Uber breaks self-driving car record: First robo-ride to kill a pedestrian 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. …
Nothing I said implies that we need to apply airline service standards to AVs. Motor vehicles as they stand are extremely safe (because of, surprise, rigorous standards) - it's the roads and drivers that kill. The danger is those rigorous standards wont be applied is to the design of the software (because, hey it's just software and it can be fixed later).
Without rigorous standards we'll get consumer grade software running cars which would be a disaster. With it we won't get anything like perfection because roads are inherently unsafe but we can road travel much safer. And why shouldn't we? Something like one in ten thousand people die on the roads every year in developed countries. If those people were dying in a war there would be mass demonstrations. Yet we just accept it. I don't consider that remotely rational given how risk averse we are in other areas of life.
"Trying to match airlines 'zero fatalities in a year' record would make ground transportation too expensive to use... with horrifying economic, social, health, safety, and other damage."
But it'll be demanded once more people get killed because they'll demand "What price a life?" The reason the airliner industry gets the scrutiny it does is because although aircraft disasters are rare, they tend to bite HARD: low incidence, but high consequence. Car fatalities are higher per capita, but the numbers and environment tend to run against them (more and less predictable obstacles). It's basically a case of comparing birds to bulls: not much in common between them.
"Many more will die before federal governments worldwide impose basic safety standards for AVs. Governments have abdicated their responsibilities and allowed a "wild west" mentality to prevail."
Because governments are so good at developing and implementing optimal policies?
If that were true, this would be paradise - we've got enough government to do it, if they could only get it right instead of wrong, mostly wrong, often wrong, and oops, missed the mark a bit.
I totally agree. To ban the technology now would be foolish but a possible workaround might be to fit the module to driving instructor's cars and train it with real data to see what it does without any actual risk.
In this way it would also be able to learn a safe driving style that doesn't annoy other road users, thus causing more problems.
"as we work with local law enforcement to understand what happened".
Well, i'll tell ya what happened.
A human variable got mixed up in the cars software and the car, due to shit software didn't know which way to run so it run over her.
Fucking self driving cars.... Don't make me laugh. That technology is 50 years away...
So if the car was in full autonomous mode and was travelling at 38MPH in a 35MPH zone, i.e. it was technically speeding, who physically decided to allow the vehicle to speed? Is a maximum speed set by the 'operator' and the vehicle can travel up to that speed, or does the programmer decide that the vehicle should select a speed up to posted speed limit (plus 10% in this case?) and the on-board operator has no control regards maximum speed (except by hitting the brake pedal)?
I am more curious about how they measured the speed.
Reminds me of one of the stories as told by one of the engineers working on Saab Viggen (the car, not the fighter jet, although that engineer had also worked on the jet back in the day). They were racing against a similarly specced Volvo. When the Volvo's speedometer was showing 220kph, the Viggen was showing 200kph...
So take that 38MPH with a grain of salt.
And finally: At least when driving here where I am, if you drive 50 kph in a 50-zone, cars will start queuing up behind you. 54 kph is a safer speed IMO. The AI could have picked up on similar patterns.
" When the Volvo's speedometer was showing 220kph, the Viggen was showing 200kph..."
My car _speedo_ shows about 10% higher than actual speed (reported by GPS)
The ODB reported speed matches the GPS speed.
IE: what's on the meter is deliberately reading high to encourage the hooman to stay below the speed limit.
Its also a legal get out for manufacturers.
"But your honour, my speedo read exactly 40MPH but the calibrated radar, LIDAR, whatever registered 44mph".
So the manufacturer then cops SOME of the blame. By making them read low, that excuse is trashed.
"I was fined for doing 45mph your honour" But your speedometer would have read ABOVE 45mph so you have no excuse.
I always use my GPS and OBDII for accurate speed readings.
If an object manages to intercept the vehicle at the right moment and close enough proximity, the vehicle will not be able to stop or manoeuvre sufficiently to avoid a collision. This is physics, not AI or meatsack fallibility.
The only slight surprise I have out of this is that I (unaware of the facts yet) thought these vehicles used radar or lidar making shadows irrelevant (at least to the AI).
In this case, if she ran like a cat from the sidewalk right across the path of the car, then it is likely that no additional controls could have prevented a collision.
"The only slight surprise I have out of this is that I (unaware of the facts yet) thought these vehicles used radar or lidar making shadows irrelevant (at least to the AI)."
