Uber autonomous car fatality

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Domenick, Mar 22, 2018.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. The laws vary somewhat from state to state, but in every state, a bicycle is treated like a car. Motorists are free to pass a slower moving bikem but most do so in a safe and legal manner.

    Here is NC's summary on the laws, with statutes:

    http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/trans/wolftrails/documents/bikeped-laws-guidebook.pdf
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. It is very expensive to own and operate a vehicle. I would bike to work if my city gave a rat's *** about cyclists and pedestrians. Biking is economical, healthy, and non-polluting. Sure, car is king, in America, but that is because our fuel prices are artificially low, without the true cost of gasoline factored into the damage it does.

    Believe it or not, there are people who cannot afford the $200-$500 a month it costs to own a car (exclusive of car payments).
     
  4. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    Its not exactly how the physics works, with closing speeds adding and removing and being the same, but it is how reaction times work. If you're going along at 20 in a 35 the cars approach you quite slowly, but the oncoming do not. Go stand in the parking lot and hop out of the way of a car, now go do it on the highway. That's the difference in time.

    If you're ultra concerned about cars and are unwilling to assume the risk, the answer isn't to do it wrong, the answer is to not ride a bike. If you must ride a bike and are still overly concerned get a rear view mirror. Get 3 rear view mirrors. But don't ride into oncoming traffic.

    Then you have the other oncoming cyclists who you now are closing in at 40 and they're not expecting you to be there, so that's added danger.
     
  5. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Certainly a valid point, thanks. Obviously if you're going to get hit, it's better to get hit from behind than head-on. Seems pretty clear my opinion here is the outlier, in thinking that it would be better for the bike rider to get more warning and to have a significantly better chance of actively avoiding the accident, rather than lessening the impact if it's going to happen.

    Interesting, I had not thought of it that way before.

    I live in a suburban subdivision built in the late '70s, which to my annoyance has no sidewalks. Yet recently built subdivisions in my area do have sidewalks. At times I have driven a few blocks away so I would have a safer place to walk for exercise.
     
  6. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I know there are people who risk their lives by riding a bicycle on the highway, but I've never been that crazy! It's illegal to ride a bicycle or other low-speed vehicle on freeways; there are plenty of signs warning about that. So if you're riding on a highway, it is likely to be a secondary highway, likely a two-lane road rather than a divided multi-lane highway.

    When I was riding regularly, I had a small mirror attached to my helmet, so multiple mirrors would not have helped. It still was far from safe.

    But I do agree with you on your larger point, which is why I no longer ride a bicycle.

    More like closing in at 30, for typical bicyclists' speeds. Where I was riding, there weren't a lot of other bicycle riders. In the rare event I would encounter one, then unless I was whizzing down a steep hill, I'm sure that I would have had plenty of time to stop and get out of his way, if that was needed.
    -
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    I didnt mean ride on the highway. I mean your speed of 20 and a cars of 40 is a closing speed if you salmon it (swim upstream against the flow) its the same of you standing still at 60. So go stand in the middle of a highway lane around a curve and see how much reaction time you actually have. You *think* it's a better idea but it's not going to actually let you get out of the way, especially on a clumsy handling bike, and only increases impact speed and chances of an accident.

    Every single bicycle organization I have ever seen on the planet says to go with traffic. So unless you think you somehow know better, I suggest following all the experts, including the Union of Concerned Cyclists. And if you're still going to say you know better than all of them, well then I guess that'd make you the Fuel Cell Cyclist, someone that despite all the volumes of data and experts suggesting it's a terrible idea, still insists they know better and are going to do it anyways ;)
     
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I went back to review the video:

    • SPACE - stops the playback
    • "," - moves one frame back
    • "." - moves one frame forward
    On the right hand side of the road, the reflective sign is bright and easy to read until the car gets close enough that the sign falls out of the headlight illumination area. We also see just two reflective stripes separated by the dark pavement which strongly suggests the headlights were on low beam.

    The bicycle/pedestrian was at the dark end of a painted strip. The other end of that strip is in the area illuminated by the street light. That street light illuminated area extends across the road.

    I took two frames before the bicycle/pedestrian shoes show up and used photo enhancement to see if there were any pixels outlining her. I had no luck extracting any pixels suggesting someone crossing the dashed line area.

    My practice is to wear a helmet when on a bicycle. There was no evidence of a bicycle helmet.

