Driverless Cars

[4570Man]

From earlier reporting, I was expecting to see someone stepping off the median immediately into the path of the car. An average driver with high beams on never would have made that mistake.

Rgds, D.

Maybe visibility was better in real life but I never saw her,until she was right in front of the vehicle. Why the heck was she walking a bike across the highway anyway? And didn't she notice a car coming at her at a good rate of speed? I didn't see any lights or reflectors on the woman or the bicycle either. From my point of view she set herself up for what happened.

 

[Oaktree]

Maybe visibility was better in real life but I never saw her,until she was right in front of the vehicle. Why the heck was she walking a bike across the highway anyway? And didn't she notice a car coming at her at a good rate of speed? I didn't see any lights or reflectors on the woman or the bicycle either. From my point of view she set herself up for what happened.

I don't think anyone disputes that she was in the wrong here. Does that make it OK to hit her?

As others have noted, things like this happen all the time...people step out from between 2 parked cars, people open a car door without looking to see if any traffic is coming, pets run out into the road, etc. A good driver (key word here) should be aware of this possibility.

Again, they're hyping these as being safer than a vehicle with a human operator. Clearly, they have a long way to go.

 

[Gary Fowler]

From earlier reporting, I was expecting to see someone stepping off the median immediately into the path of the car. An average driver with high beams on never would have made that mistake.

Rgds, D.

The problem with this scenario is that while driving in the city, it is impossible to drive with your hi-beams on (at least legally) since you are constantly meeting on-coming traffic. There are sensors that can detect and stop a car when side crossing objects are detected, whether this car had those or not, we don't know. I do think that computer sensors will stop a car faster than a human can in just about all situations and with proper sensors can see in the dark when a human cannot.

I can see anything stopping a car doing 30-45 MPH if someone steps out from between a parked vehicle or stepping out in front of a car from just feet in front of it. It takes many feet to stop a car even if the pavement is dry. This kind of accident is not ever going to be stopped as long as pedestrians have full access to the road and can cross at any point. Having a crosswalk doesn't mean humans will walk to it to use it.

 

[3930dave]

Maybe visibility was better in real life but I never saw her,until she was right in front of the vehicle. Why the heck was she walking a bike across the highway anyway? And didn't she notice a car coming at her at a good rate of speed? I didn't see any lights or reflectors on the woman or the bicycle either. From my point of view she set herself up for what happened.

I'm a big fan of people taking responsibility for themselves, don't get me wrong..... Plenty of people around where I live (ie. have more disposable income than the homeless) routinely walk around at night wearing dark clothes, no reflectors, lights......... there are plenty of "thought challenged" pedestrians around, even b4 cell phones became stuck to people's faces......

I used to spend time in Tempe, and thought I knew that area. Had a look at Google streetview the other day.... that's an urban parkway. Streetview shows it daytime of course, with some large (for AZ) trees in the median - part of why I was guessing this lady had stepped out from behind something obstructing view. Turned out not to be the case.

The street near where I live is reasonably well lit - still, I drive down it at night with high beams on, w/o opposing traffic of course - makes a big difference seeing pedestrians, animals, or parked vehicles.... Even hitting just something like a racoon or medium sized dog can mess up a small vehicle..... I have enough things to fix on my old vehicles already

Rgds, D.

 

[4570Man]

I don't think anyone disputes that she was in the wrong here. Does that make it OK to hit her?

As others have noted, things like this happen all the time...people step out from between 2 parked cars, people open a car door without looking to see if any traffic is coming, pets run out into the road, etc. A good driver (key word here) should be aware of this possibility.

Again, they're hyping these as being safer than a vehicle with a human operator. Clearly, they have a long way to go.

I don't think it would be ok to purposely hit her, but I think she got what she had coming rather it be driverless car or human operated. You can't go walking across a dark highway with no lights or reflectors, make no effort to dodge traffic and be dumbfounded with the results. I think maybe the driverless cars loose in safety to an alert human operator, but when about a drunk one or a texting driver?

 

[3930dave]

Scientific American article:

Uber Self-Driving Car Fatality Reveals the Technology's Blind Spots - Scientific American

Note to AZ residents - Waymo has had completely driverless vehicles in testing since October.

Table 1 in the next link sums it up well.

/www.azosensors.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=862

W/O a Thermal sensor in use, you are kinda hooped at night, relying on just LIDAR.....

Last link has some good pictures......... highlights how Thermal is useful, not just at night. Good point (human vision) about driving into the setting sun.....

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

....... drunk one or a texting driver?

KISS, Occam's Razor...... we're back to zzv's point...... Why not just get all the idiots (or at least most of 'em) off the Road, permanently ?

Same reason Uber hasn't added Thermal Imaging....... money.....

Some govt's may have actually run the #'s :

Scenario - tighten up driving regs - What happens to revenue when just 10% of the drivers are taken off the road ?

A big part of govt revenue depends on new vehicles being sold, old ones repaired, and fuel burned.

So, rather than deal with that root of the preventable accident problem..... We get Uber et al experimenting on public roads.....

In the big picture, I get it - this Tempe incident is just collateral damage, at a corporate level. Still, I'd like to see any surviving family (can be many reasons someone is on the street) compensated by Uber, and Uber should also be making a sizable donation to Homeless Shelters, IMO.

Rgds, D.

 

[4570Man]

I don't know how you take stupid people off the road. I would be in favor of a more thorough driving test. Locally you have to drive around the block without crashing. Aside from the morons a lot of people just flat out can't drive. There's a lot of elderly drivers who's sight has long since left.

 

[3930dave]

Autopilot was on, in that Mountain View crash.

Tesla: Autopilot was engaged in fatal Model X crash

That the exact problem had been noticed before, and the owner still engaged autopilot later is a good example of why I started this thread........ even people who should know better put too much faith in technology.....

Rgds, D.

 

[cqaigy2]

Autopilot was on, in that Mountain View crash.

Tesla: Autopilot was engaged in fatal Model X crash

That the exact problem had been noticed before, and the owner still engaged autopilot later is a good example of why I started this thread........ even people who should know better put too much faith in technology.....

Rgds, D.

"noting that a crash attenuator safety barrier intended to mitigate the effect of a collision in that spot was missing due to an earlier crash" I wonder if he had the autopilot going during the prior crash. And then there's person three cars ahead of me going to work the other day swerving across the center line repeatedly. I'm guessing a phone was involved.

 

[JerryK]

I don't think we will see actual year round/all weather driverless cars soon. I don't see anyone out here in the boonies want to drive the speed limit. And once a few cars pass them, they will sell it and get something faster. And, a lot of us can't wait to F with them and see what happens on the road. Probably be a ' F with the driverless car ' movement....

 

[k0ua]

My analysis of the accident from watching the very limited video, is that the accident is mostly the fault of the person crossing the road walking the bicycle, with her head turned totally opposite to traffic looking down at the bike. She was walking on the wrong side of the bike with her back to traffic. Now that said, perhaps, a very attentive human driver with the lights on BRIGHT, not dim, and not looking down at his cellphone MIGHT have saved her life. MAYBE, not certain. With the lights on dim and no reflective clothing or anything on the human or bike, even with the lights on bright, I am not sure she would have been seen in time. Why the robot driver didn't see her in time, I don't know. Because I don't know anything about the sensors and what their capability's are.

All I know is that an attentive human driver would have had a hard time preventing this accident, especially with the lights on dim. As far as the guy behind the wheel, well he was just a passenger, as all of them will be after a few minutes of being lulled into the sense of security and boredom that the robot driver provides.
There doesn't seem to be a reason to even have the human "backup" because he will always be bored out of his gourd, and is in no way able to see and prevent an accident. He might be useful if the car breaks down to call a tow truck or something, but I am sure the car can call for its own assistance as well.

 

[3930dave]

"noting that a crash attenuator safety barrier intended to mitigate the effect of a collision in that spot was missing due to an earlier crash" I wonder if he had the autopilot going during the prior crash. And then there's person three cars ahead of me going to work the other day swerving across the center line repeatedly. I'm guessing a phone was involved.

