Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#191

Post by mnm1 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

nmca wrote: post #121

thegambit wrote: post #48

It seems like it was actually Uber who disabled the safety settings that were there to prevent this according to Volvo. "Uber Technologies Inc. disabled the standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo SUV that struck and killed a woman in Arizona last week, according to the auto-parts maker that supplied the vehicle’s radar and camera." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...

This whole line of reasoning frustrates me somewhat. The story of "Uber Disabled the Safety System" paints Uber out to be negligent for doing so. Outside of consideration of all the other facts (which unlike this one, do indeed suggest that Uber are to blame), this element of the story is not indicative of negligence. Of course they disabled the existing safety system - they were aiming to build a new, safer one that…

This system could have been used as a backup and almost certainly would have prevented this death. There is no logical explanation for defending their disabling of this production grade system that we know works in favor of their alpha at best grade system that they knew did not always work. Not having a backup system, other than a human which is a poor backup system, seems grossly negligent and reckless. Why couldn't the existing system work as a backup for the new system? Until uber provides a compelling reason, disabling the old system can only be viewed as knowing, reckless endangerment that led to manslaughter that could have and should have been prevented.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#192

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:11 PM UTC

setr wrote: post #180

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

I've seen this often in southern california and chicago, the only two cities I've driven heavily; and despite having no interaction with Pittsburgh, I do it myself all the time... I can't imagine how this is a Pittsburgh quirk; its the obvious thing to do when the option is available

Obvious to not respect the right of way? Or fall prey to insurance fraud if you misinterpret the "benevolent" driver who you thought was letting you jump the turn.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#193

Post by swebs » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

atomical wrote: post #178

Spare_account wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall noticing that the human driver of the car was not looking forwards immediately prior to the accident, which presumably makes him/her ultimately responsible for the accident?

If the breaks don't work because of an engineering defect who is responsible? In this case it's the LIDAR that failed.

The article said the LIDAR was fine. It was the decision making software that failed.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#194

Post by wilburTheDog » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:13 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #98

wilburTheDog wrote: post #62

If I understand it right, this is the biggest blind spot of all the automated driving systems. The software just ignores stationary objects because the sensors don't have the resolution to determine whether they are in front of the car or on the side of the road. And if it didn't ignore stationary objects the car would come to a halt at every garbage can, mailbox, and bush along the road. Until they can work lidar in…

That wasn't the case at all for this collision. As the article says, the sensors had detected the woman but the information had been disregarded. And the moving object thing is exclusive to radar, vision systems don't suffer from it though vision systems have their own problems.

The article linked mentioned "B was the problem", meaning it ignored the sensor input. Another article(1) about it mentions that Uber had reduced the number of LIDAR sensors from five to just one rooftop sensor. The president of the company that builds the sensors even said you would need side sensors to see pedestrians, especially at night. But LIDAR is expensive. So it seems that, like Tesla, they were trying to rely on radar for that kind of thing. But that does leave the blind spot(2) I mentioned.

Given that I don't see how this case is so different.

Though I still don't understand how, specifically, that blind spot problem works. They say when the car in front of you changes lanes and a stopped truck is now in your lane you'll hit it. What if no car changed lanes in front of you? Would you still hit a stopped truck in your lane? The guy whose Tesla hit the bridge column seems to tell me yes, but I'm not sure.

1. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/28/uber_selfdriving_de...

2. https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#195

Post by pretendscholar » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:16 PM UTC

splouk wrote: post #38

joncrane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And welcome to why self-driving cars will always be 3 years away. It's also possible that human/pedestrian behavior will adapt to the consistent behavior of driverless cars.

Or jaywalking will become more strictly enforced with policing or physical barriers. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/2/automated-vehic...

There's something really repulsive about this solution that I can't really eloquently articulate. Every advance in technology seems to further restrict and control people.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#196

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #192

setr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this often in southern california and chicago, the only two cities I've driven heavily; and despite having no interaction with Pittsburgh, I do it myself all the time... I can't imagine how this is a Pittsburgh quirk; its the obvious thing to do when the option is available

Obvious to not respect the right of way? Or fall prey to insurance fraud if you misinterpret the "benevolent" driver who you thought was letting you jump the turn.

[deleted]

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#197

Post by drcode » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #141

assblaster wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the timeframe on the video being handled, given to police, etc. Do the police have the authority to take any video files recorded by a vehicle involved in an auto accident? Is a warrant needed? It's more likely that the police opened an investigation, and as part of the investigation, handed over dashcam footage. We have no reason to believe the police simply confiscated the video files on the night of the acc…

IIRC the video was released by the police the next day > We have no reason to believe the police simply confiscated the video files on the night of the accident. From my own experience, the police will take dashcam video evidence the first chance they get because it's the best data they can get their hands on while on a scene. Source: I had interactions with the police on two separate occasions (once when my dashcam…

> so I don't see how doctoring the dashcam video would fit into the narrative.

Well, at the end of the day this is all involves a strong element of PR & perceptions, so regardless of the quality of other data, it would be very much in Uber's interest to have a super dark video be in the initial stories about this accident.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#198

Post by matte_black » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:20 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #115

freditup wrote: post #18

I'm curious what degree of "cultural context" is built into automated cars - I feel that there has to be a lot of locale-specific techniques for driving. For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive pas…

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Is this the same as pulling straight into the middle of the intersection with live traffic swirling around you on both sides then making the left after the lights have reddened and traffic has cleared?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#199

Post by matte_black » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

joncrane wrote: post #28

GenerocUsername wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And welcome to why self-driving cars will always be 3 years away. I think we should be targeting self driving for long-haul freeway scenarios where the rules are relatively simple and predictable. Trying to control for the infinite number of scenarios in cities is a nightmare which will ultimately bog down the development of any company which makes that its goal.

> And welcome to why self-driving cars will always be 3 years away. It's also possible that human/pedestrian behavior will adapt to the consistent behavior of driverless cars.

Nope. You can never count on humans to change behavior to fit a technology.

As soon as self-driving cars learn local customs, the customs will have been changed. Self-driving cars will always be 3 years away.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#200

Post by lhorie » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

linker3000 wrote: post #166

nmca wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole line of reasoning frustrates me somewhat. The story of "Uber Disabled the Safety System" paints Uber out to be negligent for doing so. Outside of consideration of all the other facts (which unlike this one, do indeed suggest that Uber are to blame), this element of the story is not indicative of negligence. Of course they disabled the existing safety system - they were aiming to build a new, safer one that…

Seriously!? The responsible position would be to retain the existing system in a passive standby mode, capable of overriding the active 'under test' one in the event certain safety/detection thresholds were exceeded.

IIRC someone had said that there are physical limitations to what one can actually do (namely, having to physically unplug the connector for one safety system in order to be able to add your own at all)