaction time alone can avoid many accidents, combine that with a suite of sensors better than anything a human can see, and the fact that the vehicle is never not paying attention, and I think we're moving in the right direction. After that it's a basic decision tree, with the most safe option likely being "just stop."
I'd like to force them to submit a high definition video of a driver's line of site from the car and use that to determine if a human would have seen something like this accident coming.
I think we would all like to see all of the videos available. It would definitely clear up a lot of the nonsense speculation and assumptions.
Why do you assume they can't? Do you think the headlights are there for the sensors to see with?
Who is expecting self-driven vehicles to be infallible in all conditions?
Several people commenting in this and the other story, apparently. For them this is a reason to remove all autonomous vehicles immediately, and return to the complete safety of human drivers, who definitely always do the right thing.
These pseudo-intelligent machines have no consciousness, no ability to actually 'think', and don't know the difference between a living being and an inanimate object
So they're just like regular drivers then.
Why would a machine have trouble seeing someone moving out of a shadow, are they telling us that they didn't bother to use something as simple as infrared sensors for night vision to avoid a dependence on visible light?
Are you telling us you've seen the IR video? No? Is it not possible that the person was in a place where IR couldn't detect them against the background?
Or, you know what, you're exactly right. 9 years of testing, who knows how many man-hours developing and researching, around 10 million miles driven, but all of those people just plain forgot that IR was a thing. Yeah, you're probably right, anonymous genius.
We keep being told that AIs are safer and better. Apparently, not so much.
In 2015, over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by collisions with cars in the U.S. (roughly one every 1.6 hours). In ~9 years and ~10 million miles driven by autonomous vehicles, one person has been killed in a collision. So, yes, much.