Self driving car kills a pedestrian

[Jaskalas]

Part of my doubt about this is that it may turn out that they _can't_ fine tune it to filter out false positives. That they will have to make a choice between inconveniencing and delaying the car user by stopping for plastic bags blowing in the wind etc, _or_ accepting occasionally running into a pedestrian.
And then either the project will fall by the wayside, or they will get the law changed to keep all pedestrians away from the road.

Maybe, although I'm certainly of the belief that some day that detection will improve enough to make what we can consider a "proper" call. Heck, it'll be easy enough to practice in a lab and/or simulation where the software is put through this sort of scenario thousands, if not millions, of times to fine tune and possibly redefine its ability to make this sort of decision.

I suppose the only real catch is reaction time. That may remain tricky for years to come.

 

[fleshconsumed]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/uber-arizona-self-driving-report/index.html

"Uber's self-driving Volvo SUV, which observed Herzberg six seconds before the crash, didn't know "what" she was at first. The software originally classified her as an unknown object, then a vehicle, then a bicycle, the report said.

At 1.3 seconds before the crash, the self-driving system realized emergency braking was needed to prevent a crash. But Uber had disabled the feature to reduce the potential for unwanted braking, such as for a plastic bag in the road."

As I originally guessed sounds like Uber is at fault to me because the car did not behave as expected. Disabled emergency braking? WTF? I understand disabling emergency braking for unknown objects such as trash bags and relying on human reaction to unidentified road hazard to collect additional information to better detection/driving algorithms. However, just plain completely 100% disabling emergency braking even if the car identifies an object in the road as a bicycle (and presumably human), that is one giant screw up by Uber. Their only saving grace that might save them is that the person was high on drugs, which explains why she crossed the road in front of the car. If that person was not on drugs I fully would have expected any victim's family to sue Uber, and they still might.

EDIT: spelling

 

[Sunburn74]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/uber-arizona-self-driving-report/index.html



As I originally guessed sounds like Uber is at fault to me because the car did not behave as expected. Disabled emergency braking? WTF? I understand disabling emergency breaking for unknown objects such as trash bags and relying on human reaction to unidentified road hazard to collect additional information to better detection/driving algorithms. However, just plain completely 100% disabling emergency breaking even if the car identifies an object in the road as a bicycle (and presumably human), that is one giant screw up by Uber. Their only saving grace that might save them is that the person was high on drugs, which explains why she crossed the road in front of the car. If that person was not on drugs I fully would have expected any victim's family to sue Uber, and they still might.

I still mostly blame the person. Jaywalking in an area of extremely poor visibility. It was a bang bang collision. Maybe a computer could have braked, but not sure a human would have.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I still mostly blame the person. Jaywalking in an area of extremely poor visibility. It was a bang bang collision. Maybe a computer could have braked, but not sure a human would have.

No one is arguing that the victim shouldn't have been jaywalking. However, jaywalking is not a license to kill, as a driver, if you notice someone jaywalking, you're supposed to brake. Here, a computer saw the person, but chose not to brake, or more precisely specifically was set not to brake in an emergency situation. That is fucked up. And this one is on Uber.

 

[Ichinisan]

I still mostly blame the person. Jaywalking in an area of extremely poor visibility. It was a bang bang collision. Maybe a computer could have braked, but not sure a human would have.

It has been shown that visibility in that area is actually excellent, but the camera footage that we saw is under-exposed.

 

[pmv]

I still mostly blame the person. Jaywalking in an area of extremely poor visibility. It was a bang bang collision. Maybe a computer could have braked, but not sure a human would have.

Not sure what your evidence is for saying it was an area of such poor visibility. It would be foolish to judge based on the video footage - surely everyone has noticed images through a digital camera will usually show lighting very, very differently to how the naked eye sees it?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not sure what your evidence is for saying it was an area of such poor visibility. It would be foolish to judge based on the video footage - surely everyone has noticed images through a digital camera will usually show lighting very, very differently to how the naked eye sees it?

The original video, way on back when this originally happened, showed this near-pitch black video of a pedestrian basically appearing from the darkness like some kind of angler fish in the Mariana Trench. Future videos were released by citizens showing that the street, in fact, does not pass through the bowels of Moria and that you can in fact see people idiotically walking in the road.

Based on the new evidence, IMHO I still feel that the pedestrian was an idiot for placing themselves in unnecessary danger, but Uber is 110% at fault for this. Disabling two different forms of automatic breaking, as well as not providing some way of presenting information to the 'driver' in the form of an alert was wholly irresponsible, and it was just a matter of time before someone's baby stroller/pet/person got ran down.

 

[Ichinisan]

The original video, way on back when this originally happened, showed this near-pitch black video of a pedestrian basically appearing from the darkness like some kind of angler fish in the Mariana Trench. Future videos were released by citizens showing that the street, in fact, does not pass through the bowels of Moria and that you can in fact see people idiotically walking in the road.

Based on the new evidence, IMHO I still feel that the pedestrian was an idiot for placing themselves in unnecessary danger, but Uber is 110% at fault for this. Disabling two different forms of automatic breaking, as well as not providing some way of presenting information to the 'driver' in the form of an alert was wholly irresponsible, and it was just a matter of time before someone's baby stroller/pet/person got ran down.

