Clear cut...
...reckless driving by the actual meatsack behind the wheel, no?
A woman has died after she was hit by one of Uber's autonomous cars in the US. The taxi app maker said it is cooperating with the cops in the wake of the death. According to police, Uber's vehicle was driving itself, although it had a human pilot behind the wheel, when it hit a woman crossing the street in Tempe, Arizona. …
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags, a woman abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic and was struck by a self-driving Uber operating in autonomous mode."
and
"From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said. The police have not released the videos." (Moir is the local chief of police)
This is about what I expected.
Unlike humans, machines do not typically go off task and forget to pay attention. They'll never be perfect, but nothing is. The practical question becomes 'on the average are they at least as safe as human drivers'?
It sounds like the vehicle was operating in a lane where the probability of pedestrians or bicyclists was lower than, for example, curb lanes... a good choice for limiting the chance of the sudden incursion of a pedestrian into the lane. Of course, probabilities are not certainties.
Autonomous vehicles have been doing road testing for years, and it seems like they have a reasonable grasp on the basics, at least for easy conditions (no snow, fog, ice, cold, massive crowds, parades, demonstrations, etc).
"It sounds like the vehicle was operating in a lane where the probability of pedestrians or bicyclists was lower than, for example, curb lanes."
In a country where pedestrians are second class citizens, and where road rules against crossing like this are generally enforced vigorously as an income earner for the local authority.
All of which adds up to programmers making assumptions that turn into clusterfucks.
Alan, you seem to have more information than the rest of us. How did you know the Uber car didn't slow down for the pedestrian?
Also, it was news to me that Arizona was like the Eastern US with regards to pedestrian right-of-way. I always assumed they were like the other Western states, which have very different customs and laws from the East. But then, from my limited experience, I would have thought that Europe in general and the UK in particular were more like our East coast: Walker beware. Certainly the attitude of a London cabbie toward my walking behavior on my first visit to that area told me to assume cars there were out to get me. I was young and grew up in the West. It was a learning experience.
"Alan, you seem to have more information than the rest of us. How did you know the Uber car didn't slow down for the pedestrian?"
TBH, I don't, but the statements being made make it clear that thew pedestrian was in a "non-allowed" position and made an "unexpected" move.
That, coupled with what I've seen of autonomous vehicle behaviour and the assumptions coded into it (which are limited by the cultural assumptions of humans and "road rules" without regard to the fact that we unconciously react to a bunch of other stimuli which tend to be "commonsense" such as "that pedestrian shouldn't be there, switch to high alert mode") lead me to believe that it simply wasn't coded to handle the situation and the minder wasn't paying attention until the victim had already bounced off the front of the vehicle - Google specifically modified their supervisory roles because they found the humans who were supposed to be paying attention were spending almost all of their time with eyes inside the cabin.
You can _never_ "assume" when driving and one of the most important assets about driving automation is that a robot should be paying 100% attention for anomalous items and potentially hazardous behaviour 100% of the time. Pedestrians shouldn't be on the freeway either, but it happens, as do deer. I don't want my robocar tangling with a 7 point stag because it doesn't recognise it as a hazard.
You've never been to AZ
1) generally flat terrain
2) economically driven, substantial pedestrian traffic
3) wearing of dark colours - the need to not stand out [economic and personal safety issue]
4) http://ktar.com/story/443238/tempe-police-step-up-efforts-to-enforce-pedestrian-laws/? [mistaken about definition of crosswalk, which most of AZ seems to be]
Saying this, have no idea of the circumstances.
Some folks in SoCal prefer the train.
Sister-in-law was a Jane Doe for about two weeks and prefer to think she was confused and wandered into traffic.
Do miss Uber testing in the neighborhood where dust storms and wet microbursts are common. Set up E-Band propagation range kitty-corner across intersection. Wanted to see them earn their 9's without mm-Waves.
Mock not. I have seen almost the exact same accident.
Elderly and preoccupied and deaf person steps out straight in front of car. No chance whatsoever.
All this self righteous guff about 'stopping in the distance you can see' is meaningless if somewhere closer becomes occupied unexpectedly.
The only safe place for a car is in a garage.
Some risk is unavoidable, elsewhere.
"somewhere closer becomes occupied unexpectedly"
Somewhere closer never becomes occupied unexpectedly. It always becomes occupied because something a little further away moved there (time travel excepted). Just as traffic lights never go red unexpectedly.
So if you're prepared to go slow enough and are perfectly attentive you can avoid all collisions.
Sure, that means you have to go really slow on narrow streets with cars parked either side and you end up being limited to around 20mph in built up areas, but is that really so much hardship for a world with no pedestrian road traffic injuries?
Avoiding fast moving objects like deer and other vehicles is a much harder problem.
The bit you cut out did mention the parked cars...
