# First self driving (reported) fatality



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2018)

Apparently about 1000 die on Arizona roads each year, but illogically I find this one troubling 
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal autonomous car crash


----------



## Bazzer (19 Mar 2018)

So what was the operator inside the vehicle doing at the time?


----------



## numbnuts (19 Mar 2018)

Bazzer said:


> So what was the operator inside the vehicle doing at the time?


On his/her mobile


----------



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2018)

numbnuts said:


> On his/her mobile


Possibly, but I would certainly find it harder to concentrate on the road if I didn't _have_ to. It's easy for attention to drift even without distraction.

I wonder how often human intervention has prevented this sort of tragedy in the trials? I wouldn't put it past Uber to keep running the tests after collisions have been avoided, and only stopped them now a fatality has occurred, that they can't cover up.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Mar 2018)

The answer is no we won’t.

It won’t matter if there are statistically less deaths, people aren’t rational beings.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5187206, member: 9609"]To judge the incident we would need to know the full facts and see some video (which hopefully we wont get to see) , the pedestrian may have suddenly and unexpectedly stepped out, it may not have been preventable by even the carefullest and skilled driver.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt she was fired into the car's way by a cannon or similar.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Mar 2018)

Pedestrians are expected to step out into the road. It is what they do when they want to get to the other side.


----------



## Milzy (19 Mar 2018)

Someone should be charged with manslaughter.


----------



## fossyant (19 Mar 2018)

Milzy said:


> Someone should be charged with manslaughter.



Uber !! Could be very serious actually.


----------



## mickle (19 Mar 2018)

Just as I predicted!

(No-one ever listens to me. *rolls eyes*)


----------



## slowmotion (20 Mar 2018)

I think I would rather take my chances on the road with fallible human drivers than put my life in the hands of a spotty Silicon Valley software geek with limited life experience and an unrealistic faith in the algorithms that he's been asked to code that afternoon.


----------



## Inertia (20 Mar 2018)

slowmotion said:


> I think I would rather take my chances on the road with fallible human drivers than put my life in the hands of a spotty Silicon Valley software geek with limited life experience and an unrealistic faith in the algorithms that he's been asked to code that afternoon.


I'm sure you will be relieved to know that More thought, time and effort has gone into it than some imaginary geek in an afternoon.

That said, I think an uber smart car is the last self diving car iwould choose to be in


----------



## DCLane (20 Mar 2018)

The danger here is not that someone's died but that legislation follows which outlaws from roads anything a self-driving car would struggle to avoid, i.e. pedestrians, horses, cyclists. It's potentially a massive industry and we are (literally) in their way.


----------



## rualexander (20 Mar 2018)

The images I saw showed a damaged bike lying on the pavement (sidewalk) beside the robot car, so was the pedestrian a cyclist who was walking at the time they decided to cross the road?


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

rualexander said:


> The images I saw showed a damaged bike lying on the pavement (sidewalk) beside the robot car, so was the pedestrian a cyclist who was walking at the time they decided to cross the road?


Yes. The police have started blaming the victim for not using a crosswalk, suggesting she was homeless and jumped out. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17140936/uber-self-driving-crash-death-homeless-arizona


----------



## Inertia (20 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> You can't make an omlette without killing people.


Remind me never to come to your house for breakfast!


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

Inertia said:


> Remind me never to come to your house for breakfast!


"You're in terrible danger, girl!"


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Mar 2018)

Of course autopilot cars will cause some fatalities especially whike the tech is new.
Tech learns, humans rarely do, furthermore the tech will spread faster than human learnings.
Considering the number of deaths caused by drivers already on the roads the chances that autonomous vehicles will soon be safer than human controlled are pretty excellent.


----------



## confusedcyclist (20 Mar 2018)

Inertia said:


> I'm sure you will be relieved to know that More thought, time and effort has gone into it than some imaginary geek in an afternoon.
> 
> That said, I think an uber smart car is the last self diving car iwould choose to be in


A lot of time and effort, and still someone had to die.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

confusedcyclist said:


> still someone had to die.


Everyone has to die.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

slowmotion said:


> I think I would rather take my chances on the road with fallible human drivers than put my life in the hands of a spotty Silicon Valley software geek with limited life experience and an unrealistic faith in the algorithms that he's been asked to code that afternoon.


That may be true in the UK, but I just did a teeny bit of research, and I think you might be safer in the hands of the spotty nerd in Arizona.

2016 pedestrian fatalities:

UK, population 66 million, 448 or 7 per million people.
Arizona, population 7 million, 193 or *28 per million people. *
So, 4x as dangerous as walking in the UK, if you assume that Arizonians walk as far as Brits. I'm guessing not, because I assume that there is less reliance on public transport, and parking is likely to be closer to the destination. Also this. (edit) Also also this ... average 37? So for every day there is a max of 30, there's another of 44??







Maybe that's why Uber is testing in Arizona. They won't notice a few more dead pedestrians.

(for some reason, this reminds me of Fahrenheit 451)


----------



## Foghat (21 Mar 2018)

The last time I saw, self-driving cars had significant difficulty detecting, identifying, predicting the behaviour of, and negotiating safely, cyclists. That's before even taking into account the propensity for complex electronic equipment to malfunction.

Has this dire problem been comprehensively resolved, and if not, what the bollocks are they doing being allowed on roads in autonomous mode where cyclists and pedestrians are present?


----------



## slowmotion (21 Mar 2018)

It's early days, and the data isn't in with a significant sample yet ( wake up @srw). How many people have to die to prove the technology is safe?

Actually, how many fatalities are there per human driver car mile in Arizona, compared to deaths per car mile by clever clogs cars in Arizona?


----------



## winjim (22 Mar 2018)

Dashcam footage released. Distressing, obviously.

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-s...mpe-police-release-video-of-deadly-uber-crash

Opinion seems to be that the car was not at fault as it was obeying the law and the pedestrian was not using a crossing. Also that a human driver would not have been able to react in time.

So 'obeys the law' and 'is probably no less safe than a human driver' seems to be the incredibly low bar that's being set.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5189466, member: 9609"]from this page https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/STSI.htm#

in 2015 - 155 pedestrian fatalities in 65 billion miles = 1 every 420 million miles

uber - 1 pedestrian in 2 million miles (don't think all these miles were in arizona?)

