First Gear

Interested in Advertising on 780Tuners?  Please contact us

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 19 to 22 of 22

Thread: Self driving cars. Uber accident

  1. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,831
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked 1,200 Times in 816 Posts

    Default

    Watched the video.
    The garbage truck looking thing in the left seems to have slowed down which makes me think that driver saw the person. If it was slowing down abruptly, I definitely would have slowed down as well to find out if the truck was seeing something that I wasn't and MAYBE that would've given me a chance to swerve. 97% of drivers are too self-absorbed to accept that info and respond to it and it looks like compuCar is following that mentality. (Refer to my "who programs these things?" comment, earlier). This could be the classic "sperd dursn't cerse accidernts!!!" but had the car slowed down, it could've had a chance to respond. But that's the most impossible wrong statement in history, because facts. Etc... Without seeing more from what that truck beside it did, it's too difficult to tell.
    From that video, she really appears to have been completely invisible until she was in the direct beam path. That makes her dead with ANY human driving at that speed, period.
    Computers ain't using human eyes and self driving cars should certainly have redundant sensors that can see 360 in extremely low light conditions including infrared technologies. These cars shouldn't need lights to see. Their lights should only be visibility, not for vision.
    For that reason, I argue that this car DEFINITELY should have seen this person and responded. It didn't, and that's completely unacceptable.
    Would it have been able to respond in time to avoid the collision or the fatality? I can't say but its responses to the information that was available to it are negligent.

    EDIT- now that I've read the article I see many of my points about their sensors have been said by the experts.
    Last edited by JugZ; March 25th, 2018 at 09:37 AM.

  2. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    54
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    There has been a lot of misinformation, clickbait journalism, and heavily biased opinions from both sides of the autonomous car argument following the Uber autonomous car accident last week. As far as I’m concerned, all this incident proves is that Uber has no place testing autonomous vehicles.

    Uber purchased a fleet of Volvo XC90s to convert into their autonomous vehicles. I own this car myself, it is my wife’s daily driver. These Volvos include pedestrian, cyclist, and large animal detection straight from the factory. This system uses radar and does NOT require illumination from the headlights. Even if a human driver is in control, that system should have seen the lady, warned the driver, and if the driver didn’t react, the car would have hit the brakes automatically. Uber disabled the factory included autonomous safety system in lieu of their own half baked system. That car stock should have seen the obstacle and braked. In fact, a lady pushing a bike perpendicularly across the road would be the easiest thing for Volvo’s system to react to. Uber’s system did not. A video explanation of this technology is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXOew2N8GBY.

    Not only is radar standard on a lot of everyday vehicles now, but also infrared night vision is also an option on some vehicles, which you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_night_vision. This night vision would have seen the lady, even if the headlights didn’t.

    There is too much discussion about whether or not a human driver could have reacted in time to have a different outcome in this situation. My take on this is, who cares? That is the wrong question to be asking. An autonomous driving system that is as good as a human driver is not nearly good enough. It needs to be better. Much better. It needs to see what a human can’t see. It needs to react before a human even knows there is a problem.

    Why is Uber testing autonomous vehicles?
    - They are NOT an engineering company
    - They are NOT a technology company
    - They have a history of not following process
    - They have a history of rushing into things without proper checks and balances

    Autonomous driving is the future. Uber is not the company to take us there. Their system is half baked and does not belong on public roads.
    2018 Audi RS3
    2018 Volvo XC90
    2015 Polaris Slingshot
    2006 Mazda6
    2005 Lexus RX

  3. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kami View Post
    There has been a lot of misinformation, clickbait journalism, and heavily biased opinions from both sides of the autonomous car argument following the Uber autonomous car accident last week. As far as I’m concerned, all this incident proves is that Uber has no place testing autonomous vehicles.

    Uber purchased a fleet of Volvo XC90s to convert into their autonomous vehicles. I own this car myself, it is my wife’s daily driver. These Volvos include pedestrian, cyclist, and large animal detection straight from the factory. This system uses radar and does NOT require illumination from the headlights. Even if a human driver is in control, that system should have seen the lady, warned the driver, and if the driver didn’t react, the car would have hit the brakes automatically. Uber disabled the factory included autonomous safety system in lieu of their own half baked system. That car stock should have seen the obstacle and braked. In fact, a lady pushing a bike perpendicularly across the road would be the easiest thing for Volvo’s system to react to. Uber’s system did not. A video explanation of this technology is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXOew2N8GBY.

    Not only is radar standard on a lot of everyday vehicles now, but also infrared night vision is also an option on some vehicles, which you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_night_vision. This night vision would have seen the lady, even if the headlights didn’t.

    There is too much discussion about whether or not a human driver could have reacted in time to have a different outcome in this situation. My take on this is, who cares? That is the wrong question to be asking. An autonomous driving system that is as good as a human driver is not nearly good enough. It needs to be better. Much better. It needs to see what a human can’t see. It needs to react before a human even knows there is a problem.

    Why is Uber testing autonomous vehicles?
    - They are NOT an engineering company
    - They are NOT a technology company
    - They have a history of not following process
    - They have a history of rushing into things without proper checks and balances

    Autonomous driving is the future. Uber is not the company to take us there. Their system is half baked and does not belong on public roads.
    That's something I've been curious about myself, is how do companies get approval to just put a driverless car on the road for testing in the first place? A logical person would assume these things would have to be tested on closed courses for years before ever being allowed to operate on the streets.

    I'll have to take a look at the video you posted a link to. Something coming in perpendicular to the vehicle is actually one of the things that virtually every interference system will NOT respond to. They generally do not respond with brake application until something is directly in front of travel path. However a few of the higher end manufacturers like volvo could be ahead of the game.

    I haven't seen virtually any discussion about whether a human driver could've reacted better to this accident. But I would have to disagree, that is exactly the question that needs to be asked. They have value if they're just as good as humans, however the goal should obviously be to be even better. And they have proven the systems ARE better in the overall scheme of things. This incident really just showed something that needs work and improvement. It's hard to feel bad for a pedestrian with a death wish, but at least it was someone that didn't value their life much that we get to learn from and make these systems better, than some innocent person in a crosswalk or something.

  4. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,807
    Thanks
    4,474
    Thanked 1,270 Times in 829 Posts

    Default

    I think the infrared system mercedes uses would probably have worked better.

    Regardless, maybe people shouldn't j-walk across a busy highway in the middle of the fucking night? That's who's at fault here.
    Quote Originally Posted by LOLJDM View Post
    Rob with an awesome post as always.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AudiInProgress For This Useful Post:

    carman (March 26th, 2018), MisterMan (March 26th, 2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •