Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona • Hacker News Board

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#91

Post by hnaccy » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:35 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #54

brian-armstrong wrote: post #36

So here's one thing about this incident where humans do have a system for this already. People are very good at reading body language. It's possible to gather someone's likely intentions (wrt moving) in a near instant. A defensive driver will see body language that could dart out into the street and slow down, just in case, and give more attention to the person. We are really good at this. I know you can say it was d…

The chief of police says: "“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,”" I'm curious what you know that he doesn't.

It's cliche in America to absolve drivers of any culpability when killing pedestrians and cyclists let alone a case involving a local government that was actively courting a known unethical company.

Until they release footage I'll be taking anything from Uber and Tempe officials with a grain of salt, they'll spin this as hard they can.

P.S. I'm surprised he used the word shadows considering the car was equipped with a fancy lidar unit.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#92

Post by portofcall » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:36 AM UTC

goshx wrote: post #66

portofcall wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17140936/uber-self-drivin... The brakes didn’t even start to engage. Just how fast do you think this woman moved exactly?

If she was behind another parked car and stepped in front of the car that hit her, she could have been at a normal walking pace. The police stated that the car did not show signs of slowing down before the accident. I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system.

I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system.

With all due respect, then why are they using their bully pulpit to blame this woman for her death at this early stage? The vehicle made no attempt to stop, which seems worrying if the sensors and algorithms were working as intended, so maybe it would be worth looking at those systems.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#93

Post by mattigames » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #67

blakesterz wrote: post #13

> “The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.” I don't know if that is supposed to make anyone feel better about this, if anything it makes it seem worse. I thought one of the big benefits of these systems was they were supposed to be better at exactly these kinds of situations? More like "autonomous cars a…

Personally, I am constantly scanning for people near the edge of the road and anticipating their movements. I bet most of us have had the experience where someone stepped out unexpectedly but you already took action because you could tell they were not paying attention. Good luck programming that.

Yeah there are a lot of subtleties that are hard to program; that's why it must be extremely effective on things that _can_ be programmed such as quick breaking, quick steering; prefer lanes that are farther away from pedestrians near-by, beep when entering a non-illuminated zone and hundreds of other details.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#94

Post by danso » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

FWIW, this seems to be where the accident took place, based on news photos:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,...

It's not completely unlighted, though I'm not sure that's supposed to matter given the AV's sensors? Even if Uber nor the human driver is not legally at fault, I'd still be interested in knowing of Uber's LIDAR and other sensors even detected the woman, and whether it's part of the algorithm to be cautious when someone is that close to the roadway at night?

Can the AV's sensors even tell the difference between a person slowly loitering on a median vs stationary lightpoles and (slightly swaying) vegetation? I suppose you don't want the AV slowing down just every time it senses a solid object near the roadway, but does it make different decisions if a stationary object happens to be a human vs light post?

edit: the article doesn't say what lane the Uber vehicle was in. Since the victim was walking down the median and yet managed to abruptly surprise the AV, then we can assume it was in the left lane? But don't most human drivers, on an otherwise empty road, move toward the far lane to avoid driving at full speed next to someone who is walking their bike near the road? I do that for bicyclists even when they have their own bike lane (never know when someone can abruptly fall). I would especially do that at the sight of someone walking their bike "laden with plastic shopping bags" late at night down a center median, because that is such an unusual situation.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#95

Post by telchar » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

trothamel wrote: post #72

When it comes to traffic, there's the concept of the right-of-way. I don't know about the rules in Tempe, but here's an excerpt from the rules in New York. > (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. And that kind of makes sense, because if pedestrians were…

True. But if there was no crosswalk within 100m (per the article) and it wasn't a highway (only 35mph limit) it's reasonable to cross without a crosswalk. Still a pedestrian shouldn't put themselves in harm's way, but I don't think crossing off the crosswalk should be help against someone in this circumstance.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#96

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

I didn't notice it mentioned in this piece, but a different article on HN is suggesting she may have been homeless and was crossing where there was no crosswalk.

Homeless individuals frequently sleep under bridges, on the sides of off ramps and other infrastructure near highways. They are often walking where no pedestrian should be at all.

I would like to see the affordable housing crisis solved. Currently, there are only 30 affordable homes on the West Coast for every 100 poor families.* But it is entirely possible she did basically walk out in front of the car at a place where a driver had no reason to expect to see a pedestrian.

It would be nice if people would wait to see what evidence comes forth rather than jumping to conclusions about police conspiracies to hand wave away blame.

* https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-pove...

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#97

Post by slaymaker1907 » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #59

blakesterz wrote: post #13

> “The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.” I don't know if that is supposed to make anyone feel better about this, if anything it makes it seem worse. I thought one of the big benefits of these systems was they were supposed to be better at exactly these kinds of situations? More like "autonomous cars a…

What is the driver supposed to say in this scenario? "Actually officer, I saw her coming from miles away, but I thought to myself: let's just see what happens..." Of course a "driver" in such a vehicle is going to report the victim came out of nowhere, otherwise they're basically committing homicide or implicating themselves in not paying attention and the car in not sensing them...it literally adds nothing to the ev…

Since it was dark out, the story seems pretty plausible. It's really difficult to see pedestrians at night, even when they use a crosswalk much less if they are crossing in the middle of the road.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#98

Post by jackvalentine » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #56

portofcall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the speeding vehicle didn’t even attempt to stop. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17140936/uber-self-drivin...

Can we please stop calling 38 in a 35 speeding? In many places that speed would be inpeding traffic.

"Exceeding the stated speed limit by 8.5%" better for you?

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#99

Post by emodendroket » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

ronilan wrote: post #81

danso wrote: post #52

> According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless. I know this isn't the most pertinent issue here, but I'm surprised the self-driving AI is allowed to speed , though with further research, th…

There can be several ways to explain this but generally speaking you are right. It shouldn’t go over the speed limit, and under no circumstances should it take the liberty drivers usually take of being within 10% above the limit. I hope no one wrote it that way.

I don't think that's true at all. There was an article posted about the subject a while ago, but the thrust of it was that researchers think they need to do more to make cars behave like (fully attentive) human drivers rather than being weird anomalies that behave in surprising/irritating (to humans) ways if they're going to actually go on the road, and I think that's completely right.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#100

Post by gugagore » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #71

Consultant32452 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm imagining this scenario correctly, I've experienced it tons of times and never seen traffic slow down. It's a road with a median and a person attempting to cross the road has temporarily stopped in the median waiting for a break in traffic so they can cross. Maybe I've just lived in 2 crazy states, or maybe I'm not imagining this scenario correctly, but I can't recall ever having seen traffic slow down for thi…

Traffic might not slow down, but I'd definitely keep an eye out for the person in the median.

You might also rest your foot on the brake in anticipation. But neither attention nor anticipating controls is a concept that really exists in these autonomous system. They're "always ready". (yeah "attention" can exist in perception neural networks, but I am not sure that has much to do with keeping an eye out for a risky event)