Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality • Hacker News Board

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#51

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

gok wrote: post #12

We really won’t know what happened until the NTSB report comes out, but I’m not convinced this was an object detection failure. It seems really possible to me that the sensors detected the bike-walking person as a bicyclist, and a bicyclist in a different lane is not a reason to slam on the brakes. They might have just forgotten to add a rule that a bicyclist in a parallel lane is a reason to brake if it’s perpendicu…

You don't slow down and proceed with caution when overtaking a bicyclist in an adjacent lane?

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#52

Post by reificator » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #40

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that, maybe they're trying to head off some potential bad press if a journalist gets some facts incorrect.

Yeah this looks more like a defensive move than an opportunitistic marketing opportunity as OP framed it to be.

¿Porque no los dos?

When you say this is why we've been calling for everyone to take it slow that's a defensive move.

When you say your setup would have detected her a second before the impact, that's an opportunistic marketing opportunity.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#53

Post by bladers » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #39

pdpi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.

Mobileye isn't a "self-driving" system, it's a collision prevention/mitigation system, like airbags or ABS. Leaving it on while a human controls the car hasn't been seen as a disaster.

first of all Mobileye does have a self driving system (their EyeQ4 chips is for Level 3-4 self driving). However Amon was referring to their EyeQ3 chip from 2014 which is installed in 24 million cars and have billions of miles

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#54

Post by ars » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

linsomniac wrote: post #35

Ok, Mobileye would have seen the pedestrian 1 second before impact. That's not important though... The important thing is would it have saved her life? Would it have taken action and if so when and how? It's not clear that Uber's platform didn't see the pedestrian. In fact, I find it unlikely that it didn't see her, between radar and the bike, lidar, and optical (and sonar). I think the situation here is that there w…

> The important thing is would it have saved her life?

It probably would have. Slamming on the brake for 1 second would have reduced the car's speed enough to change things from fatal to seriously injured.

According to: http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/Mechanics/Kin...

In one second you can shed 20 miles/hour of speed. That would take the car from 38mph to 18mph. (Those numbers are overly precise, but gives you an idea of the reduction that can be accomplished.)

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#55

Post by 2474 » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #50

2474 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of a survey I had taken. I can't remember the survey publisher but it was related to self-driving vehicles. You were presented two pictures (e.g. a picture of school kids crossing a crosswalk and the other a picture of an adult male and female walking their dog across a crosswalk). Presumably you had to choose; would you swerve to hit the adults and dog or would you stay course and hit the kids. I kno…

Getting data on an ethical dilemma. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Thanks for mentioning what that dilemma was called.

For those interested here is an interesting article about the Trolley Problem.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/the-trolley-problem-w...

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#56

Post by AboutTheWhisles » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

zer00eyz wrote: post #27

reificator wrote: post #3

Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

Not only that, but all the data could be recorded and replayed through other software, so they could conceivably say what it would have seen and done.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#57

Post by lowbloodsugar » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

linsomniac wrote: post #35

Ok, Mobileye would have seen the pedestrian 1 second before impact. That's not important though... The important thing is would it have saved her life? Would it have taken action and if so when and how? It's not clear that Uber's platform didn't see the pedestrian. In fact, I find it unlikely that it didn't see her, between radar and the bike, lidar, and optical (and sonar). I think the situation here is that there w…

At 45mph the car is traveling at 66 feet per second, so 1 second before impact means it was spotted at approx. distance of 66 feet. The volvo XC90 breaking distance at 62mph is 112 feet. Dividing by the square of the speeds gives us a 45mph stopping distance ~62 feet. So not only would it have saved her life, it could possibly have prevented the car even touching her. (The XC90 has excellent breaking, btw, better than a range rover sport or an audi Q9).

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#58

Post by jyrkesh » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #30

zer00eyz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.

Absolutely not. Having two sets of sensors on the car is a good thing because it provides redundancy. If one set of sensors fails to detect say, a person in the middle of the road, the other one will step in and say "hey, brain, there's a person in the middle of the road".

If Uber intentionally disabled the second set of sensors, they were acting recklessly, and they're a danger to the development of the self-driving car industry. This one incident may have set us back years.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#59

Post by Johnny555 » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #23

thrownaway954 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each year for drunk driving[1] and you don't see liquor being pulled off the shelves. however i do see how people (including me) are sheep and can be manipulated into believing anything. taxis and trucker unions can use this an opportunity to condemn self driving vehi…

That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some…

Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance.

It's likely that the accident still would have been fatal, or at least the pedestrian would have been seriously injured if the safety driver was driving. Based on the video there was only a second or two to react from the time the pedestrian stepped out of the shadows, and human reaction time varies from 0.7 to 3 seconds [1]. One study found the average driver's reaction time is 2.3 seconds.

[1] http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#60

Post by linsomniac » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #54

linsomniac wrote: post #35

Ok, Mobileye would have seen the pedestrian 1 second before impact. That's not important though... The important thing is would it have saved her life? Would it have taken action and if so when and how? It's not clear that Uber's platform didn't see the pedestrian. In fact, I find it unlikely that it didn't see her, between radar and the bike, lidar, and optical (and sonar). I think the situation here is that there w…

> The important thing is would it have saved her life? It probably would have. Slamming on the brake for 1 second would have reduced the car's speed enough to change things from fatal to seriously injured. According to: http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/Mechanics/Kin... In one second you can shed 20 miles/hour of speed. That would take the car from 38mph to 18mph. (Those numbers are overly precise, but g…

The car could have also swerved and missed her entirely. IF it decided to take action. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Saying your product would have seen the pedestrian is very different from saying it would have seen her and known to immediately take action and the action it would have taken would have changed the outcome.