91–100 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem that there is a problem with the vehicle's lidar or the associated software, so does it not strike you as strange that the story being pushed claimed that the victim "came out of the shadows", which is a misleading irrelevance if lidar is the primary sensing technology? Especially as the unrealistically dark video does not even seem to fit that story.
Yes. That's why I am posting in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police made those statements while the body was still warm, I highly doubt they could have properly investigated this particular accident in that time. It mostly looked like they were actively looking to pin the blame on the pedestrian somehow. Note that as a part of the responsibility for a 2 ton piece of steel you get the expectation that you will do your best to keep the other traffic participants alive even w…
They saw a video that showed that she failed to yield and found a body that wasn't anywhere near a crosswalk. There was nothing more for them to investigate at that point, because the other points weren't relevant. So they were very likely done with their investigation at that point. It was a horrific accident and there's pretty much always something someone could have done better, but as far as traffic laws go, it w…
In lots of places a sobriety/drug test is mandatory after an accident with severe injuries or fatalities.
And if the driver were to be found not to have braked at all - or even to accelerate - the driver could very well lose their license. Even when you have the right of way you still have to behave like a responsible driver would.
If inspecting the full digital record by the police is not feasible then I would argue self driving cars have no business being on the road at all. After all, we require normal drivers to be witnesses to accidents as well, and we expect them to cooperate in tests to determine whether or not they were able to control their vehicle, especially in fatal accidents.
In this case one of the participants is dead and the other one is silicon so the only evidence taken is the same as if all participants had died and that's not true, at least one of them had a lot of evidence to give, and given the novel nature of the incident there was a very good reason to actually evaluate that evidence.
Being 'automated' should not be an automatic get-out-of-jail card with respect to your liability and your proven ability to control a vehicle, at least the same standards that apply to regular drivers should apply to automation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I have huge respect for the NTSB. I think they're a big reason air travel is so safe. You'd never see an airline energetically trying to assign blame like this, and I'm disappointed that Tesla's PR operation is spinning vigorously before the investigation is over.
Right. Aviation and the NTSB understand each other. Commercial aviation accidents seldom have a single cause, because decades of hard work have eliminated all the single causes of failure. It usually takes a whole chain of failures to bring down an airliner, and it takes long, complicated investigations to figure out exactly what happened. Crash investigations tend to have conclusions like "A happened, and that would…
But if it is prioritizing "I'm in a lane, so I'm cool" over "I'm hurtling toward a wall with a very visible marker" then clearly more work needs to be done. (Worse still if it can't recognize such a visible obstruction in the lane.) And, I'd say, should have been done before they were turning people loose with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Aviation and the NTSB understand each other. Commercial aviation accidents seldom have a single cause, because decades of hard work have eliminated all the single causes of failure. It usually takes a whole chain of failures to bring down an airliner, and it takes long, complicated investigations to figure out exactly what happened. Crash investigations tend to have conclusions like "A happened, and that would…
Thanks, that's very helpful. When I first looked at your link #1, I thought the gore area was a lane, so I can see how a machine would get that wrong. But if it is prioritizing "I'm in a lane, so I'm cool" over "I'm hurtling toward a wall with a very visible marker" then clearly more work needs to be done. (Worse still if it can't recognize such a visible obstruction in the lane.) And, I'd say, should have been done…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you’re saying completely. The point of highway safety equipment is usually as a last resort to minimize injury as much as possible, this is after markings, signage, drivers and vehicles have failed to prevent a crash. Obviously the crash should’ve been avoided, but poorly maintained or designed infrastructure should not be left out of the conversation.
I think it's best to split these in to two 'investigations' to talk about. Yep the barrier probably contributed to the death but are we really interested in talking about? We're here to talk about the self-driving bit! We wouldn't be talking about it if it was a 2002 Toyota Camry that hit it..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blockchains do nothing to make the source of information trustworthy, they can only prove the information was created before a particular point in time. You could doctor a photo/video and put it on the blockchain just as easily as a real photo. You would only be able to tell it's fake if the original version was added first (if there's an original to begin with). There's a fundamental analog hole[1] when connecting a…
I see, people imagine that Tesla would use a defeat device to put doctored logs prior the crash. However this would not work since the car can’t put logs that say that everything is fine and did everything right because people would notice that’s incorrect as soon as they compare it with the evidence collected on the crash site. If the car was able to know what’s the right thing to do, it would not only put it into t…
Why can't they apply that to digital signatures with timestamps? This is a solved problem for years. You could use the NSTB as a timestamping authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see, people imagine that Tesla would use a defeat device to put doctored logs prior the crash. However this would not work since the car can’t put logs that say that everything is fine and did everything right because people would notice that’s incorrect as soon as they compare it with the evidence collected on the crash site. If the car was able to know what’s the right thing to do, it would not only put it into t…
Follow your thought through: what prevents them rewriting an alternative blockchain history? Why can't they apply that to digital signatures with timestamps? This is a solved problem for years. You could use the NSTB as a timestamping authority.
You're just an internet person triggered by a question, really unpleasant attitude btw. Very closed even to considering an exotic solution and angry as if I'm implementing the blockchain at this very moment, are you in your 50s by any chance? Or maybe personal problems or no sex for a prolonged period or something like that? Why Are you acting like such an unpleasant and rude person?
Both Uber and Tesla try to discredit the victim before any official investigation ends, and in both cases it’s quite clear they will try to cover their asses first. And they have all the data. How can we be sure they don’t selectively hide something or don’t tamper with the records before giving them to investigators?
Tesla is the company you pay $100,000 to kill you and then make you look bad in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's best to split these in to two 'investigations' to talk about. Yep the barrier probably contributed to the death but are we really interested in talking about? We're here to talk about the self-driving bit! We wouldn't be talking about it if it was a 2002 Toyota Camry that hit it..
There’s no need for there to be two investigations, the NTSB generally produces very thorough reports that will acknowledge all causes leading to injury or death.
Nobody here is actually interested in the case because of the implications for roadside maintenance - they're interested because it's a (semi) autonomous vehicle.