    Uber had a recent legal proceeding after hiring an engineer who was working on the Google self-driving system. There were claims of software theft but software has to be integrated with the hardware to work correctly.

    Bob Wilson
     
  10. bwilson4web likes this.
  11. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    Uber continues it's self driving negligence that began with it's inception trying to skirt regulations in California.
     
    Domenick likes this.
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. I can't believe they actually disabled the system and let it on the road. WTAF???!!!
     
    bwilson4web and WadeTyhon like this.
  14. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    Gross negligence resulting in death. This may even pierce the corporate shield and expose the person(s) responsible for allowing this to be tried directly.

    As if Uber needed any more problems.
     
    Domenick and bwilson4web like this.
  15. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    Oh well actually I am reading more into this. They disabled the standard on board Volvo collision avoidance, I guess it could have interfered with the Uber computers? Volvo has to be nervous about this one, so people don't think it was a Volvo failure.
     
  16. So, it's pretty obvious now that Uber has a lot to answer for in the case of this fatality. It is, ultimately, responsible (ok, maybe the politicians/regulators who didn't provide program oversight need to bear some of the burden as well).

    I still think it's important to note that the vehicle operator could have avoided this whole tragedy by not looking at his phone for a full five seconds before the impact. With the poor quality of the car's video, it's hard to get a sense of what this place actually looks like at night. Someone posted a link to this photo of the spot, and it just reinforces my contention about how avoidable this was.
    Uber fatality site.jpg
     
  17. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    So that picture is a great example of what I was referring to earlier, that a dash cam is going to really skew the range of light available, especially when one region is lit WAY more than the rest. This pic ^ is likely what it looked like to a human eye, if not even more obvious than the camera shows. Good idea for the pedestrian? Hello no, but way more obvious than a dashcam lets suggests.
     
    Domenick likes this.
  18. Jim J Fox

    Jim J Fox Member

    And YET-- 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/hyperdrive
     
  19. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    I was very bothered by this but now I am not. The whole point of the self driving car was it could do this function and more. Having 2 systems on board would possibly cause havoc, with the Volvo one trying to act on top of the Uber one. I think this is a non story.
     
  20. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    That's what other comments have stated as fact; that the Uber car was using its low beams. If the car was relying on cameras to "see" obstacles such as pedestrians, then that clearly would be a contributing factor to the accident.

    However, that does not explain why the car apparently didn't detect the obstacle in the roadway (the pedestrian) with its lidar scanner. Or if it was detected, then the self-driving car's software didn't react properly to the presence of the obstacle.

    (I hope nobody thinks I'm being callous in describing a human being as an "obstacle". From the standpoint of a computer programmer, self-driving cars should be programmed to avoid collision with any sizable obstacle, without trying to identify which are human and which are not. Accurately identifying a "human" would be an impossibly complex task. Even trying to do do would make the software much more complex and therefore run slower, which would increase the self-driving car's reaction time, quite possibly resulting in less safety rather than more. So, better for the software engineers to ignore that and concentrate on programming the car to avoid colliding with anything at all that's big enough to be even a baby.)

    Not surprising she didn't have a helmet if she was homeless, as reports have claimed.
    -
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  21. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    A technical point, the photo did not include the island of light from the street lamp to the left before the dark band nor the band of light from the headlights. This means the automatic exposure control of this camera shows the shadow areas much brighter than the original video shows. My clue was contrasts to the building lights. This is what my corrected photo matching the building in the background and street light island of light:
    [​IMG]
    This was a quick hack. If I were doing it forensic, I would crop to the building and adjust the image correction to match.

    Had the volunteered photo been taken three paint strips back with low-beam headlights, we could actually evaluate the light conditions more accurately.

    Bob Wilson
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2018
    Domenick likes this.
  22. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Oh, I thought that was in the context of meeting other bicycle riders head-on, at 30 vs. 30 = 60 MPH.

    But that wouldn't at all apply to my argument anyway. I wasn't arguing that individual bicycle riders should be riding in the opposite direction as existing rules; I was arguing that bicycle riders in general would be safer if they all rode against the flow of motor vehicle traffic.

    But this has all been very off-topic for this thread, and I've had my say, pretty thoroughly by now, so this will likely be my last post on the subject.
    -
     
  23. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    No they would not at all be better off going against cars. Not even kinda a little bit. Exactly zero better off, 100% worse off.

    You're simply just wrong on this.
     

Share This Page