291–300 of 459 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another driver on the road, I'd far rather that autonomous vehicles maintain speed with the flow of traffic around them, in lieu of strictly sticking to the posted limit.
There is no traffic "around" them, just the car behind. And if the car behind is speeding it's up to them to slow down if the car in front is obeying the speed limit. This kind of argument is just used to justify speeding.
> “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…
The point is that if someone runs in front of your car, physics dictates that you can't stop a 1,000+ pound vehicle on a dime. You can lock the brakes up and stop the axle from moving (ABS braking won't actually allow this usually) and the car will still continue forward for some time. In addition many other avoidance strategies won't work. Sure, you could swerve, but what's in your path then? Machines don't get tire…
The volvo XC90 (car used by Uber ~ 4400lb before you add their HW)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we please stop calling 38 in a 35 speeding? In many places that speed would be inpeding traffic.
+1. Calling this speeding is willful ignorance of the practical flow of traffic everywhere in the country.
My takeaway from the comments in this thread: self-driving Ubers don't drive defensively, almost surely can't "read" pedestrian behavior, and even with lidar may never have seen Elaine Herzberg. Oh, and they speed. This sounds like straight out of the "hell" scenario for driverless cars: "we cannot accept responsibility for what happens to pedestrians and cyclists foolish enough to stray out of their designated safe…
I think you might be confusing "defensively" with perfectly. There are situations even defensive driving cannot prevent. For example, any car going 35 mph will need a few feet to brake if something jumps directly in front of it. Defensive driving just accounts for one's surroundings and likely outcomes. Seeing as the cars have been on the road in Arizona for a while, and this is the first we are hearing about a pedes…
Defensive driving means slowing down and paying more attention in areas of low visibility, especially if there are likely pedestrian crossings. It means increasing your following distance. It means increasing the odds that even if something unlikely happens you, the driver, will still be in a better position to react, or you will be less likely to cause harm. It's not about prevention, it's about risk management and harm reduction. This is definitely something that is likely to be difficult to teach to autonomous systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be programmed to speed per se, but if you’ve ever had cruise control turned on you’ll know it doesn’t keep you exactly at 55mpg. It might be 54 with the throttle applied to speed up, or it might be 57 which doesn’t trigger the brakes yet but is coasting to a slower speed. Imagine the car in front of you cycling rapidly between the gas and brake pedal to keep the speed exactly at 55mph. One, that’s complete…
There is no brake involved with cruise control. What you are describing is bad drivers who do not use cruise control. It's actually extremely pleasant and predictable to be following a driver who is using cruise control. Following a well-regulated self-driving car would be similar.
My takeaway from the comments in this thread: self-driving Ubers don't drive defensively, almost surely can't "read" pedestrian behavior, and even with lidar may never have seen Elaine Herzberg. Oh, and they speed. This sounds like straight out of the "hell" scenario for driverless cars: "we cannot accept responsibility for what happens to pedestrians and cyclists foolish enough to stray out of their designated safe…
The google maps streetview sign says 45, so the car was not speeding. The article most likely had a typo... edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/85ozqr/exc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The google maps streetview sign says 45, so the car was not speeding. The article most likely had a typo... edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/85ozqr/exc...
Do we know which way the car was going? The speed limit is 35 in that section going southbound. https://goo.gl/maps/GNfKZzePD9t
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might be confusing "defensively" with perfectly. There are situations even defensive driving cannot prevent. For example, any car going 35 mph will need a few feet to brake if something jumps directly in front of it. Defensive driving just accounts for one's surroundings and likely outcomes. Seeing as the cars have been on the road in Arizona for a while, and this is the first we are hearing about a pedes…
I think you might not be familiar with the concept of defensive driving. Defensive driving means slowing down and paying more attention in areas of low visibility, especially if there are likely pedestrian crossings. It means increasing your following distance. It means increasing the odds that even if something unlikely happens you, the driver, will still be in a better position to react, or you will be less likely…
Why? What you listed seem like conditions that should be easy enough to recognize even with simple algorithms.