The Uber car is supposed to have both Lidar and RADAR with 360° coverage. It appears that the system didn't register the person crossing the road. The driver was looking down at something and didn't look until just before or right at the impact. Did he catch a glimpse out of the corner of his eye. The dashcam video is rather dark, but that could be due to it being a cheap sensor. One of the latest Sony sensors with much better dynamic range may have revealed the victim in the video.
Autonomous cars are supposed to be much better than a human in exactly this situation. There wasn't a bunch of other vehicles, peds, bicyclists and other moving targets around the car at the time. I would think that the computer wouldn't have been maxed out dealing with too many targets at the time.
The victim shouldn't have been crossing where they did and a car at night with it's headlights on is easy to see from a fair distance. The Uber corpsicle should have been paying attention. The US government shouldn't be allowing the beta testing of highly dangerous technology on public streets. This isn't going to be the last of this type of accident. I expect that in the future some accidents will be avoided where drivers have been inattentive, but other accidents will happen where the automated car and AI in general does very poorly in assessing a situation and people do much better. It's hard to say if the balance will be biased one way or the other. I plan to avoid autonomous automobile transport in the same way I studiously avoid Uber/Lyft today.
If the powers that be don't like you, they can switch off your vehicle remotely during a journey.
This is relinquishing control of your personal movement, restricted to the parameters of the 'AI grid'.
This is different from a public bus or train, even for a driverless light rail train, where the time schedules, routes and stops are properly established.
"I'm pretty sure the "powers that be" can find easier ways to switch you off.'
Sure, they can just come up from behind and shoot you in the head, but that tends to be reported in the media. It would be so much more convenient to just have your car drive you to someplace where they can make it look like a random accident or a heart attack.
"You surrender your sovereignty with self-driving cars "
This is a matter of implementation, not an intrinsic characteristic.
I agree that there is a LOT of work to do on AV design to make them not only autonomous in terms of self-driving, but independent of outside control, and largely anonymous to remote or retrospective tracking.
I think that can be done, and have some ideas about how that could work, but it has to become a priority in the design and implementation of AV vehicles and systems.
"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."
No. The whole point of autonomous vehicles is they are supposed to be super safe and better than human drivers. The whole point is they are supposed to have the tech so they can "see" in the shadows. Clearly Ubers tech isn't up to par so should be fully suspended for at least a year or so. Not to mention it was speeding. 38 in a 35mph zone. Only 3mph over you say. It's not the point. It's autonomous so should be able to keep to 35mph.
"Not to mention it was speeding. 38 in a 35mph zone. Only 3mph over you say. It's not the point. It's autonomous so should be able to keep to 35mph."
It should be able to keep to the speed limit. It should also 'know better' than to do so all the time. Speeding is sometimes safer than not.
"Only 3mph over you say. It's not the point. It's autonomous so should be able to keep to 35mph."
There is always a bit of hysteresis with any type of cruise control. If they tighten the range, the car would be constantly jabbing the brakes and jumping on the accelerator. The police don't write tickets for going 3mph faster than the posted limit to allow for speedometer errors, wandering right feet, etc. Do a little test with your cruise control on and a graph of your speed via your phone's GPS.
I have, actually, and maintaining a tight speed is pretty easy for your average cruise control since it can react more quickly and thus not need to use the brakes: just light adjustments to the throttle is all. It only gets tricky when the angle changes (curves and inclines), but in my firsthand experience the cruise control (which isn't exactly state of the art, it's an early 00's car) tends to correct itself pretty smoothly.
"The self-driving vehicle was doing 38MPH in a 35MPH zone, we're told."
Huh? If the AI can exceed the speed limit, then there is something wrong with it. It either can't measure its speed accurately, doesn't know what the speed limit is everywhere, or has a tolerance programmed in.
I wonder what the actual limits are...
She shouldn't have been crossing the road, she was riding a bike illegally, she wasn't riding a bike (therefore we can't know the facts), bikes are illegal on public roads, it's the pedestrian's responsibility to be safe, she was wearing dark clothes at night, the sun was in the driver's eyes, didn't pay road tax, innocent motorist blamed for tragic unavoidable accident.
Has that covered everything?
Based on what I've read to this point, the victim was crossing the road, which ordinarily requires you to walk it across, as one is only supposed to ride along a road. Second, there wasn't a crosswalk there, so the victim was likely jaywalking. Third, the car didn't even attempt to stop, meaning it basically never saw the victim. This is there I'm not too clear because I don't know enough of the context to be sure the victim was visible for long enough to expect to be able to react.
"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."
