Live data from Hacker News

Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

reuters.com

71–80 of 91 posts

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

#71

I'm struggling with the question: Who's fault is this? The pedestrian for walking across the street, wearing dark colors, being oblivious to traffic? The human in the drivers seat for not paying attention? Uber kind of gets the laundry list: For reducing the number of "safety drivers" from 2 to 1, for not using eye tracking to ensure the safety driver was paying attention, for faulty software or hardware that didn't…

I wondered the same thing on the following thread, posted about a month ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16477295

I believe some manufacturers will take entire responsibility while in some cases it's the person that "starts" the self-driving vehicle. Legislation seems to be on a state-by-state basis at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car_liability

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not profiting, this is self preservation.

If the purpose of a company is profit, is there really a distinction?

Definitely. One PR approach would be to capitalize off of this tragedy for sales. That doesn’t appear to be the approach they’re taking though (“Please don’t regulate us into oblivion” or “Self driving can be done safely, don’t judge the industry by the failures of one participant”).

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

#73
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine we'll see self-driving car horror movies soon. We've had them in the past (Christine, Trucks, Herbie the Love Bug), but the only thing Hollywood loves more than latching on to a trend (Emoji Movie) is blowing something out of proportion.

Damn, I’m already imagining them like the climate change movies where a 800-foot tsunami hits Manhattan. 200 million self driving cars have become hostile and are trying to kill the humans. The problem is that they have commandeered a group of friendly-looking Japanese humanoid robots to pump gas for them. One rogue humanoid robot is the one who will save humanity along with help from a 6-year-old girl with pigtails…

[deleted]

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

#74
post #69
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…

I really doubt that the survey was about actually training the cars. It probably has more to do with positioning the marketing messaging around them. AFAIK, the trolley problem isn't something that the engineers consider to actually be a major problem.

Thanks for the insight jsight. I sure hope engineers wouldn't use it.

To be fair, it has been a few years since I took the survey so I can't recall if it mentioned what the data was used for.

I don't know enough about machine-learning and self-driving technology but my one question would be, where do engineers get that kind of data to feed into a system? At some point a scenario like the Trolley Problem is going to happen (near or distant future) and what kind of data is going to be making that decision to swerve or remain on course?

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

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were crossing a low speed, brightly lit street.

It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year. When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis. I'm taking issue with this: >that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready Well, no. They died because they lost their…

i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always.

i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?

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

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they were still jaywalking in the middle of the night hoping oncoming cars would stop for them. It's not like the car hopped the curb.

In many (all?) states, pedestrians have the right-of-way, even if they're jaywalking.

Jaywalking means they were walking when they did not have the right of way.

However, whether or not a driver is civilly liable for an accident usually doesn't even care about the right of way. For example, if a pedestrian is standing in the middle of the road attempting to block traffic. They have no right to be there, however, it is not ok to run them over.

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

#77
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Uber Test Driver go to jail? She was on camera looking down at her phone at the moment of accident.

She absolutely should, in my opinion.

then it negates that whole idea of having a "self-driving" vehicle. the whole point is to let the vehicle drive itself while you can do whatever-it-is you want without paying attention, like sleeping or playing on your phone... you essentially are a passenger, not a driver.

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

#79
post #6

This reminds me, does anybody know what's up with Geohotz's comma.ai?

The project was canceled and geohotz posted the code on GitHub:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2016/10/28/commaai_car_kit...

https://github.com/commaai

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

#80
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

>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.

Yes, but it is difficult to state that it would have been "likely" fatal, and even sevral fractures are IMHO a big improvement over death, the whole point is not about the "average" braking time (BTW that same study gives 1.64 seconds average for "steering away" which is probably what most human drivers would have done in a similar situation, instead of braking or instead of only braking), it is the peaks that count.

I mean, it is about the (rightful) expectation that an automated system is safer (faster, more reactive) than the best you can find (not the average, the best) "in nature" among a random set of drivers, just like the state codes (correctly) take the worse case in the sample or however incereases the recommendation to three seconds.

If you play the game suggested on the same site you gave a link to and deliberately count up to three before clicking, you get:

Reaction time: 2916.00ms

Reaction speed age: 89 years old

Playing fairly, you are likely to get values in the range 300-500 ms.

Here is another paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233039156_Brake_Rea...

that puts it back to around 1-1.5 seconds or however maximum at 1.8 seconds in the very worst cases.

Post reply on HN