To early to call it, but its not a good start.[/QUOTE]
Teething problems.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Er.......isn't that exactly the sort of scenario where the 'capabilities' of such cars are meant to render a collision avoidable?

She was just walking at normal walking speed across a lit road and neither the bloody driver nor the car with all its f*cking electronic wizardry bothered detecting her.


----------



## winjim (22 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Er.......isn't that exactly the sort of scenario where the 'capabilities' of such cars are meant to render a collision avoidable?
> 
> She was just walking at normal walking speed across a lit road and neither the bloody driver nor the car with all its f*cking electronic wizardry bothered detecting her.


I wonder how they've told the car to interpret the rules of the road. If they've programmed it according to Arizona law then it won't be expecting to see a pedestrian outside a crossing, or will at least expect to have right of way over them.

I don't think the driver was paying any sort of real attention to the road.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Dashcam footage released. Distressing, obviously.
> 
> https://www.abc15.com/news/region-s...mpe-police-release-video-of-deadly-uber-crash
> 
> ...


Isn't it a bit depressing that the clever clogs have probably built in an algorithm into their wretched cars that allows them to kill people as long as they can't be held legally responsible? There's probably the entire Highway Code and legal precedent working away in their software every inch you drive.

Badly.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Mar 2018)

Opinion would be very different if a mum had lost control of a pram which had entered the roadway and been ignored by the self driving car's sensors and the inattentive chaperone. There is no functional difference between the 2 situations. We see now how well the jay walking propaganda has worked in the USA we now have victim blaming, it also helps the victim blaming mindset that the woman was homeless.

Here is the dash cam video, dash cams are way worse than human eyes at dealing with low light situations, it's clear from the interior that the 'driver' was not paying attention (looking at a phone?)

This self driving car is supposed to have LIDAR and other sensors if this is how it responds it would drive straight through people at a crossing.

(the video of the incident, it cuts at just before the impact but is still of course pretty hard to watch)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO9iRUx5wmM


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Mar 2018)

confusedcyclist said:


> A lot of time and effort, and still someone had to die.


Yes, like the development of the automobile that kills tens of thousands every year.... and we still have not learned anything since we removed the man with the flag.


----------



## winjim (22 Mar 2018)

Fab Foodie said:


> Yes, like the development of the automobile that kills tens of thousands every year.... and we still have not learned anything since we removed the man with the flag.


Heard a discussion about this on R4 the other day. First pedestrian fatality caused by a car was 1896 or thereabouts. Hit by a car at 4mph. The coroner at the time said it must never be allowed to happen again. 

Interviewee said, and I paraphrase, at that point we could have decided to stop development of the motor vehicle but we've basically decided as a society to accept a certain amount of collateral damage.


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Mar 2018)

Yes death by car is socially acceptable... but not everywhere. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02...op-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/

That video is shocking, that's exactly the kind of collision you would expect an automated vehicle should prevent.


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Heard a discussion about this on R4 the other day. First pedestrian fatality caused by a car was 1896 or thereabouts. Hit by a car at 4mph. The coroner at the time said it must never be allowed to happen again.
> 
> Interviewee said, and I paraphrase, at that point we could have decided to stop development of the motor vehicle but we've basically decided as a society to accept a certain amount of collateral damage.


Exactly.


----------



## Jody (22 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> Here is the dash cam video, dash cams are way worse than human eyes at dealing with low light situations,



Agreed. I think the camera footage is a cop out. They should show the footage taken from the infa red and night vision as the car must be equipped with it. 

When I look at my dash cam footage from night there is so much it doesnt pick up that I did.


----------



## snorri (22 Mar 2018)

A two part video has now been released...... 
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...lf-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona


----------



## jefmcg (22 Mar 2018)

It's youtube, so ...

WARNING: it stops a millisecond before a fatal collision, so think carefully before you click.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=RASBcc4yOOo


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Mar 2018)

snorri said:


> A two part video has now been released......
> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...lf-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona


That's the first one I saw. 

''... skeptics have pointed out that the industry is entering a dangerous phase while the cars aren’t yet fully autonomous, but human operators aren’t fully engaged.''​So the car's not really driving itself, the passenger behind the wheel isn't. Next question: what's driving it?


----------



## PK99 (22 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> I wonder how they've told the car to interpret the rules of the road. If they've programmed it according to Arizona law then it won't be expecting to see a pedestrian outside a crossing, or will at least expect to have right of way over them.
> .



....and if it had been a deer or other wild animal?

The programming should avoid any hazard in the road.


----------



## winjim (22 Mar 2018)

Jody said:


> Agreed. I think the camera footage is a cop out. They should show the footage taken from the infa red and night vision as the car must be equipped with it.
> 
> When I look at my dash cam footage from night there is so much it doesnt pick up that I did.


It's not even footage as such that's needed. It's raw data from the sensors and information on how the car interprets and reacts to that data, how it's been programmed etc.

I am of course being massively cynical when I suggest it may be liable to ignore jaywalking pedestrians, but I wonder how transparent they'll be when it comes to disclosing their software.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Mar 2018)

It is shocking. That situation is basically the most simple one you could have for avoiding an accident. There are no confounding factors, no complexity, the setup is not fit to be used on the roads.


----------



## Bazzer (22 Mar 2018)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> That's the first one I saw.
> 
> ''... skeptics have pointed out that the industry is entering a dangerous phase while the cars aren’t yet fully autonomous, *but human operators aren’t fully engaged.''*​So the car's not really driving itself, the passenger behind the wheel isn't. Next question: what's driving it?



Hmm, I think a good starting point would be to get human operators in non autonomous cars fully engaged.

I do also find myself wondering about the selection process for the operator/s. With something as important, both in terms of potentially future transport and people's lives on the road being trialled, I would be wanting to make sure the operators were fully engaged with the experiment and appreciated the attention a fatality or injury was likely to bring. Clearly with the operator seemingly on a mobile device, that selection process has failed.


----------



## Spinney (22 Mar 2018)

Bazzer said:


> I do also find myself wondering about the selection process for the operator/s. With something as important, both in terms of potentially future transport and people's lives on the road being trialled, I would be wanting to make sure the operators were fully engaged with the experiment and appreciated the attention a fatality or injury was likely to bring. Clearly with the operator seemingly on a mobile device, that selection process has failed.


