winjim
Smash the cistern
The cars are driverless, not passengerless.
First self driving (reported) fatality
- Thread starter jefmcg
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
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
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
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.
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
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
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
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
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
Kilometre nibbler
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Location
- London
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.
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
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
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
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
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?
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
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.
- Location
- London
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.
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
Veteran
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.
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
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
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...
Last edited:
