|
Saw it, and that clarified for me that the car was malfunctioning and the "safetydriver" failed totally. The darkness is just because the Dashcam doesn't work as good as a human eye, therefore the light seen might be way of what the driver should have seen and this also should not affect the radar components!
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that the driver could have reacted in time even if she had paid close attention: the woman was crossing midway between two overhead lamps, in the darkest area of the street, not wearing reflective clothing, and no active lights on the bike. Even when considering that the driver's eyes should have adapted somewhat to the darkness, it was near impossible to spot the pedestrian wearing dark clothes in the darkest possible area outside the range of the headlights.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
And that's exactly where the cars systems should have kicked in, by the way, you saw the driver looking to the left ? It felt kinda like she spotted the pedestrian but that is just an assumption. But still, the safetydriver is there to react and pay attention, she failed on that job.
It really is questionable if the accident could have been avoided but i guess since there was no breaking effort done by the car they are mostly responsible for the accident.
EDIT:
An HDR picture of the scene at darkness Where it happened - Album on Imgur[^]
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the car should have reacted. Even with just the video as input, there was at least a second to hit the brakes. there is no good reason why it didn't.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
And the car has radar installed
Stefan_Lang wrote: Even with just the video as input
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
And as I understood it at night, in the middle of the street (crosswalk down the street) and at least on a bend in the road.
|
|
|
|
|
Statistically, robots are already better drivers then humans. That is why the whole world talks about one casualty on the road while every year human drivers extinguish one Vietnam war of Americans.
Understanding politics of fear, I'm afraid a lot of people will perish before we realize that it is better to have less people killed by robots, then demand perfection from machines while at the same time licensing 16 year old kids to drive after 20 hours of training.
|
|
|
|
|
Tomaž Štih wrote: That is why the whole world talks about one casualty on the road while every year human drivers extinguish one Vietnam war of Americans.
Of course you are taking into account the disproportionate numbers of human drivers to robot drivers to arrive at such shocking statements, otherwise it could just as well be plain rhetorics. 
My old cat was excellent at tracking moving objects and judging distances and speed. It also was arguably far more intelligent than any AI up to now. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to train the cat and give it a driver's license?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
First studies in 2012, understandably, showed lower accident rates for human drivers. But latest (2017) results now shows lower accident rate (per million miles) for robots. 
|
|
|
|
|
"Toonces the driving cat" was probably about the same as this AI with one notable difference.
The AI hit a pedestrian.
Spoiler Alert! In case you search YouTube
Toonces injured its own passengers.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, you have those statistics? That would be an interesting read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for that, it was an interesting read.
From that report it seems that the self driving cars have less minor accidents. It is a lot closer with the more significant accidents, but self-driving cars still have less accidents (although by the admission of the report there is too little data to form any conclusions.)
I personally think they over-estimate the number of unreported serious accidents - although I might be wrong there.
One thing they omit is the number of incidents that are averted by the driver interceding. I believe all of the data was gathered with an actual driver. What we are seeing more of now is driverless cars.
BTW in case you have not guessed I am against driverless cars, as I do not think they are ready yet, but I am not against self-driving cars.
|
|
|
|
|
After seeing the accident I now think there is a serious flaw in Uber software. The car didn't even try to apply brakes. Going 40mph directly into human. Besides the fact that there was a time frame of cca. 2 seconds (enough to at least try to apply brakes), and that sensors must've detected the obstacle on the road (Uber has multiple lidars, and radars!) long before that. It probably had at least 6 seconds to react, because it can see in the dark. For self driving car this was an avoidable accident.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the American Mantra: "Guns People don't kill people, people cars kill people".
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Excatly! It's so easy to use it...
––––
Bang!
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: even the dumbest human driver has a few million years of evolution behind him
When that human driver happens to be a p***ed up 17 year old blasting out da G-funk at 110 dB whilst smoking a spliff, sending text messages and driving at faster-miles-per-hour past a school hoping to impress the girls, I'd question the value of the evolutionary input!
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I'd question the value of the evolutionary input!
Nope: "Evolution in action". 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I'd question the value of the evolutionary input!
Evolution usually works with trial and error... and there are a lot of darwin awarded people in the world. Pity is... they nowadays do find a partner in their wave length and increase the mess for one generation more
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is certainly a slow process.
Humans have evolved, at let's say a 20 year generation cycle, over countless millennia and aren't really up to much as yet.
Fruit flies evolve exponentially quicker than humans (more than a generation a day) and they're still pretty crap at anything that doesn't involve eating fruit and being gross.
Motorists have evolved over 5 or 6 generations and it's a wonder that there are any of them left to breed.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: they're still pretty crap at anything that doesn't involve eating fruit and being gross.
But they are REALLY excellent at eating fruit and being gross.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in fairness, you have to give them that! 
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, evolution workks just fine when he wraps his car and himself around the tree at the next bend in the road.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: that even the dumbest human driver has a few million years of evolution behind him. How can they think to play better in the same league with x hours of training and 'testing'?
Those same ones that managed 19,000 deaths and 2.3 million injuries in just the US in the first 6 months of 2015?
I am guessing there is quite a bit of wiggle room between 1 and 2.3 million for it to play with.
Not to mention of course that all of that evolution has lead to people attempting to text, make phone calls, yelling at the other people in the car, getting high (in the car), eating, putting on makeup and even sometimes putting on their clothes (someone told me they use to change while driving down the a relatively busy and high speed street all the time.) Pretty sure a computer will not be doing most of that.
U.S. Traffic Deaths, Injuries and Related Costs Up in 2015[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thank the great Ghu I will be living in a semi rural area where self driving cars will not be the norm in my life time - I enjoy driving.
I recently drove a 9 seat merc bus through 1/3 metre fresh snow on a goat trail my son called a short cut around Gap (southern France). The only indication I was still on the road was either the guard rail or the cliff on the other, top speed approx 15kph, I loved it but is scared the crap out of the passengers.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