They should have the equivalent of a test pilot in there, noting what he/she would have done/observed in all the situations encountered.
Not the equivalent of a lager lout on a charter flight.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Mar 2018)

Bazzer said:


> Hmm, I think a good starting point would be to get human operators in non autonomous cars fully engaged.
> 
> I do also find myself wondering about the selection process for the operator/s. With something as important, both in terms of potentially future transport and people's lives on the road being trialled, I would be wanting to make sure the operators were fully engaged with the experiment and appreciated the attention a fatality or injury was likely to bring. Clearly with the operator seemingly on a mobile device, that selection process has failed.



It's not about the person it's about the situation unless your hands are on the wheel and feet on the pedals you cannot react like a human driver, you are not mentally or physically engaged because you are not having to plan ahead or be primed to use your instinct during the process of driving.

Obviously yes in this instance they were clearly distracted by a phone as well which is even worse but it demonstrates they either need to be really actually self driving or not on the roads at all.


----------



## Bazzer (22 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> It's not about the person it's about the situation unless your hands are on the wheel and feet on the pedals you cannot react like a human driver, you are not mentally or physically engaged because you are not having to plan ahead or be primed to use your instinct during the process of driving.
> 
> Obviously yes in this instance they were clearly distracted by a phone as well which is even worse but it demonstrates they either need to be really actually self driving or not on the roads at all.



True, but if you are engaged in the process, an incident might have been avoided or mitigated. Otherwise WTF was the purpose of the operator?

A view here about the some of the technical gadgetry carried by the vehicle.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Mar 2018)

The purpose of the operator is what you think however it is ineffective, is just a legal requirement that has never come under proper scrutiny.


----------



## FishFright (22 Mar 2018)

I wonder how many people have died on the roads at the hands of human drivers since the opening post ?


----------



## FishFright (22 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190114, member: 9609"]A lot less than if all the cars in the world were autonomous, autonomous seem to be killing pedestrians at a rate 220x greater than human drivers.

I certainly don't want to be sharing the roads with these things, the project needs shelved for a decade.[/QUOTE]

Over the next decade autonomous driving will , most likely, advance greatly with every improvement patched into all the systems. Meanwhile will all drivers be doing the same? 

Alternatively we can shelve it for a decade which will do .... nothing


----------



## Inertia (22 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190191, member: 9609"]Meanwhile can I request they don't use any of the roads I cycle on. Yes humans are just human and do make mistakes, but that was one serious howler from the robot car, utterly clueless, probably the most basic and fundamental requirement in not crashing into things directly infront and it failed miserably.

another decade may give time for the technology to get its self more up to speed.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we can find out what went wrong first before we decide to shelve something that could save a lot of lives on our roads for a decade.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Mar 2018)

What went wrong is using public roads and peoples lives as a test track.


----------



## Inertia (22 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190240, member: 9609"]I have been a big fan of the autonomous vehicles up until this accident, like many I feel eventually it will make the roads safer - but this accident was such a fundamental failure that I now think we must be many many years away, this was not even a remotely complex situation, big wide open road, little traffic, low speed, obvious and slow moving pedestrian moving across in front and it failed big time. The thing is an utter disaster and needs scrapped, you don't get a second chance with this sort of failure.[/QUOTE]
Clearly something went wrong and we need to find out what and try and fix it. What makes you think that we need to shelve it for 10 years?


----------



## Inertia (22 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> What went wrong is using public roads and peoples lives as a test track.


I think it will have to be tested on public roads eventually. Possibly it is too early and it feels like they have been quite lax on safety. It looked like the driver definitely wasnt on the ball and trusted the car more than he should.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Mar 2018)

It's being done RIGHT NOW and it's just KILLED a person.


----------



## snorri (22 Mar 2018)

A spokesperson at the Geneva Motor Show has the solution.
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/bike-beacons


----------



## Profpointy (22 Mar 2018)

snorri said:


> A spokesperson at the Geneva Motor Show has the solution.
> https://www.bikebiz.com/news/bike-beacons




Shockingly that's supposedly from a cycling industry person. Cars are dangerous so cyclists, and presumably pedestrians should carry beacons to communicate with the automated cars. Wtaf?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Mar 2018)

snorri said:


> A spokesperson at the Geneva Motor Show has the solution.
> https://www.bikebiz.com/news/bike-beacons


Aha, a high-tech solution to save cyclists from a high-tech problem!


----------



## gaijintendo (22 Mar 2018)

A lot of cars are rolling out with Automatic Braking Systems. I believe Volvo market the fact they can spot bicycles.

The idea behind them is x% of accidents are rear-endings, so let's try and prevent those...

If you think sentencing is lenient now... just wait until drivers point their fingers at the car. Interesting times.

Uber, from everything I have read, seems to be a bit of a shambles of a tech firm. I would not be too quick to dismiss any thoughts of negligence.


----------



## Dan B (22 Mar 2018)

Inertia said:


> Maybe we can find out what went wrong first before we decide to shelve something that could save a lot of lives on our roads for a decade.


Maybe during that decade we can test the code in a test environment before shipping it to production? This is basic software engineering - facebook-style "move fast and break things" is really not appropriate when the fast-moving object is a 1.5 tonne car and the "things" are actually people


----------



## FishFright (22 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> It's being done RIGHT NOW and it's just KILLED a person.



A cyclist has killed someone on the road fairly recently, I think we need to crush our bikes and close this forum RIGHT NOW!!*

Aren't unnecessary capitals fun!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Mar 2018)

If they must be tested in urban environments then they should be restricted to a maximum speed of 20mph, which gives a survival rate seven times better than being hit at 30. In addition, in any collision the driver should be held jointly and severally liable for any harm caused through failure of the vehicle's systems to react correctly, as well as criminally liable.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

Oh well. At least the UK isn't testing them on roads.

They're testing them on cycleways


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Oh well. At least the UK isn't testing them on roads.
> 
> They're testing them on cycleways


Yes, I was thinking that too. It certainly was the case on the NCN1 by the O2 dome in Greenwich. Have cycleways been used elsewhere?


----------



## Illaveago (23 Mar 2018)

I was shocked when I saw the footage on the news last night .
If the person had been killed by a gun there would be calls for tighter control or outright ban on firearms . If the person was in control of the vehicle some people would say that they should have been driving at a speed where they could have seen the person and taken avoiding action.
The Australian's view of the incident seems to be correct in questioning how a vehicle with all of the sensors wasn't aware of the person. The fact that the person came out of the shadows doesn't count when the car was equipped with radar.
It is becoming more difficult driving on modern roads with bad driving and pedestrians thinking that they can suddenly leap out in front of you at the last second. You have to be aware of people making stupid decisions all the time and the introduction of driverless vehicles could lull people into a false sense of security.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Yes, I was thinking that too. It certainly was the case on the NCN1 by the O2 dome in Greenwich. Have cycleways been used elsewhere?


A section in Milton Keynes was approved, but I don't know if it's still used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37618574


----------



## Jody (23 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> If the person had been killed by a gun there would be calls for tighter control or outright ban on firearms .



Straight after would be the Vehicle Drivers Association to say the only way to combat this menace would be for everyone to have a car to protect themselves from other cars


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> It is becoming more difficult driving on modern roads with bad driving and pedestrians thinking that they can suddenly leap out in front of you at the last second. You have to be aware of people making stupid decisions all the time and the introduction of driverless vehicles could lull people into a false sense of security.


Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU


----------



## Welsh wheels (23 Mar 2018)

DCLane said:


> The danger here is not that someone's died but that legislation follows which outlaws from roads anything a self-driving car would struggle to avoid, i.e. pedestrians, horses, cyclists. It's potentially a massive industry and we are (literally) in their way.


If they brought in self-driving cars, as a cyclist I would be very nervous and constantly looking over my shoulder!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Mar 2018)

Jody said:


> Straight after would be the Vehicle Drivers Association to say the only way to combat this menace would be for everyone to have a car to protect themselves from other cars


That car-to-protect-from-car mentality is already there. It's often behind that slightly scandalised reaction when you suggest someone might consider using a bike. ''Too dangerous....''


----------



## Welsh wheels (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190627, member: 9609"]I already do that, I visually make sure any thing that is about to pass me has moved out. You can usually hear when they are approaching that they have seen you and are preparing for a pass, but all the same I watch over my shoulder to make sure they are going to give me room. Lorries (particularly, loggers, bulkers & tippers) I usually get off the bike and off the road.

I had hoped autonomous would make things better, but sadly not, I would rather take my chances with drunk drivers then this new technology.[/QUOTE]
True, I often do the same now.


----------



## Illaveago (23 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU



The stupid decisions are when pedestrians suddenly cross a road without looking or making any signs of body language which suggests that they are about to cross the road. 
Do or can self driving cars read body language ?
As shown in the incident footage a similar thing could happen again as they haven't discovered the cause. I have seen a lot of pedestrians taking a casual approach to crossing roads in which case they have relied on the motorist to take avoiding action. Now put those people in to the same situation as happened in America and the result would be the same. The vehicle wouldn't see them and neither would the driver as he or she assumed that the machine was in control.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU




See that big patch of sawdust in the middle of shot?
It's soaking up the blood of a software glitch during the first take.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

Remember all those times people said AVs would be useless because pedestrians or cyclists could lazily wander about the road and the AV would slow or stop to avoid a collision?

You'd have to be super-cycnical to wonder if the AV manufacturers would consider this as a lesson taught to those who'd be minded to disrupt an AV's progress.

They're already calling for cyclists to be forced to wear a beacon so they can be detected, and pedestrians will be next.
That idea alone makes it clear to me that AVs are nowhere near ready to be trialled on public roads.

(Oh, and what do you do when you're miles from home and your beacon goes flat?)


----------



## Inertia (23 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Remember all those times people said AVs would be useless because pedestrians or cyclists could lazily wander about the road and the AV would slow or stop to avoid a collision?
> 
> You'd have to be super-cycnical to wonder if the AV manufacturers would consider this as a lesson taught to those who'd be minded to disrupt an AV's progress.
> 
> ...


AVs need to be able to operate in the world as it is, not in some artificial world we make for them. It just illustrates the blinkered view that is prevalent. The car is so important that we all have to adapt to suit it, rather than the other way around.


----------



## Inertia (23 Mar 2018)

Interesting article focusing on ubers self diving car program.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/video-suggests-huge-problems-with-ubers-driverless-car-program/

There should be a few worried people at uber.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

Apparently this Marsillo guy has connections with a software development company that's involved with AVs. Looks like he's been slipped in to his role at the Confederation for the European Bicycle Industry to exert influence in making cyclists adapt to AVs rather than, as it ought to be, the other way around.

How can the average rider hope to resist when an international cycling body calls for this shoot? They're crafty b'stards these motor industry people.


----------



## humboldt (23 Mar 2018)

There's been a shocking amount of victim-blaming floating around regarding this, especially tech site comment sections who can't bear to see AVs threatened. It seems like it's enough to them to say 'well she was jaywalking so really it's her fault'. Personally I think jaywalking is a nonsense 'offence' and only crops up in countries like the US where cars may as well be demigods. Yes it's not good when a pedestrian steps out and you have to take evasive action but they are still the most vulnerable people who will be on the road at any time, plus they have a certain right to actually use their streets once in a while outside the narrow constraints of signage and walkways and not have to think that the incredibly dangerous metal boxes speeding around will just plough through them with impunity and lay the blame on them. This woman wasn't even suddenly jinking off to one side and stepping into the street; she was purposefully making her way across a road and the car hit her seemingly without slowing down. If a human driver came at you without attempting to even scrub off speed just because you were in their way you would think they were monstrous or blind (or on their phone like the Uber safety driver).
I've also been unhappy with responses from safety advocates who seem to be settling on 'this is bad but let's sort of gloss over it because in the long term AVs = SAFETY! Once the tech's ready we'll remove stupid human error forever!' Personally I didn't want autonomous vehicles just to be normal cars driving on their own; I had hoped we would end up with lighter, quieter, less dangerous and more efficient/greener vehicles for this purpose but that may just be pathetically idealistic of me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

Here's some video of the street where the collision occurred, taken at night and showing just how well lit the area is. Remember that the human eye will have an even clearer view than the camera's sensor.
(Rather worryingly, it appears to be handheld device by driver!)
RTC location is about 33 seconds in.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRW0q8i3u6E&feature=youtu.be


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> They're already calling for cyclists to be forced to wear a beacon so they can be detected, and pedestrians will be next.
> That idea alone makes it clear to me that AVs are nowhere near ready to be trialled on public roads.
> 
> (Oh, and what do you do when you're miles from home and your beacon goes flat?)


