Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#531

Post by Bluestrike2 » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

I understand your point. But people are capable of recognizing the tragic loss of a life while also trying to understand both the cause of it and the implications.

The victim's life had meaning. To herself, to her friends and loved ones, and all of those affected by her untimely loss. We don't know her story, nor the stories of the over 6,000 pedestrians (a number that's been increasing) killed annually in the US alone as of 2016.[0] Nor the 37,461 killed in US motor vehicle crashes in the same year.[1]

We talk about the technology, because it was involved in this woman's death and because the technology has the potential to drastically reduce the overall number of such accidents. Understanding why she died, and how similar accidents can be prevented in the future, can give society back something out of an accident that only took. If we can learn from her death, anything at all, it behooves us to do so.

Yes, it's cold. It's extremely cold. But it's something doable. Even if these discussions offer little impact on the actual development of self-driving cars, they can still impact the political debate that's only now just starting. For better or worse, there will be those who point to this woman's death as an argument against the technology. Recognizing that her death is not simply one death, but an example of a type of incident that claims thousands each year without self-driving car involvement, is critically important. At times, statistics can dehumanize and cause us to overlook the very real pain depicted as a small part of a number. But at the same time, they also permit us to recognize problems and measures ways in which we can mitigate and even solve them.

0. https://www.npr.org/2017/03/30/522085503/2016-saw-a-record-i...

1. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#532

Post by dpark » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

rockarage wrote: post #369

jdietrich wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when someone walks out into the road. Some of these accidents are unpreventable by the (autonomous) driver. If a pedestrian suddenly rushes out into the street or a cyclist swerves into your path, the deciding factor is often simply the coefficient of frict…

> If a pedestrian suddenly rushes out into the street or a cyclist swerves into your path, the deciding factor is often simply the coefficient of friction between your tyres and the road. This only true for the uninitiated, never let it get to that. I drove for Uber/Lyft/Via in New York city so I can experience and study these situation. These sort of accidents are preventable. The following is the basic: 1.) Drive m…

> 1.) Drive much slower in areas where a pedestrian and cyclist can suddenly cross your past.

So essentially everywhere? I have seen pedestrians walk unexpectedly into traffic on high-speed 4-lane divided roads with no crosswalks.

> 2.) Know the danger zone. Before people "jump into traffic" or a cyclist swerve in front of you, they have to get into position, this position is the danger zone.

What "position" are you referring to? There are places where you can account for or predict pedestrians. There are also places where you cannot, such as when someone walks into traffic from behind a tall parked vehicle, where you have no chance to see them in advance.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#533

Post by rocqua » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #481

> You can't really get away from this without putting these cars on rails. We should just really build rails. Self driving cars are dumping billions of dollars onto a problem better solved by rails. Several cities already have self driving trains including London, Singapore and Kuala Lumpar, and they transport millions of people every day without incident: http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol.…

Rails don't work for the last mile. The great thing about cars is that they don't suffer from the last mile problem.

It seems like a much better plan is to separate drivers from other people more rigorously, and maybe mandate people drive the last-mile themselves (with AI help, obviously).

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#534

Post by jpao79 » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

hugh4life wrote: post #465

The self driving car craze baffles me. I would only trust it if it were on a road made for it and the cars communicated to one another.

Or at least have the self driving cars driving only along specific routes well marked, well maintained autonomous driving routes similar to light rail/bus lanes so pedestrians know to be extra careful.

And for long haul trucking applications, freeway lanes at specific times of late night/early morning could be dedicated for autonomous driving.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#535

Post by jbigelow76 » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

TN412 wrote: post #511

djsumdog wrote: post #481

> You can't really get away from this without putting these cars on rails. We should just really build rails. Self driving cars are dumping billions of dollars onto a problem better solved by rails. Several cities already have self driving trains including London, Singapore and Kuala Lumpar, and they transport millions of people every day without incident: http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol.…

>We Should really just build rails The beauty of cars vs rails is that cars can go more than just a set in stone angle or path defined by a rail. Cars can go in and out of parking lots and dirt roads. Rails would be more automated, yes, but not as versatile.

Rails empty out into areas that are parking lots, and maybe you don't get the irony of rail but the more of it you have the less parking lots you need.

And as far as dirt roads go, if the self driving cars can't make it through well defined, paved roads what are the odds they are going to accurately navigate some dirt road?

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#536

Post by lolc » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #409

Johnny555 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars are still subject to the laws of physics... unless you're going to dictate that self-driving cars never go above 15mph, I wouldn't advocate jumping in front of even a "perfect" self-driving car. Braking distance (without including any decision time) for a 15mph car is 11 ft, for a 30mph is 45 ft. Self driving cars won't change these limits. (well, they may be a little better than humans at maximizin…

Once upon a time when I was learning to drive, one of the exercises my instructor used was to put me in the passenger seat while he drove, and have me try to point out every person or vehicle capable of entering the lane he was driving in, as soon as I became aware of them. Every parked vehicle along the side of a road. Every vehicle approaching or waiting to enter an intersection. Every pedestrian standing by a cros…

Sounds like an exceptional driving instructor to me. Exceptionally good.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#537

Post by bargl » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #185

leggomylibro wrote: post #9

FTA: "The Uber vehicle was reportedly driving early Monday when a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck. ... Tempe Police says the vehicle was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash and a vehicle operator was also behind the wheel." That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when some…

> That's a very bad look; the whole point of self-driving cars is that they can react to unexpected circumstances much more quickly than a human operator, such as when someone walks out into the road. Some of these accidents are unpreventable by the (autonomous) driver. If a pedestrian suddenly rushes out into the street or a cyclist swerves into your path, the deciding factor is often simply the coefficient of frict…

The hope is that AV can see 360 and observe things outside of blind spots further away. So the kid running from a yard into the road after a ball should be safer, but a person walking out from behind a parked truck wouldn't.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#538

Post by iliis » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

ttoinou wrote: post #520

IgorPartola wrote: post #390

This is what's going to happen. If you've ever seen a machine learning algorithm in action, this isn't surprising at all. Basically, they'll behave as expected some well known percentage of the time. But when they don't, the result will not be just a slight deviation from the normal algorithm, but a very unexpected one. So we will have overall a much smaller number of deaths caused by self driving cars, but ones that…

I won't be surprised if someone at some point wears a stripy outfit, and the car thinks they are a part of the road Shouldn't be an issue with 3D cameras

Well, in that case a non-textured or reflective clothing could have a similar effect.

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#539

Post by marcell » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this not supposed to happen with LIDAR equipped cars?

My understanding is that a LIDAR provides a completely accurate 3D map of the surrounding area around a self driving car. This is in contrast to Tesla's image recognition approach which makes a 3D map from 2D images. So is seems like a pretty giant bug if a self driving car ever crashes into another object with LIDAR, since it should always know the location of external objects.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Re: Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street

#540

Post by Jach » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

apeace wrote: post #366

I'm really shocked at the trend in comments here. Yes, we get it. Fatalities will happen sometimes, they are unavoidable sometimes, and what matters in the long run is if we can achieve a significant overall reduction in fatalities. But my god, a person was just killed by a computer. Can't we have some compassion and humility? Let's, as a community, set the standard for how we will react to these events. Let's make s…

1.75 people die per second. Calling for compassion and mourning of one stranger over the others seems fake. Personally I'm pleased over the circling of wagons, the very real danger is emotional kneejerks to this will set back the entire self-driving industry by at least 5 years. The trend of comments is a helpful loyalty signal even if it's not very substantive.