You don't end up limited to 5mph. That's only because of the "thinking time" need for humans. An autonomous car tracking all the potential hazards shouldn't need that. And you don't need to come to a complete stop, just slow enough that injury is the same as running into a brick wall. There are formula for stopping distance. Run them, you get 16mph to 23mph depending on the street and visibility.
No, at most 5mph. As that is 2m braking distance.. and assuming instant determination of collision risk and instant full braking power. Both fail to happen.
Someone can jump between two cars to cross the street and avoid a water puddle. This is not theorical, as it has happened to me!! behind a van, and it is impossible to see, and there you have it, a flying pedestrian, that cannot stop and appears in front of you. It has in a 32mph zone.. and only because I was looking for a parking place was I able to stop barely touching the pedestrian.
"a flying pedestrian, that cannot stop and appears in front of you. It has in a 32mph zone"
Was the speed limit appropriate for the street?
Of course not.
30mph was an entirely arbitrary speed chosen in the early 1930s when a period of no speed limits resulted in a rapidly increasing number of crashes and pedestrian deaths. An urban limit had to be set and 30mph was chosen as a compromise between those wanting to return to the old 20mph limit and politically-connected advocates for 40-50mph on urban roads.
There's a more basic fail in the assumption being shown by motorists that they have more right or priority to use the road than anyone else. In law, they don't and in most countries, motor is required to give way to non-motor which is required to give way to animal or foot traffic - and using vehicle size to intimidate is a serious criminal offence.
"in most countries, motor is required to give way to non-motor which is required to give way to animal or foot traffic - and using vehicle size to intimidate is a serious criminal offence"
You should see the People's Republic of China. The only country I've been to where drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists have absolutely zero regard for others, the laws of the road and the laws of physics. Especially the laws of physics.
From the article: "it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how [the victim] came from the shadows right into the roadway."
One of the selling points of autonomous vehicles is that they are not limited by human senses. They can see under vehicles and around corners and they can certainly detect that someone was lurking in the shadows even if it was between two parked cars on the side of the road. If I as a driver notice someone or something lurking there, I pay attention, slow down or otherwise take precautions for just this eventuality.
Two implications of the above quote are that police are simply unfamiliar with the capabilities of self-driving vehicles or that they are and those abilities are being overstated.
"Two implications of the above quote are that police are simply unfamiliar with the capabilities of self-driving vehicles or that they are and those abilities are being overstated."
Not really.
Like a human driver, an AV cannot assume everyone standing at the side of the road is going to wait until the vehicle is almost there, and then step in front of it. If you did that, you would have to ban pedestrians from roadsides in order to make a road functional.
Looking at pictures in the various reports, the road looks like a six or seven lane arterial road,and one report put the speed limit at 56 kph (35 mph).
A stopping distance calculator for this gives a stopping distance of 29m, of which 10m is 'thinking time'.
While a machine may calculate faster than a human, given recognition algorithms, etc, it may be significantly slower than 'zero think time'.
In any case, if the pedestrian steps out 10m in front of the vehicle, they will be hit at or close to full speed. There is no reasonable way to prevent this.
In parts of the UK at the moment they have a thing for lowering residential speed limits from 30mph to 20mph, but research undertaken in other areas of the country that have had them in place for a while has found that the risks of serious injury between car and pedestrian in a 30 zone vs 20 zone are almost the same... it's no safer... and there are more incidents, as both pedestrians and drivers consider the risks of a 20 zone to be much lower so no one is really paying attention anymore, and the vehicles that didn't drive at 30, certainly don't drive at 20!
Council says it's revolutionary.... yet it's weird... in the late 1980s I lived in France where the speed limits in most residential areas where 30kmph which is about 18mph.
Anyway, that's a kinda side note.... back to the conversation....
Somewhere closer never becomes occupied unexpectedly. It always becomes occupied because something a little further away moved there (time travel excepted). Just as traffic lights never go red unexpectedly.
So if you're prepared to go slow enough and are perfectly attentive you can avoid all collisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely and totally wrong.
1) Sometimes something happens that cannot be anticipated as a probable event ... such as an oncoming vehicle swerving into your lane and hitting you. The only way to avoid this is to never approach an oncoming vehicle. And yes, this happened to me. It was a while before I was comfortable when seeing oncoming headlights. There are a thousand variations of the unavoidable, unpredictable obstacle, including cars running red lights at speed when their approach is masked by buildings, people who have been standing on the curb for a minute as you approach, then suddenly starting to move by stepping into the lane, and so on.
2) Traffic lights do go red unexpectedly. It takes a failure rather than normal operation, but it does happen - if you drive enough, eventually you will see this. It has happened to me while approaching a light on two occasions.
3) Large vehicles can completely obscure pedestrians a metre from the lane you are using. In busy areas, you can't avoid it, And driving 30 in a 60 or 70 kph zone is not safe.
