Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 402 posts

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#251

Post by looeee »

gmueckl wrote: post #42
TillE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really skeptical about swerving as an evasive maneuver. It's complicated to get that right. But yes, if it didn't at least slam the brakes then something went badly wrong. Maybe you can't prevent an accident, but you can at least reduce momentum and demonstrate that your system was working correctly.

You can (and should!) brake and swerve at the same time. Unless you are driving an oldtimer, the car is capable of doing that. In my driving lessons I got told to swerve for humans. Pedestrians and cyclists are the least protected participants in traffic. If you swerve and hit another car, the resulting crash will cause a lot of damage, but injuries to humans will likely be much less severe, if they even happen. Anim…

There are so many variable here. If you are travelling at 30kmph and swerve into the path of a car going the opposite direction at 80kmph, that's a massive crash.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#252

Post by mirimir »

kaitai wrote: post #244
to3m wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's more sideways, perhaps even caustic, something like that, I'd say, rather than humorous per se. Still... stiff upper lip. Though I can't believe I'm getting downvoted for reminding people not to kill anybody while behind the wheel :-o

You're upset for someone using the word "ped" for pedestrian while using a word that's got a dictionary definition of being vulgar and offensive for women? I have to say I'm rather confused. I feel I'm being trolled.

Actually, in UK slang, that refers to someone who's being stupid. And still, everyone knows what it means in the US, I believe.

Edit: Sorry about the ambiguity. I wan't referring to "ped". But rather to the slang that's offensive to women.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#253

Post by BigJono »

sjg007 wrote: post #38
branchan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the woman suddenly walked in front of the car at the last minute, I don't see how the situation could have been avoided, no matter how fast a computer is able to process the information from the sensors. There was also a driver behind the wheel, so it would suggest that humans are just as clueless.

If I was driving a car and saw the pedestrian ahead of time walking or trying to cross I would have slowed down and changed lanes away fro them or at least moved far right if safe. Same thing when you pass bicycles. Change lanes away if possible or at the very least give more buffer. You can never tell what someone may do so you should anticipate the unexpected.

This is an absolutely terrible idea. Don't do this. Your job as traffic is to be as predictable as possible. You're just going to cause more accidents by driving erratically.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#254

Post by c22 »

hughes wrote: post #185
jaweb wrote: post #60

It's interesting how high profile this post-crash analysis is - name another time you read so much commentary about the details that caused a car crash? It seems to me that this is exposing a few gaps in how we think about driverless cars currently: - A framework for how cars should be making "moral" decisions (the trolley problem [0]) - A defined process for post car crash investigations - akin to the process in air…

I really don't see how the trolley problem is relevant to this situation. The car didn't decide that killing a person was better than some less-moral alternative.

I think that's why it's relevant. It's likely the system can't make such a decision because its developers wanted to avoid having to deal with that can of worms. If this is the case the car may have insufficient options available to it in this type of situation. With a working "trolley function" it's possible the system could have noticed the obstacle then done some "moral math" with the chances the obstacle is a pedestrian and the odds of survival for the car's occupant(s) then chosen to drive off the road and crash into a ditch. Without this feature it's likely the system's only recourse is to stop and ask for help, which it may not have time to do.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#255

Post by BurningFrog »

dzdt wrote: post #6

Yes, the report you'd hope to be hearing from Uber is along the lines of "0.2 seconds after the pedestrian entered the travel lane the automated system identified her as a hazard and initiated an avoidance maneuver. Despite braking and beginning to swerve away, the car impacted the pedestrian 1.2 seconds later." Thats the promise the automated vehicle people are selling. But in this case it seems the car was clueless…

Sure, but I don't think you can expect that kind of information the next day or even the next month.

Someone is dead and there may well be one or more trials as a result. Facts will take a s long as they take to surface.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#256

Post by to3m »

kaitai wrote: post #244
to3m wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's more sideways, perhaps even caustic, something like that, I'd say, rather than humorous per se. Still... stiff upper lip. Though I can't believe I'm getting downvoted for reminding people not to kill anybody while behind the wheel :-o

You're upset for someone using the word "ped" for pedestrian while using a word that's got a dictionary definition of being vulgar and offensive for women? I have to say I'm rather confused. I feel I'm being trolled.

Bah... my intent was certainly to be vulgar, and I stand by that. But if it's going to be interpreted as specifically offensive towards women (an implication not present in UK English) then I'll certainly apologise to all that were thus offended, because that was not part of the plan.

Looks like it's too late to delete it, so we're stuck with it forever.

Please still do drive carefully!

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#257

Post by mirimir »

danso wrote: post #213
danso wrote: post #44

The NYT just published a graphic that purports to show the location of the vehicle and the victim: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi... This is the first report I've seen that indicates the Uber AV was in the right lane. Remember that the victim was crossing from left to right, and that all of the visible damage on the AV is on the right-side bumper. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in…

edit: I agree with other commenters that the NYT's labeling is a little too vague. My assumption is that the NYT wouldn't arbitrarily show the Uber vehicle in the far-right lane unless there was some factual basis. If it turns out the NYT did make an arbitrary choice, and Uber AV was actually in the left lane, then NYT needs to be called out to make a correction. Frustratingly, so many stories make no mention of the…

Good find.

And if the Uber had changed lanes quickly, to avoid hitting the woman, the backup driver would presumably have mentioned it.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#258

Post by rhacker »

I found a few things interesting when I add them up:

1. She was walking from left to right.

2. The dent was on the right side of the car

She probably knew she was going to be hit if she sped up like that, AND... it was probably more than .2 seconds of total visibility to the SDV.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#259

Post by mibong »

eddieplan9 wrote: post #150
danso wrote: post #44

The NYT just published a graphic that purports to show the location of the vehicle and the victim: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi... This is the first report I've seen that indicates the Uber AV was in the right lane. Remember that the victim was crossing from left to right, and that all of the visible damage on the AV is on the right-side bumper. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in…

Please stop spreading rumors and speculations. The graphic is an illustration and does not necessarily place the car in the actual lane. It clearly contradicts with the police chief’s statement that the victim walks right into traffic from center medium. It even contradicts with the left arrow pointing to the impact location in the same picture.

Newsflash: software has bugs and does not always meet expectations. See Microsoft's Cortana...The "driverless" fanatics are following in the footsteps of Don Quixote to expect their (and only their) software to be perfect and anticipate every eventuality and corner case in the real world...Driveless cars, Crypto, Juicero, Raw Water, Theranos, advertising funded products (Facebook, Google search) lead me to believe that Tech and SV are in a giant bubble...which will inevitably burst when reality does not meet expectations. I am almost certain the next recession will be triggered by a tech collapse. There has been massive overinvestment in Quixotic projects.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#260

Post by thfaway »

stefan_ wrote: post #61
danso wrote: post #44

The NYT just published a graphic that purports to show the location of the vehicle and the victim: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi... This is the first report I've seen that indicates the Uber AV was in the right lane. Remember that the victim was crossing from left to right, and that all of the visible damage on the AV is on the right-side bumper. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in…

Not just crossing all those lanes, since the damage is to the right side, she crossed in front of the vehicle . And yet it never braked. That's a failure on every level, from prediction to just sheer radar obstacle detection. You don't hit things right in front of you, mid-class vehicles you can buy today already have sensors to emergency brake when the driver won't but an obstruction is ahead.

I think what happened is that the lady saw the car, and started crossing any way in expectation that the car ll slow down, as a human driver would have. But the car didn't and hit her at full force..
Post reply on HN