You have to get off and walk. AVs can cope with people walking.... oh, wait... 

I wonder whether the beacons will have a light on them so you know it's working... and how much the light will shorten the beacon's battery life... and whether there will be cheap fake beacons on ebay that only have the light... it's not really a workable idea, is it? Why is it not being laughed out of existence?


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> The stupid decisions are when pedestrians suddenly cross a road without looking or making any signs of body language which suggests that they are about to cross the road.
> Do or can self driving cars read body language ?


Some do, because one got confused by a trackstand.

The person killed didn't exactly "suddenly cross a road without looking or making any signs of body language" - they were most of the way across the road before being struck and you can't have much clearer body language than having almost crossed.

This looks like a catastrophic fundamental system failure and all vehicles using that system must be kept off road until it's debugged, plus I feel the test vehicles should have something like the Driver Safety Device and Driver Vigilance Device used on trains to increase the probability that the human driver is alive and attentive.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190767, member: 45"]I was physically threatened in an IKEA car park a few weeks ago because I was making my way to our car and in a driver's way. This attitude stinks and it's performed on the public highway day in, day out.[/QUOTE]
Was that near you? Motorists seem particularly aggressive there. I saw someone walking deliberately (albeit gently, thankfully) run into in Worle Sainsbury's car park seemingly because they didn't get out of the driver's way after being indicated at and honked at.  Several of us in the car park told the driver what we thought of them  but the victim didn't want to call the police... was it that she didn't want to waste their time, given how Avon & Somerset Police back then didn't seem interested in road rage, or maybe it's part of widespread public acceptance that if you are walking not on a footway then you're fair game for motorists


----------



## humboldt (23 Mar 2018)

I really loathe it when someone lays on the horn if they perceive you as walking slightly too slowly and holding them up, especially if they're actually going to be going nowhere anyway. I was midway across Holloway Road the other day when the green man started flashing and a couple of plumbers started revving their Transit and honking at me. I made sure to stop dead and give them the finger for a solid five seconds just so they could actually have something to legitimately be annoyed about. I'm nice like that sometimes.


----------



## Illaveago (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190767, member: 45"]Dramatics aside, I think that driverless vehicles could bring a positive if it takes us back to the place where pedestrians can rightly walk in the road without fear of being killed.

I was physically threatened in an IKEA car park a few weeks ago because I was making my way to our car and in a driver's way. This attitude stinks and it's performed on the public highway day in, day out.[/QUOTE]
I am just being realistic. These vehicles seem to be designed where Jaywalking is illegal and the driverless car has right of way over anyone that happens to be in it's way. As in a previous post above which includes an American assessment of Uber incidents so far, it implies that the vehicles do not recognise the difference between lanes of stationary vehicles and an open road and will speed along regardless of any vehicle which might cross it's path. It could be the reason why the car failed to react going by what was written in that post.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190903, member: 9609"]It should make no difference whether jaywalking rules apply or not, the car should not crash into any obstacle that it encounters, I'm sure it would be illegal to leave a 20 ton block of concrete in the middle of the road, whats the car going to do with that, drive into it 40mph then say it shouldn't have been there.[/QUOTE]
Does this mean we can get rid of self-driving cars simply by installing car traps on their roads and expecting humans to drive around one side of them? After all, if they can't see a bicycle in front of them, what chance a car trap:





http://cycle.st/p17296


----------



## jarlrmai (23 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> I am just being realistic. These vehicles seem to be designed where Jaywalking is illegal and the driverless car has right of way over anyone that happens to be in it's way. As in a previous post above which includes an American assessment of Uber incidents so far, it implies that the vehicles do not recognise the difference between lanes of stationary vehicles and an open road and will speed along regardless of any vehicle which might cross it's path. It could be the reason why the car failed to react going by what was written in that post.



So this is either the terrifying reality of the jaywalking law written in to a robot terminator style or the robot car was just not able to detect an obstruction and stop the car which would appear to be the most basic expectation of a robot car.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (23 Mar 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> Obviously yes in this instance they were clearly distracted by a phone as well which is even worse but it demonstrates they either need to be really actually self driving or not on the roads at all.



The problem is that humans quickly become bored by things they are not interested in. When I'm driving a vehicle I have no choice but to pay attention in order to be able to control it. Therefore I don't get bored. When I'm a passenger in a vehicle that someone else is driving in a smooth manner (and not throwing me around), my attention soon wanders from what is going on ahead to all sorts of other things. In reality, you cannot expect a person sitting in a car who is not actually driving it, to maintain a high level of alertness to road hazards. I am NOT a believer in autonomous vehicles in any shape or form being allowed on to public roads where the environment is always going to be unpredictable and often chaotic. The roads in places like Arizona aren't even a difficult test of this technology. If you want to try to prove autonomous vehicles are ACTUALLY safe then run the trials in the middle of a major city in a third-world country teeming with suicidal truck, bus & car drivers, motorcyclists, pedal cyclists, animals, and pedestrians and see how many times the autonomous car has an accident in that scenario.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


>



I think that is a demonstration of the big problem with them. None of the cars makes any adjustments for the humans, because the people are moving with the same precision as the cars. If a pedestrian stopped to look at their phone, or jumped forwards or back because they didn't trust the car not to hit them, then there would be a huge pile up.

The vehicles are all moving like a giant clock work engine. Put a normally behaving human in there, and the effect would be like dropping a mouse into the workings of big ben**

**yes, I know Ben is the bell, not the clock.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5191040, member: 45"]I think it's more complex than that, and that there are levels of consciousness and alert. I doubt there are many drivers who are conscious that they're changing gear. Speed and engine noise monitoring, and processing of which gear is needed are all subconscious, as is the resultant gear change. We don't consciously steer either. Or indicate.[/QUOTE]
I can accept that the listening or glancing at the rev counter needle/bar and "SHIFT v^" indicator (if you have it) may be routine almost to the point of subconscious but I'm surprised that gear changing (in a manual car, anyway) is subconscious for anyone.

Similarly steering - I often find myself thinking about steering and how much I want to turn the wheel which way when to move the car around in a certain way.

Maybe that sort of thing is why I don't really like driving  Cycling seems much more intuitive, especially now half my bikes only have one gear lever.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5191068, member: 45"]Maybe we're both assuming that everyone else is the same as we are. Our car doesn't have a rev counter and I don't look at the shift indicator, and I'm never aware that I'm changing gear, nor steering.[/QUOTE]
Blimey. Next you'll be saying it doesn't have a head-up display or any way to fit one. Is it a vintage car?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

In the past I've occasionally had a car journey where, on arrival at my destination and thinking back to the trip, I've little or no recollection of events along the way. Almost like I've been in a trance or on autopilot, driving without absorbing my surroundings.

That hasn't happened for a very long time, possibly because it worried me and the fear of it happening again has made me more attentive.

One thing I have noticed is that this has never happened to me at the end of a cycling journey. (In fact I can replay the full trip in my head.) 
Is this because when cycling we are so much more engaged with what's around us, since we are so vulnerable?


----------



## jefmcg (23 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Almost like I've been in a trance or on autopilot, driving without absorbing my surroundings.


I know that feeling. I think you probably were paying attention, but because your amygdala is not excited, so nothing got written to short term memory. If something - god forbid - exciting had happened on your journey, you'd have found yourself well aware of what had immediately preceded it. But as nothing did happen, 15 seconds later your brain says "I am not going to replace the last memory of our 12 birthday with 1/4 of a mile of the M8"


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> because your amygdala is not excited



Does that mean my amygdala is excited when I'm cycling? Not that I know what an amygdala is ... <goes off to google>


----------



## jefmcg (23 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Not that I know what an amygdala is ... <goes off to google>


Safe search off!

(just kidding)


----------



## Illaveago (23 Mar 2018)

The first fatality was in July 2016 when a Tesla tried to drive through a lorry trailer, the car was in auto mode.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> The first fatality was in July 2016 when a Tesla tried to drive through a lorry trailer, the car was in auto mode.


autopilot is semi-autonomous more like glorified cruise control.


----------



## Bazzer (23 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5190997, member: 45"]...and the "Safety Driver" was on FB...[/QUOTE]

Nah google for the nearest Krispy Kreme doughnut store.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> It's youtube, so ...
> 
> WARNING: it stops a millisecond before a fatal collision, so think carefully before you click.
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=RASBcc4yOOo



Either that's a crap camera, or uber deliberately darkened the video.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=1XOVxSCG8u0

Edit: Uber use night-vision, to show us the driver not doing her job, inside the cabin, but my-first-video-camera pointing outside.


----------



## classic33 (24 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Heard a discussion about this on R4 the other day. First pedestrian fatality caused by a car was 1896 or thereabouts. Hit by a car at 4mph. The coroner at the time said it must never be allowed to happen again.
> 
> Interviewee said, and I paraphrase, at that point we could have decided to stop development of the motor vehicle but we've basically decided as a society to accept a certain amount of collateral damage.



Irish scientist Mary Ward, was run over by a steam-powered car in 1869 in County Down, possibly making her the first auto-traffic victim in history.

(Source: Citystreets.org, Wikipedia)


----------



## PMarkey (28 Mar 2018)

According to a post on another forum the Uber car was driving with part of it's system switched off (Mobileye collision avoidance system) Mobileye are reported to be very unhappy .


Paul


----------



## jefmcg (28 Mar 2018)

PMarkey said:


> According to a post on another forum the Uber car was driving with part of it's system switched off (Mobileye collision avoidance system) Mobileye are reported to be very unhappy .
> 
> 
> Paul


Thanks for the update. Do you have link to the other forum and ... do we know if the driver (whom Uber named really quickly) was aware that subsystems had been disabled?


----------



## PMarkey (28 Mar 2018)

Link


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Mar 2018)

PMarkey said:


> Link


And for them what don't have enough time for yet another cycling forum, this might help: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality


----------



## Bazzer (29 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5196822, member: 45"]That suggests that the standard Volvo collision avoidance system had been disabled so that the separate Uber avoidance system could be tested.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is what is referred to here.



Whilst Uber appear to have truly shot themselves in the foot with this, I don't see the issue of self driving cars going away.


----------



## jefmcg (29 Mar 2018)

Uber settles with family of woman killed by self-driving car

We took longer than that to arrange my mum's funeral.


----------



## Bazzer (31 Mar 2018)

Seems like Tesla also employ f**kwits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43604440

Such gems as:
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.

"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added."..........


----------



## mjr (31 Mar 2018)

"It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long."

So how long is too long for Tesla's dead man's handle to activate the brake?


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Apr 2018)

This just proves my point about humans becoming bored and losing concentration if asked to do a non-stimulating, tedious task like watching a machine in case it malfunctions. Also keeping your hands on the steering wheel of a vehicle when someone/something else is actually doing the steering is an unnatural action, IMHO. If someone managed to design a self-propelling, self-steering bike with a "safety rider" just sitting on the saddle as a passenger, you would soon get a spate of "offs" as their attention would wander and if the bike failed, by the time they were shaken back to an alert state, any human reaction would come too late. 
There is also the issue of the judgement and motor control skills needed to pilot any kind of vehicle. When we drive a car (or ride a bike), we are constantly using the experiences we encounter on a journey as feedback that maintains and improves our skills. The more miles we cover the better we become because our brain receives more and more information. Take away the need for a human to have those skills in order not to crash their car or fall off their bike, and those skills won't be there when they are needed. Imagine sticking an aircraft pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit of a plane they had no actual experience of flying under manual control. If the autopilot failed they would have no stored experience in their heads from which to draw on to take over manually. They would be no better than grabbing a random passenger out of the cabin and asking them to fly the plane. For this reason I believe that self-driving vehicles are just a non-starter, except in a closed environment that excludes humans and animals from coming into contact with the vehicles.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Apr 2018)

[QUOTE 5191091, member: 45"]. Who needs a rev counter?[/QUOTE] ...a bishop?


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Apr 2018)

In a debate on another forums, non cyclist users of that forum seem to be of the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to expect cyclists to carry transmitters to help self driving cars identify us as bikes. They say it is no different to lights.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bazzer (18 Apr 2018)

And pedestrians, horses, temporary traffic lights. Should they also be required to carry transmitters, or do the non cyclists expect self driving cars to see those?

IIRC the woman killed by the Uber self driving car, was being a pedestrian at the time of her death.

If you use or buy something, you expect it to work as intentioned and properly in the environment for which it was designed, not go around killing or maiming people. If it doesn't then there is something wrong. Its called taking responsibilty.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Apr 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> In a debate on another forums, non cyclist users of that forum seem to be of the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to expect cyclists to carry transmitters to help self driving cars identify us as bikes. They say it is no different to lights.
> 
> Thoughts?



It's a load of nonsense. If the technology embodied in a self-driving car is incapable of recognising other road users, and static objects such as street furniture, trees, walls etc then that technology is simply not fit for purpose. Do you also fit transmitters to all deer, dogs, foxes etc, so they can also be "seen"? Self-driving cars on public roads are an idiotic idea, and one that is fundamentally flawed. Cyclists are required to display lights for the very good reason that humans cannot see an unlit cyclist in darkness, and our primary sense used is visual.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> It's a load of nonsense. If the technology embodied in a self-driving car is incapable of recognising other road users, and static objects such as street furniture, trees, walls etc then that technology is simply not fit for purpose. Do you also fit transmitters to all deer, dogs, foxes etc, so they can also be "seen"? Self-driving cars on public roads are an idiotic idea, and one that is fundamentally flawed. Cyclists are required to display lights for the very good reason that humans cannot see an unlit cyclist in darkness, and our primary sense used is visual.


Exactly, where there's inadequate technology, the answer is not more technology for all the other road users to prevent themselves from becoming targets, it's better technology in the first place. Or even less technology, and certainly none on public roads until it can be guaranteed to work safely.


----------



## humboldt (19 Apr 2018)

[QUOTE 5217848, member: 9609"]I certainly don't want to be a passenger in a car that would not be able to recognise a 10 ton boulder that had rolled or fallen onto the road. And what happens if a bridge has been wash out ?[/QUOTE]
All boulders must be fitted with transmitters. Easy.


----------



## theclaud (8 May 2018)

Item about driverless cars on R4 'All in the Mind' right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b1r3j1


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 May 2018)

theclaud said:


> Item about driverless cars on R4 'All in the Mind' right now.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b1r3j1


Did you catch the bit about the driverless shuttle buses in Greenwich (''Where shall we put it? Oh, yes, let's use a riverside cycle path....'') where someone with a name like Ed Galeia said, around 5 minutes into the programme, ''we may need pedestrian crossings for pedestrians to enforce the pedestrian behaviour that we want?'' Which makes it look very much like the problem with the interaction between driverless vehicles and other path users is that the pedestrians are doing it all wrong. And the word ''enforce'' suggests we need laws to keep people out of the way of driverless vehicles. Which, of course, is getting the whole thing completely arsey versey.


----------



## theclaud (9 May 2018)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Did you catch the bit about the driverless shuttle buses in Greenwich (''Where shall we put it? Oh, yes, let's use a riverside cycle path....'') where *someone with a name like Ed Galeia said, around 5 minutes into the programme, ''we may need pedestrian crossings for pedestrians to enforce the pedestrian behaviour that we want?''* Which makes it look very much like the problem with the interaction between driverless vehicles and other path users is that the pedestrians are doing it all wrong. And the word ''enforce'' suggests we need laws to keep people out of the way of driverless vehicles. Which, of course, is getting the whole thing completely arsey versey.



He should stick to fire safety. Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.


----------



## winjim (10 May 2018)

It woild appear that the pedestrian was detected by the car's sensors, but dismissed as a false positive by the software.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...-woman-before-fatal-crash-but-failed-to-stop/


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (12 May 2018)

theclaud said:


> . Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.



That situation will never be allowed to happen, as you would then have mischievous idiots deliberately bringing the roads to a standstill by walking in front of driverless vehicles and obstructing them. They don't do that very often with driven vehicles, because it won't be long before some irate driver will get out and bash them senseless, but no driver = no repercussions.
The reality is that ever since the days of horses & carts, there has always been a pecking order on the roads, and cyclists & pedestrians are at the bottom of the pyramid. Recognising this fact, and always acting with self-preservation in mind, is the key to survival on the roads - with or without driverless cars.


----------



## jarlrmai (15 May 2018)

They do it all the time in Kirkby mate.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 May 2018)

theclaud said:


> He should stick to fire safety. Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.


I was surprised to see his name crop up again in the media as an expert on a completely different topic; Grenfell Tower. He gets about does our Edwin.


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> That situation will never be allowed to happen, as you would then have mischievous idiots deliberately bringing the roads to a standstill by walking in front of driverless vehicles and obstructing them. They don't do that very often with driven vehicles, because it won't be long before some irate driver will get out and bash them senseless, but no driver = no repercussions.
> The reality is that ever since the days of horses & carts, there has always been a pecking order on the roads, and cyclists & pedestrians are at the bottom of the pyramid. *Recognising this fact, and always acting with self-preservation in mind, is the key to survival on the roads* - with or without driverless cars.


No. Resisting this domination is the key to reclaiming space that rightfully belongs to people and creating neighbourhoods and cities where people can go where they please without the threat of being killed and maimed. You should be thanking me every time I cross in front of a car, driverless or otherwise.


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2018)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I was surprised to see his name crop up again in the media as an expert on a completely different topic; Grenfell Tower. He gets about does our Edwin.


Their investment in car culture can turn perfectly reasonable people into crazed authoritarians. I bet he'd never suggest responding to the risk of fires in high-rise blocks by banning people from preparing their own hot dinners and insisting they all have to eat from the takeaway on the corner.


----------



## winjim (15 May 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> That situation will never be allowed to happen, as you would then have mischievous idiots deliberately bringing the roads to a standstill by walking in front of driverless vehicles and obstructing them. They don't do that very often with driven vehicles, because it won't be long before some irate driver will get out and bash them senseless, but no driver = no repercussions.


The cars are driverless, not passengerless.


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (20 May 2018)

winjim said:


> It woild appear that the pedestrian was detected by the car's sensors, but dismissed as a false positive by the software.
> 
> https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...-woman-before-fatal-crash-but-failed-to-stop/


 Yes indeed, don't think it is an coincedence Uber got this incident after they earlier had stolen parts of google's software. I like the revolution Uber brought to the texu scene however they driverless project seems to be hurried and very badly put together. I hope the authorities wil push into this too.


----------



## Bazzer (25 May 2018)

Preliminary report by the US authorities released
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY18MH010-prelim.aspx

Snippets:
_The vehicle was factory equipped with several advanced driver assistance functions by Volvo Cars, the original manufacturer. The systems included a collision avoidance function with automatic emergency braking, known as City Safety, as well as functions for detecting driver alertness and road sign information. All these Volvo functions are disabled when the test vehicle is operated in computer control but are operational when the vehicle is operated in manual control._
_
According to data obtained from the self-driving system, the system first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about 6 seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph. As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path. At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision (see figure 2).[2] According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

The self-driving system data showed that the vehicle operator intervened less than a second before impact by engaging the steering wheel. The vehicle speed at impact was 39 mph. The operator began braking less than a second after the impact. The data also showed that all aspects of the self-driving system were operating normally at the time of the crash, and that there were no faults or diagnostic messages. 

The inward-facing video shows the vehicle operator glancing down toward the center of the vehicle several times before the crash. In a postcrash interview with NTSB investigators, the vehicle operator stated that she had been monitoring the self-driving system interface. The operator further stated that although her personal and business phones were in the vehicle, neither was in use until after the crash, when she called 911.

_


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 May 2018)

Bazzer said:


> Preliminary report by the US authorities released



Is there any suggestion that the driver is going to be prosecuted?
Ultimately she is in control of the vehicle so should be responsible for events that occur while using it.


----------



## Bazzer (25 May 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is there any suggestion that the driver is going to be prosecuted?
> Ultimately she is in control of the vehicle so should be responsible for events that occur while using it.



Nothing in the report which says so, but as it is a report on the cause rather than who was to blame, I wouldn't expect it to.

But others should perhaps also be prosecuted too? For example:
The Arizona authorities if they knew of the limitations of the collision technology.
Uber if the collision systems were different to what had been approved. 
Uber for disabling the collision system already fitted to the car.
Whoever approved the driver could monitor the "self driving interface" by taking their eyes off the road.


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Nov 2019)

Damning NTSB report

https://www.wired.com/story/ubers-self-driving-car-didnt-know-pedestrians-could-jaywalk/

Our safety is increasingly in the hands of video game authors at Boeing, Uber and so on. Oooops, lose a life.


----------



## Blue Hills (7 Nov 2019)

Cripes - for that catalogue of failures surely they can have the pants sued off them?

And how the hell were they ever authorised to run their tests on public roads?

They should have been on a test track with plastic cones.

I am amazed that you so often hear/see news reports talking as if these things are the natural future that we will be seeing as commonplace in no time at all. Kinda implying that if you think otherwise/have doubts you are some sort of luddite.


----------



## Andy in Germany (7 Nov 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Cripes - for that catalogue of failures surely they can have the pants sued off them?
> 
> And how the hell were they ever authorised to run their tests on public roads?
> 
> ...



It is a deliberate propaganda method, an attempt to make people feel guilty or as of they are going against public opinion if they disagree. It is meant to make us feel uncomfortable and want to agree with the point of view of the article. It's used on a lot of things where corporations or governments feel the need to "manufacture consent" to something that may not be perceived as being in people's best interests (See also: Nuclear Deterrent/power, Brexit, or alternatively some of the more controversial 'progressive' changes being made in society, et, c; et, c...)


----------



## Bazzer (7 Nov 2019)

I wonder if the extent to which those within Arizona responsible for authorising the use of this experiment and who should have been aware of the software shortcomings, will be revealed?


----------



## dodgy (7 Nov 2019)

Even worse is that 'jaywalking' is a motoring industry construct in the first place.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (8 Nov 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> And how the hell were they ever authorised to run their tests on public roads?
> They should have been on a test track with plastic cones.



The trouble is that test tracks lined with plastic cones do not replicate real life road conditions, where all sorts of random unpredictable behaviour occurs by all sorts of participants.
Ultimately, despite all the hype by tech nerds & politicians, I believe that self-driving vehicles in uncontrolled environments, i.e. open public roads, will prove to be a technological dead end because more accidents will occur and they will not achieve widespread public acceptance.


----------



## Blue Hills (8 Nov 2019)

Yes, of course. But they clearly hadn't got the system anywhere near where it could conceivably cope with anything like real world conditions. It should have been on the end of blackpool pier as an arcade game.
As is implied above, a light needs to be shone on the authorities as well as the company.
Agree, can't really see this working. Definitely not in my lifetime in any sort of open environment.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Nov 2019)

My main concerns are

The tech will lead to different accidents, maybe the roads become slightly safer for SDC owners but less safe for other road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc)

Blame for these accidents will be harder to apportion, rather than it being police/courts/citizens versus driver. It will shift to police/courts/citizens versus driver/passenger? versus megacorp (Uber/Google/etc) with lawsuits funded by the tech giants.

Industry will seek to change road laws to require things which make things easier for their self driving cars but to the detriment of other road users.


----------



## Andy in Germany (8 Nov 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Ultimately, despite all the hype by tech nerds & politicians, I believe that self-driving vehicles in uncontrolled environments, i.e. open public roads, will prove to be a technological dead end because more accidents will occur and they will not achieve widespread public acceptance.



I think you could be correct there. I suspect it will end up being focussed on motorways and places where there aren't pedestrians or cyclists, with certain roads classed as "Automatic friendly" and pressure being applied to extend that network into towns. As @jarlrmai says this will be to the detriment of other road users.

And at some point we'll work out that thee isn't enough oil, lithium or electricity to run the fleet of cars no matter what is controlling them...


----------