4) The only way to achieve zero pedestrian road traffic injuries is to ban at least one of (a) roads, (b) all vehicles and transport animals including bicycles, or (c) banning pedestrians. And yes, pedestrians have been killed by collisions with bicycles and horses.
5) Humans cannot be perfectly attentive. Electronic driving systems, maybe. Humans - never. And if you want to achieve good reliability levels for attentiveness, you have to ban drinking, fatigue, lack of sleep, many medical drugs, cell phones, radios, music players, cigarettes, emotional stress, and passengers. Good luck with that.
"Somewhere closer never becomes occupied unexpectedly. It always becomes occupied because something a little further away moved there (time travel excepted). Just as traffic lights never go red unexpectedly."
I am surprised Adam52 has so many downvotes. He is completely accurate in this observation.
There must be a lot of absolutely bloody awful drivers on this forum if they don't agree with his statement and all I can say is that the sooner insurance companies notice that robocars have lower crash/claim rates and start making human drivers pay much higher premiums unless they pass advanced tests, with mandatory retesting to _keep_ those lower premiums, the better.
There's an old joke that most cars know the laws of physics better than most drivers and it predates the use of computerised driver aids.
Ok, so now hold that thought and apply it to a city like Paris, Madrid or London. In London you very much drive with the expectation that someone is about to jump in from of the car, walk across your blindspot point, run past the back of the car even thought they can see you reversing or (as has happened to me once) actually jump onto the bonnet (hood) and run over the car.
And that's pedestrians: now factor in London cabbies, bloody-minded bus drivers, cyclists, Deliveroo mopeds, your average White Van Man. Oh, and Über drivers pulling out without signalling or notice.
If they can kill a lady on a bicycle in a nice flat, open place like AZ then the only people who are going to benefit from Über Autonomous Cars are BÜPA, Axa PPP and a lot of funeral directors.
Whooa, let's wait up a bit to get the facts first, right? Uber or not Uber.
First, we don't know if the pedestrian did something that made avoidance really hard.
Second, I've always had my doubts about systems-good-enough-to-drive-almost-all-the-time-but-human-as-failsafe. If human then fails, then throw book at him.
That model works, well, with autopilot systems on aircraft. But, the crucial bit is that pilots have plenty of time to take over at cruising altitude and they are most definitely in the loop, if not outright controlling, at crucial points like takeoff and landings. Commercial pilots are also top level professionals in their field and they benefit from decades of massive investment in researching failure root causes in aviation.
Expecting a trained operator, who is a passive bystander almost all the time, to react instantly to avert an accident, each and every time when needed is unrealistic psychology of how humans work. Yes, an attentive backup driver may get it right 99% of the time, but it won't be like someone who is already in control of the vehicle. This is true for test drivers, but it will be 10x true if regular Joes and Janes are expected to instantly correct bungles by their autonomous vehicle.
Even with a backup driver, the AI really needs to be very, very, good at avoiding accidents. This is going to require some rethinking of test protocols, even if AI surpass regular human drivers in safety. Maybe we also need to mandate some failure analysis collaboration between competing AI companies - don't want to have the same mistakes done over and over due to commercial secrecy.
Thoughts to the family of the killed pedestrian. And, yes, to the driver and engineers too. This is a sad moment, no need for gloating and finger pointing. And, yes, that remark extends to the headline, despite my dislike of Uber.
"Even with a backup driver, the AI really needs to be very, very, good at avoiding accidents. This is going to require some rethinking of test protocols, even if AI surpass regular human drivers in safety"
Many of us have been expecting something like this to happen sooner or later if automated vehicles were allowed to be programmed by american drivers, due to the uniquely pedestrian-hostile environments and laws in that part of the world.
Humans don't like running things over (even animals), but if you program your vehicle with an assumption that legal road rules are really the way things are then you'll get robotic killing machines if people don't do as 'expected' and only cross at "crosswalks", or with lights.
Programmers from other countries know that pedestrians have priority on the road at all times and are legally allowed to step onto the road from anywhere, so will make sure the machines are setup to react accordingly - and ensure that if a pedestrian 40 metres ahead looks to be about to step onto the road, that the vehicle is already slowing down.
Arizona is one of those states which is one of the shittier places for pedestrian safety, which makes it a lousy place for testing robot cars - sure you can test how they go when things are 'normal', but you have very few exception conditions appearing to exercise the "non-normal" testing space and that means the supervising hoomun gets complacent, sleepy and too slow to react when things go pear-shaped.
"Maybe cities will start installing "safety" fences to protect autonomous vehicles from random human behaviour."
Like that works well....
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pedestrian-guardrailing-ltn-209
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/guidance-on-assessment-of-pedestrian-guardrail.pdf
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/Item09-Guardrail-Removal-Programme.pdf
"why was the pedestrian-cyclist crossing the road that that point?"
