Video Released of Uber Self-Driving Car Accident

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Montu, Mar 22, 2018.

  1. Montu

    Montu [H]ard DCOTM x4

    Messages:
    7,013
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Before anyone gets bent out of shape, this video is not gory, does not show death. I'm posting this video to address what I believe is a massive failure of technology. With that said, yesterday, the Tempe Police Department released a video from the Uber car that struck and killed a pedestrian. It's clear to me after watching the video that Uber has big problems on their hands. First, I believe the detection system of the car should have detected the person in the road. Second, it appears to me the back-up driver was clearly distracted and not paying attention to the road. Third, in my opinion Uber is going to pay through the nose once this goes to court. Hopefully, this isn't an inherent problem with self-driving technology and Uber discovers what went wrong.

    Watch the video here.
     
    Snowdensjacket likes this.
  2. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Would a non-self driving car strike the person in the video under these circumstances? I'm willing to bet yes since it was in the dark, they were in a 2 lane road with no traffic going at around 40 mph. The woman doesn't seem to be crossing anywhere she should be and wasn't wearing reflective clothing at least that can be seen in the video.

    If you start thinking that autonomous vehicles should be programmed in every instance or be able to come to a complete stop/avoid hitting people no matter what, then you're asking too much. I'm willing to bet that the car isn't programmed to look out for people when on a highway.
     
  3. Gweenz

    Gweenz [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,075
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Annnnnddd there it is. I'm pretty anti-self driving cars until the software can mature but this is very much a human failure. You had ONE JOB, lady, and you blew it.
     
  4. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Under those circumstance, a human driver would have hit her too.

    She was impossible to see until up close and crossing a road with high speed traffic without any sort of crosswalk. This was not a fault with the software. The only way a computer program would have been able to see that was if it was using infrared to see further down the road than a human could. A self driving car with infrared would have been the only way she would have been avoided.
     
    Seventyfive, Revdarian, Rahh and 17 others like this.
  5. raiderj

    raiderj Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    340
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    I'd be curious to hear why Uber's technology didn't detect the person. Would Tesla's technology have been able to work better in this case? Based on the video, I'm not convinced the driver would have had enough time to react even if they had been paying attention. I've driven before and come across a person in the road similar to this, and I *barely* missed them. A deer too another time. And I have excellent vision. I could easily imagine a scenario where a perfectly aware driver would have had the same results this driver had (e.g. dead pedestrian).
     
    Maxx and Dudhunter like this.
  6. SticKx911

    SticKx911 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,882
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    The lady walked out into moving traffic at night...pretty sure she would have been hit no matter who was driving.
     
  7. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    That 'safety driver' would not have been able to see that woman quickly enough in any case. So, no, the only failure here was with the pedestrian.
     
    Seventyfive, Revdarian, Maxx and 10 others like this.
  8. Gweenz

    Gweenz [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,075
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    A human who is not staring at their phone would have been able to avoid this, yes. At the very least it would have given the pedestrian a chance.
     
    eclypse, Jim Kim, Macblastr and 4 others like this.
  9. dangerouseddy

    dangerouseddy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    I thought they used lidar which should work in the dark.
     
  10. the-one1

    the-one1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,900
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    What vision system does Uber's cars use for seeing?
    Radar? Infrared? Unicorn magic?
     
  11. shad0w4life

    shad0w4life Gawd

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Not sure...if lady..or not....
     
    mnewxcv, eclypse, Rahh and 9 others like this.
  12. thejokker

    thejokker Gawd

    Messages:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    From the perspective of software and hardware self driving cars are a primitive and immature technology being promoted by people with misplaced optimism. One cannot blissfully ignore the wisdom of Murphy with devastating consequences. Arrogance killed this woman; woe upon those who fail to learn the lesson of this tragedy...
     
  13. jbc029

    jbc029 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    406
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    At that rate of speed, no, a human could not have stopped the car. A human might have been able to swerve to avoid a direct impact, but with less than 2 seconds of visibility before impact, I don't see how this is a major software failure.
     
  14. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    How? It's dark, you're traveling at speed limit, suddenly you see a flash in front of you. I guess swerving off the road and getting yourself killed is an option, maybe slamming on the brakes (she would have died even if it did slow down for the 10-15 feet she was visible, i don't think it would have made that much of a difference).

    It was pretty much unavoidable. This was like a deer crossing the road. Do you know how many deer get hit by cars on a daily basis?
     
    John721, Revdarian, Maxx and 7 others like this.
  15. Mav451

    Mav451 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,320
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    I think this was the perfect storm (unaware driver, unaware pedestrian, jaywalking) - but also raises more questions.
    The pedestrian was jaywalking, across three lanes, and blissfully unaware of her surroundings. What happened to looking both ways? Especially at night, how does the biker not see lights approaching?

    It'd be another thing altogether if this was at a crosswalk, but it wasn't.
     
    John721, Revdarian, Rahh and 13 others like this.
  16. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    It was a homeless woman who probably wasn't all ok in the head. I doubt she was using common sense safety awareness while crossing a highway at night walking a bike.
     
  17. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,117
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Youre all assuming the car uses visual sensors only. Chances are pretty high that they are incorporating LIDAR into the car as well...
     
    lcpiper, Parja and phawkins633 like this.
  18. pcgeekesq

    pcgeekesq Gawd

    Messages:
    695
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Then you're an idiot who has no experience driving. It's a straight road, no obstructions, car traveling at 40 MPH. If the headlights were working properly, a human driver paying attention would have plenty of time to see the woman entering the road and react appropriately.

    I live in Tempe. I know this environment. This accident shouldn't have happened, period.

    Uber will fry for this and they deserve to. They are going to get hammered in court (or settle for 7+ figures) and their self-driving tech is going into the garbage can.

    There's a good chance this is related to Uber's alleged theft of the self-driving technology they are using.
    If they'd developed it themselves, they might actually understand it, but if they just stole it ... not so much.

    It's also related to Uber's corporate culture of breaking the law and putting people at risk (like by hiring felons as drivers) in the name of corporate valuation.
     
  19. Sikkyu

    Sikkyu I Question Reality

    Messages:
    2,730
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
  20. xinco

    xinco n00bie

    Messages:
    59
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    A human driver paying complete attention probably would have been able to brake and attempt avoidance, if they were completely looking up at the time, and not change radio station, etc. But even if paying full attention, she still would have hit her though, but might not have been fatal.

    Here is the root of the problem: She was being paid to watch what was going on and intervene, and she wasn't paying attention.

    Impossible job, if you ask me though. Paying attention for hours on end, with nothing to do but intervene with split second reaction time. I don't think that is possible. Far more difficult than actively driving. This is the actual problem Uber and other self driving companies have to deal with. And kind of the fatal flaw with Tesla's assisted driving as well; you are required to pay attention in driver assist mode, with the same end problem of it not really being possible.

    Maybe I'm talking out of my ass on this one though. Never experience any self driving technology other then cruise control first hand, but I believe I understand the user experience.

    As to how this SHOULD, but probably won't, play out in court: Hold Uber and the driver to the same standard as with a non-self driving car. Don't see there being any way they would be held liable. With or without the video footage.
     
  21. phawkins633

    phawkins633 n00bie

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Gee, I thought LIDAR works in the dark? This was not just some accident, but it was an AUTONOMOUS CAR!! That fucker should have tracked her a mile away. And LIDAR was developed in the 80s, so I'm pretty sure it should be mature enough to see an un-obstructed pedestrian.
     
    david_, Sojoe, Snowdensjacket and 9 others like this.
  22. katanaD

    katanaD Gawd

    Messages:
    789
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    the fault here clearly lies with the car. Radar/lidar does not care if its high noon or midnight, it can see just fine in either. Also there is no real obstruction of trees/shrubs along the center divider. also, the incident happened in the right hand land of a 2 lane road, so it was out in the open to any sensors. So the cars sensors HAD to see a moving object.

    so the question is WHY didnt it take action to avoid said object.
     
  23. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,117
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    No an autopilot/autodriver should not make it more difficult for you to pay attention to what is going on. I have extensive experience using autopilots and they decrease the pilot work load. They should do the same for drivers. They are great in IMC but they are also a big help in visual. I have used them a lot in high traffic areas (NYC for example) to hold a steady course while I look for traffic.

    I understand there is a higher chance of hitting something on the ground but still it relieves you of the burden of holding speed and direction. Freeing up your attention to watch out for shit like this. Bottom line: You should never be eyes off road anywhere near an intersection.
     
  24. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    LIDAR relies on reflections. Soft-bodies (and black clothing) will not likely provide a sufficiently large return.
     
  25. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,310
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Of course the ninja drivers come out of the woodwork who would've all avoided it easily. This is a cut and dry case of stupid jaywalking, right at the edge of the illuminated area, no chance to avoid hitting the fool.
     
  26. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    LIDAR is visual in that it relies on reflections.
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  27. pcgeekesq

    pcgeekesq Gawd

    Messages:
    695
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    "Two seconds of visibility" is an artifact of the poor-quality camera. Headlights give you more visibility than that.

    Even the poorest low-beam headlights (the BWM 3, see http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1) give adequate illumination for 130 feet. The car was traveling at 40MPH, about 60fps. Even allowing for human reaction time, typical stopping distance at that speed is about 120 feet. (https://assets.publishing.service.g...e-highway-code-typical-stopping-distances.pdf)

    AND THE CAR DIDN'T EVEN SLOW DOWN.
    This is a major failure.

    If I was a personal injury lawyer (I'm not) I could probably retire to a private island on this case.
     
  28. lironmiron

    lironmiron Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    233
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2016
    There was a strange area of total darkness covering all the left lane. When she first appeared in the visible spectrum, she was already well into the car's lane. I doubt that I would have been able to brake in time.

    However, the visible spectrum shouldn't be the main sensor for the car at night. I wish that they showed the infrared view.


    EDIT: This guy on Twitter has a ton of situational photos.

    Pictures of a controlled intersection just 100 yards away. Pictures of a deceptive "beautiful brick-paved diagonal walking path" that has a sign saying it should never be used, and aerial views of the street. It looks like this was a perfect storm where absolutely everyone did everything wrong: the pedestrian, the car, the security driver, and the infrastructure.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    Vercinaigh and OmenemO like this.
  29. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,310
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    The problem here is Uber cars use a slow rotating lidar, it detected the cyclist sure, when it was still moving in the other lane.
    Note to impove: Motion prediction for self driving software.

    It can be improved to avoid this type of crash.
     
  30. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    II'm fairly sure that different sensors are used for different object detection at different speeds.
    I probably have a lot more driving experience than you. Feel free to take a look at the video, the person wasn't visible until the last 2 seconds. From :03 to :05 when the crash occurred. That's not enough time to come to a complete stop. If the driver would have slammed on the brakes the accident would have still have happened.
     
    John721 and Revdarian like this.
  31. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,310
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Which is strange since even non self driving cars have automatic collision avoidance emergency braking now. And Volvo was the first to implement them around 2009. So ironically the car would've been better if Uber engineers hadn't touched it.
     
  32. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    A lot of people in this thread seem to think high-res, high-freq, sensors are off the shelf items. They are not. They are restricted and I would imagine they aren't going to allow Joe Blow to buy a self-driving car and harvest the parts needed to make an ad-hoc missile.
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  33. gunbust3r

    gunbust3r Gawd

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    If you cant see well enough to react in the conditions at hand you should not be traveling that speed. Going in and out of overhead lighting shadows and you are trying to be all sly looking down at your txt messages... Ze/Zir was the last safety interlock and was screwing around.
     
    firas likes this.
  34. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    A lot of cars differentiate between automatic collision avoidance with other cars and pedestrians. Thus leading up to this hilarious video:
     
    86 5.0L likes this.
  35. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,812
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    looks to be about 3-4 frames of camera video to react. I don't think that's very feasible that even a human driving this car would have been able to avoid this issue.

    it's night, on the highway, nobody expects a bicyclist to be crossing the road on foot, head down, inattentive on a two lane highway, outside of an intersection or safe area. You'd have to be exceptionally lucky to have avoided this accident as a driver, and if it wasn't a self driving car it'd be a non story. (because this kind of stuff happens every day)

    Watch the video if you haven't, before you cast judgement.
    http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/21/police-release-video-of-fatal-crash-by-uber-self-driving-suv/
     
    Revdarian and Mav451 like this.
  36. Shotglass01

    Shotglass01 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,870
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Kind of where I'm at too. Really don't care if it LIDAR, Microwave, RADAR, don't give a shit. We've got the tech to see in the dark. This feels like an immature implementation of the tech. I know computers can drive better than us, and eventually, they will. But this should have been avoided.

    Fixed.
     
  37. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    If i'm on a highway at night, the last thing i'm thinking about is trying to avoid people who are walking right in front of my car.

    That's not a place to cross, that was an extremely dangerous maneuver that the person did that ended up costing her life. I'm happy to assign blame to uber and the person who was supposed to be the backup for the automated system. They should both get dinged for this, however the majority of the blame goes to the homeless woman crossing the road.
     
  38. pcgeekesq

    pcgeekesq Gawd

    Messages:
    695
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    And you know this how? Is that conclusion based on the four+ decades you knew I'd been driving? On your knowledge of the job I once had that required a lot of driving around NYC? Or the other job I had that involved a three hour commute five days a week for two years?

    Oh wait, you don't know about any of that, do you? You're just talking out your ass, aren't you?

    Only an idiot would assume that the video camera that recorded that video can "see" as well as a human being can in those lighting conditions.
    It clearly cannot, as the lack of any details in most of the image makes clear.

    Tempe is a land-locked low-rise city. There's hardly a square meter of it that isn't well-illuminated by streetlights.
    You're never driving down a dark tunnel like that video makes it appear.
     
    Snowdensjacket and PaulP like this.
  39. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,117
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Splitting hairs. Using cameras only vs an actual system designed to detect obstructions.
     
  40. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,331
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    If it isn't programed or incapable of detection obstructions on highway then it is quite literally too immature to be on the road. The failure here is GLARING. It doesn't matter in this case what a human could see, AVs don't work like humans, they utilize LIDAR/RADAR in combination in monochromatic cameras to detect objects which for any competent system basically makes the distinction between midnight and noon immaterial. Pretty much every vehicle with driver assist in production could of handled this situation and would of activated emergency braking. If you are trying to do autonomous driving and you cannot handle situations that production automobiles can handle and use as their basic demonstrations, then you have failed so incredibly hard.