Well if you cannot easily see the dark roadsides then maybe you drive more slowly just in case? * Especially with current scenario of phone & headphone distracted people - I get several "unexpected" stepouts into teh road a year in town driving (except they are not wholly "unexpected" as I'm assuming stupidity from people and driving carefully based on that premise e.g. (sometimes considerably in badly lit / parked car areas) under the speed limit and so (fortunately) not hit any of them (even taking care I was only able to avoid hitting one by swerving partially into the opposite lane - only possible as no traffic in taht lane))
As a UK driver I expect people to cross anywhere - we have no jaywalking rules here so in towns you can expect "unexpected" crossing anywhere - often irritatingly within 10 - 20 metres of a designated crossing (and also pedestrian, cyclist , bus and train user as an aside)
Surely "shadows" not that much of a get out if the car had LIDAR? An advantage human drivers do not have.
Are the Uber AIs "trained" on "king of the road" style drivers instead of considerate ones>
* Or am I just an old has-been advocating "defensive" driving instead of me, me, me - my journey as fast as possible is all that matters appraoch
It seems to me we have metal vehicle bodywork to protect those inside from harm, mostly from impact with other metal clad vehicles. With autonomous vehicles it seems those outside the vehicle are more in need of protection.
So bodywork which is soft and squidgy but doesn't bounce impactees across the road may be where we need to invest next.
"... But am I the only one that is reading that the car was speeding? It was actually breaking the law?"
Who cares?
A good driver knows when to speed and when not to. There is no reason to assume an AV can't become similarly discerning. The issue should be safety, not slavishly following arbitrary regulations.
Human drivers have an error rate. Accordingly, they run down an expected number of pedestrians or bicyclists annually (among other adverse events) and they kill some of them. According to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, the2015 deaths ran to about 5400 pedestrians and 800 cyclists.; nonfatal injuries seem to have been around 70000 pedestrians and 45000 cyclists.
Controlling software for autonomous vehicles also will have an error rate, and such vehicles will run down an expected number of pedestrians and cyclists and kill some of them. In their history to date, the known number of such errors seems to be 1, far too low for statistical analysis.
The fact that both humans and the sensor/software autonomous vehicles operate in a physical environment with a certain amount of unpredictability guarantees that an error rate of zero never will be more than a goal that can be approached but not attained. As they are an alternative to human controlled vehicles, autonomous vehicles should be judged against the fairly well known results attained by human control, although it is proper now, while they are being evaluated before general use, to subject each incident to elevated scrutiny directed to improving outcomes.
When you die, how would you like it if it says "possibly homeless" on your death notice???
That person was a child, had parents, friends. There is no use other than to try and marginalize the woman's death by saying such thing. Even if the person was without a home, it's still a berating thing and has NOTHING to do with being in a car accident. Did Uber pay you make her death seam less important? Pisses me off that people can be so mean to the dead.
Yeah I was homeless 35 years ago for 3 years, and in AZ. I worked my ass off and got things going fine. I met a lot of good people at the shelter that through no fault of their own were screwed. People that live pay check to pay check and their apt building burned. A woman married 30 years and her husband kicks her out for a young girl. She had nothing. Kids who were dumped on the street as their parents were to messed up to care for them. Don't marginalize someone's death to make Uber less bad. That is disgusting. Maybe when you end up out of work from brain cancer and have your home taken when you run out of money to pay for taxes, will you see, we are all people - not worth more or less than anyone else. GRRRRR that pissed me off.
Why did the algorithm break the law?
The latest on the Uber death seems to be that the woman suddenly came out of the shadows which may be a stupid thing to do at any time. The car was speeding while travelling at 38 instead of 35 mph* and appears to have made no attempt to stop before killing her.
The human monitor is guilty for failing to monitor the car on two counts, by allowing the car to speed and making no effort to prevent harm to other road users. ** Was the monitor even watching the road or a screen? In flying there is a well known concept that the cockpit is for looking out of.
* I know 3 mph is not much but the driver was breaking the law.
** In the UK this is called driving without due care and attention.
Having seen the video from the car of what happened, it's very cut-and-dry that the Cyclist was the one at fault. Crossing the road in the pitch-black-dark. No High-Vis at all, no retro-reflectors on the bicycle.
The only way any car was going to avoid that incident is if the car has an infra-red night-vision system to see in the dark, which obviously Uber didn't spring for in the car's vision system. Given that there are ways for cars to be able to see in the dark, they need to be made mandatory for autonomous cars.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