Unlike the USA, in most of the rest of the world a motorist is required to avoid running over pedestrians on the road no matter whether they're meant to be there or not.
If the car could have predicted the collision and pulled up then it should have. Even if it couldn't have stopped in time, it should have attempted an emergency stop.
38mph impact = 95% chance of death
35mph=50%,
30mph=5%
20mph=1%
At 38mph, most cars can stop in around 2-3 car lengths once the brakes are applied on dry road. It takes a significantly longer distance for a human to react and get foot from accelerator to brake.
Laws giving cars priority, 'jaywalking' and general pedestrian hostility on US roads are a direct result of decades of lobbying by the US car industry. The USA used to have the best public transport system in the world until it was systematically targetted and destroyed by General Motors between the late 1920s and 1955. They collected a couple of antitrust convictions for it, but that didn't stop the activity.
Unlike the USA, in most of the rest of the world a motorist is required to avoid running over pedestrians on the road no matter whether they're meant to be there or not.
Yes, obviously, but that doesn't mean it's your fault if you're on a motorway and you hit a pedestrian crossing it. Don't exclude the middle.
Having now seen the in-car video of the accident (it's a challenging watch), I find myself asking the same question I asked at the start. It really doesn't look like the human was engaged in any sort of meaningful supervisory role at all.
Assuming that the camera from the footage isn't anywhere near as light-sensitive as a human, it looks to me like there would have been enough time for an attentive driver to make the collision survivable or even avoid it altogether.
I wonder why the tests mandated any human in the car? It might give a veneer of safety, but they must know that the amount of attention a human is able to pay to the road when they've got nothing to do tends towards zero.
Here's a somewhat better camera making the same journey at night. The video of the incident is a complete con.
And that's where humans are superior. You see someone on the sidewalk that's walking erratically or towards the street and you cover the brake. Do self-driving cars even scan for behaviour of bodies on the sidewalk along the way? Do they recognise when little kids are playing ball? I thought not.
"Er, people driving cars hit cyclists and pedestrians all the time!"
You're quite right. And perhaps the overall accident rate will indeed go down. My point is that humans are superior at some things. I'm thinking that despite a lowering of accidents, the ones we will see may be of a different kind.
OK to add another angle to the debate. AI systems will struggle to identify every pedestrian or cyclist likely to do something spontaneously that could cause an accident. In the UK, although not official policy, the driver of a vehicle is assumed to be the person responsible for an accident until proved otherwise. In considering the ability of AI driven vehicles to be safe, perhaps those in government promoting self driving vehicles should consider promoting road safety education for kids more (the old "Tufty Club" and "Green Cross Man" of the 60s and 70s have never been fully replaced) and in particular rethink about age limits and training for cyclists before being allowed out on roads. Autonomous driving or not that should help reduce accidents anyway.
I'm not a cyclist but I regularly visit the Netherlands. There are far more cyclists and far fewer cars there, and, as a result, their towns are far more pleasant places than our car-congested British towns.
So maybe the answer is actually to have fewer cars and more cyclists.
"There are far more cyclists and far fewer cars there, and, as a result, their towns are far more pleasant places than our car-congested British towns."
Until the 1970s, the Netherlands' roads were just as cycle-unfriendly and child-killing as the UK's.
They decided they'd had enough of it and that they wanted to change it. So they did.
"Taking cyclists off the roads would save a lot more accidents. Cycling is a Victorian mode of transport – incredibly dangerous on modern roads"
I have a feeling that taking cars off the roads would make them much safer!
If you look at the stats - the DfT publish them - then cycling has about the same injury rate per km as walking. Motorcycling on the other hand...
"I have a feeling that taking cars off the roads would make them much safer!"
I suppose we could all switch to trucks.
If you got rid of trucks and cars, then the roads would be pretty much useless and a lot of people would die from starvation, lack of medical attention, boredom, poverty, and so on.
As someone living in a rural area completely unserviced by public transport, with no car, no license and no disposable income (and therefore no means to either pay for removal services or buy a car), perhaps you'd care to explain how exactly I'm supposed to travel the 10 miles to my nearest town each day, for work, doctor appointments and everything else, if not by bicycle?
Anti-bicycle bigots are not only the lowest scum on Earth, they also seem to live in a privileged little bubble, completely disconnected from reality.
Very true. Still, no matter what you do you can never fully eliminate all accidents. I read somewhere she decided to cross the road suddenly at a non-crossing place, giving no time for both the human and robotic operators to react. Doesn't matter how fast your reaction time is or how good the electronic safeties are, you still can't beat the laws of physics: a 1.5 ton car moving at normal speeds cannot come to a full stop instantly.
Anyway, we don't know the details of what exactly happened yet.