From what I've read on the Model X Mountain View crash/fatality, the vehicle had not crashed previously. BUT, what his brother was saying was that the owner had noticed the autopilot swerving towards that exact barrier previously.

I'd like to think that autopilot on these has to be manually activated, but I don't know any Tesla owners, and TBN is mostly the wrong demographic to ask..... Should be Opt-In for use, but :confused3:

It sounds like that particular safety barrier had been hit earlier by another vehicle, and Tesla is now trying to lay off some of the blame on CalTrans (or whoever else is responsible for that stretch of road) for not repairing the barrier fast enough.

Even end-on, if these systems can't detect multi-ton concrete barriers in their path then they definitely are not ready for prime time.....

Rgds, D.

 

[rd_macgregor]

The more of this I see the more convinced I am that the insurance industry could be the biggest impediment to widespread adoption of the technology. If I were an insurer, I'd want a HUGE premium markup to cover the uncertainties. Worse (for drivers/owners), every driverless car system says the human operator must remain vigilant at all times to override the system should it become necessary...I'm betting insurers will likely require cameras inside and outside the car so they can see whether to deny claims if the human is distracted when a crash occurs. Determining who is "at-fault" will be complicated, so a lot of lawyers will be fully-employed.

 

[3930dave]

Determining who is "at-fault" will be complicated, so a lot of lawyers will be fully-employed.

In my lifetime, I've watched govt and lawyer count expand dramatically..... and it will probably continue that way....... but, even the insurance industry is scratching their heads over the future....

Setting precedence will keep lawyers in Benzes in the near-term..... crystal ball gazing further out is interesting though..... if the major liability resides with the control software cut by a few companies, then it mostly will come down to a handful of car companies battling in court with a handful of insurance companies..... That scenario may thin the lawyer herd down, if it comes to pass.....

While I'm not a fan of bubble-wrapping everything (it doesn't solve all problems, and arguably, creates others....), I'd say there is a point about the barrier repair taking too long @ 11 days......

ONLY ON ABC7NEWS.COM: I-Team investigates why CalTrans didn't fix safety barrier before Tesla driver died there | abc7news.com

Rgds, D.

 

[Oaktree]

The more of this I see the more convinced I am that the insurance industry could be the biggest impediment to widespread adoption of the technology. If I were an insurer, I'd want a HUGE premium markup to cover the uncertainties. Worse (for drivers/owners), every driverless car system says the human operator must remain vigilant at all times to override the system should it become necessary...I'm betting insurers will likely require cameras inside and outside the car so they can see whether to deny claims if the human is distracted when a crash occurs. Determining who is "at-fault" will be complicated, so a lot of lawyers will be fully-employed.

So if the operator needs to remain vigilant and be able to take over at an instant, what is the purpose of a "driverless" car in the first place?

 

[Jstpssng]

So if the operator needs to remain vigilant and be able to take over at an instant, what is the purpose of a "driverless" car in the first place?

Too many out there seem to have problems remaining vigilant anyways, and it's been that way since long before cell phones and driverless cars.

 

[k0ua]

So if the operator needs to remain vigilant and be able to take over at an instant, what is the purpose of a "driverless" car in the first place?

I agree, until the "driverless car" is truly driverless, then they will be a hazard. Like all new tech, I am sure it will happen someday, but we are not there quite yet. No one can sit in a car with absolutely nothing to do and remain truly vigilint. Not for long anyway. Your attention will wander with the oncoming boredom as the car runs you and itself into something. People that think you can have a backup driver, have no understanding of people. Or driverless cars for that matter.

 

[rd_macgregor]

Driverless cars might also (eventually) lead to changes in DUI law enforcement. If the human is legally over the alcohol limit, but the car is driving itself, you might plausibly argue that the vehicle is safer...but is the inebriated "driver" still arrestable? I'll bet so...but a couple of decades from now, you might have young kids going places in driverless cars (taxis?), so why not drunks?