It's possible the city saw the footage first and immediately repaired some street lights or something (fearing any partial liability), but I think it's more likely the video was just under-exposed as some people have said.

 

[CZroe]

People are reading way too much into the “disabled automatic braking” thing.

There is Volvo’s safety system and there is Uber’s self-driving system. Uber’s self driving system has it’s own automatic braking. Volvo’s automatic braking is part of a safety system that has nothing to do with making a car self-driving. It was considered a redundant feature that most cars don’t have in the first place that could potentially interfere with Uber’s system, so it was disabled. Uber’s system is not being developed exclusively for these Volvo cars, you know.

It sounds bad, sure, but the OEM auto brake was not some ubiquitous thing that they are irresponsible for bypassing. The vast majority of vehicles do not have this.

Uber’s system was disabled as part of training and development. It was up to the driver like any normal car. The driver was looking at his or her dash at that moment as could have happened if this was an entirely normal car. The bicycle did not have the right of way and would have been at-fault if the same thing happened without Uber’s system. Uber’s system does not change this just because it could have saved a life and didn’t. The fact that it could have saved a life is reason to keep developing it so that the engineering will be finished and enabled for all. Attacking it is a good way to make driving less safe for everyone.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/uber-arizona-self-driving-report/index.html



As I originally guessed sounds like Uber is at fault to me because the car did not behave as expected. Disabled emergency braking? WTF? I understand disabling emergency braking for unknown objects such as trash bags and relying on human reaction to unidentified road hazard to collect additional information to better detection/driving algorithms. However, just plain completely 100% disabling emergency braking even if the car identifies an object in the road as a bicycle (and presumably human), that is one giant screw up by Uber. Their only saving grace that might save them is that the person was high on drugs, which explains why she crossed the road in front of the car. If that person was not on drugs I fully would have expected any victim's family to sue Uber, and they still might.

EDIT: spelling

OK, so at first it didn’t know what it was, then it identified it as a vehicle (correct), then it identified the vehicle as a bike (also correct) and then it identified the best action (auto brake). Now consider you are driving a normal car and a vehicle suddenly jumps out in front of you like this without the right of way and causes an accident. Why would you be at fault? Why is this machine held to such an impossible standard?

 

[fleshconsumed]

OK, so at first it didn’t know what it was, then it identified it as a vehicle (correct), then it identified the vehicle as a bike (also correct) and then it identified the best action (auto brake). Now consider you are driving a normal car and a vehicle suddenly jumps out in front of you like this without the right of way and causes an accident. Why would you be at fault? Why is this machine held to such an impossible standard?

As I explained before, it is your duty as a driver to avoid or minimize collision if you can. You won't be held responsible if you can't, but if you could do it and didn't, you will go to jail. If you mow down a jaywalker just because he is only supposed to cross the road at designated crossings, you will go to jail. This is exactly the same. The car correctly identified the object, and correctly identified that emergency braking was needed, but chose not to do it because that's how Uber programmed it. Uber is very much at fault here.

I could give Uber some slack if they programmed the car to have a medium volume audible alert when the car detected potentially dangerous situation requiring drivers attention and a high volume screaming alert when the car thought emergency braking was necessary, but they didn't even do that.

 

[pmv]

It was up to the driver like any normal car. The driver was looking at his or her dash at that moment as could have happened if this was an entirely normal car.

You aren't seriously suggesting that the "driver" not paying attention is equally-likely in a driver-driven car and in a supposedly self-driving one? This is the whole problem with having a suppsedly 'back up' driver (the same problem that has been suggested applies with aircraft auto pilots, of course).

Your argument sounds like a bit of a cop-out - when the self-driving system messes up, just claim the "driver" should have been driving after all. In reality, of course, human beings don't work that way.

The bicycle did not have the right of way and would have been at-fault if the same thing happened without Uber’s system. Uber’s system does not change this just because it could have saved a life and didn’t. The fact that it could have saved a life is reason to keep developing it so that the engineering will be finished and enabled for all. Attacking it is a good way to make driving less safe for everyone.


OK, so at first it didn’t know what it was, then it identified it as a vehicle (correct), then it identified the vehicle as a bike (also correct) and then it identified the best action (auto brake). Now consider you are driving a normal car and a vehicle suddenly jumps out in front of you like this without the right of way and causes an accident. Why would you be at fault? Why is this machine held to such an impossible standard?

I don't think 'right of way' is the correct terminology here (having 'right of way' means you can use the throughfare, not that you have priority over other traffic). And the bicycle is not really the issue, as the _pedestrian_ wasn't riding it (according to all the reports I read).

If you are in charge of a vehicle (car or bike) and a pedestrian steps out in front without priority, you still have a strong legal obligation to stop or evade them if practically possible. You don't have the right to decide 'well they shouldn't have stepped out there' and just plough into them at speed anyway. That you even seem to slightly think that you do, is a bit worrying. There's nothing 'impossible' about a standard that says one of the duties you have in return for the privilege of driving (an activity that imposes risks on others) is that you should try your best not to kill someone.

If you can't stop, and it is demonstrably the case that the distance to them when they stepped out was just too short for your vehicle to have stopped in (given normal and reasonable reaction times) _then_ you have a defence. But that the pedestrian 'didn't have priority' is not a defence in itself.