Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
techcrunch.com
Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
1–10 of 445 posts
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#2Didn't that car also have a builtin automatic braking system that was disabled?
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#3Didn't that car also have a builtin automatic braking system that was disabled?
I think so. But I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing. The Uber built system was designed to fully replace such systems.
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#4The disturbing thing about this crash is that it's such a basic thing to test on a test track. A pedestrian walking in front at night, with nothing else unusual happening, should be on the list of scenarios to get 5 9s reliability on before taking it out in public.
The things you have to test in public are the complex real-world interactions, like these: https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in...
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#5The disturbing thing about this crash is that it's such a basic thing to test on a test track. A pedestrian walking in front at night, with nothing else unusual happening, should be on the list of scenarios to get 5 9s reliability on before taking it out in public. The things you have to test in public are the complex real-world interactions, like these: https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in...
That, and the inattentive safety driver. It's quite infuriating really, letting lose a ton and a half of fast-moving mass without even the decency of looking where it's going. There's really no excuse.
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#6Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#7The question I want to know is:
Did Uber doctor the camera video to make the road seem darker than it actually was?
If you recall, there was initially a doubt that Uber was at fault because the streets appeared extremely dark, but I think they were buying time to delay the outage at incompetent Uber.
The police initially didn't fault Uber based on this video.
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#8The disturbing thing about this crash is that it's such a basic thing to test on a test track. A pedestrian walking in front at night, with nothing else unusual happening, should be on the list of scenarios to get 5 9s reliability on before taking it out in public. The things you have to test in public are the complex real-world interactions, like these: https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in...
5 9s sounds impressive, until you think that's 1 failure per 100,000 interactions.
There are individual intersections in the US that have that many vehicles pass each day.
I haven't seen estimates on number of specifically vehicle-pedestrian interactions, but 5 9s is nowhere nearly safe enough.
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#9> This puts the fault squarely on Uber’s doorstep, though there was never much reason to think it belonged anywhere else.
Are you kidding me? At least 80% of the comments I saw online the following week were blaming the woman.
It seems to me like Uber's self-driving system is absolute trash. But they were in a hurry to "go live" with it, because they need it so that the company can become profitable ASAP. And thanks to the deregulation bill from last year (which was almost universally praised online), they could actually do that, too.
Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck
#10The disturbing thing about this crash is that it's such a basic thing to test on a test track. A pedestrian walking in front at night, with nothing else unusual happening, should be on the list of scenarios to get 5 9s reliability on before taking it out in public. The things you have to test in public are the complex real-world interactions, like these: https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in...
That, and the inattentive safety driver. It's quite infuriating really, letting lose a ton and a half of fast-moving mass without even the decency of looking where it's going. There's really no excuse.
Unfortunately I think it's one of those things that is both inexcusable and guaranteed to happen.
It absolutely makes sense to put a human in a car you're testing and don't have full confidence in yet but are sending into real traffic. Not doing so would be ludicrously negligent. However, humans simply don't maintain focus for a long period of time without some sort of extreme, years-long training. The ability of monks to concentrate on a single thought for hours is correctly seen as very, very difficult. There's no way any regular person could deal well with a scenario like "sometime in the next 8 hours, you may or may not need to smash this brake pedal with a second's notice, but other than that you have no task." That's one of the things that most worries me about "almost there" systems like Tesla's.
That said, if you've decided to attempt this anyway, checking your phone is definitely not okay.