(03-23-2018 12:12 PM)IAH Wrote:  From the video it seems like the high beams should have been on. I think maybe it could have been avoidable

Agreed.

I said in the other thread after watching the video the vehicle was overdriving it's headlights and sensors. It's also obvious from the video the vehicle never made an attempt to brake as there is absolutely no discernible deceleration.

I asked on that thread what kind of sensors these vehicles used...be it optical, RADAR, LIDAR,. etc and got no answer. Anyone here know?

Lots of really good and true responses in here, even among those who disagree....

UofM, I would too, mostly because 'whatever' people can do when it comes to actions like this, computers can do faster and with less error.

however stink (and others) are exactly right, and they will go after the deepest pockets... which is why imo we are a VERY long time from this being a reality. It's not that they can't do it... it's that they can't regulate it. Let's not even talk about the hacking risk.

(03-22-2018 09:17 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  1.3 million people die in road crashes per year, and the vast majority of accidents today are due to human error. Autonomous vehicles, once the technology is proven ready, will be responsible for saving millions of lives. I wonder how much it will save Americans alone in medical bills due to auto crashes.
If autonomous vehicles reduce the amount of crashes by 90% a year, insurance companies will have to pay out 90% less for claims. I wouldn't expect a 90% drop in my car insurance premiums though. Perhaps insurance becomes cheaper and now insurance companies pay out larger settlements for claims due to driverless vehicle accidents.

I tend to agree that autonomous vehicles will be a big net benefit to society, including reducing traffic deaths by some large percentage (50% if not 90%). However, that does not mean that this person would have died if it were a human driver. You may avoid 95% of deaths that would have happened with a human driver, have 5% of deaths where the outcome was no different between human and autonomous, and have 5% of deaths that now happen with autonomous vehicles that would not happen with human drivers. The net benefit for society and for the insurance companies as well (in theory... if, indeed, deaths dramatically decrease, insurance rates would follow, and I - for one - have no idea what that does to margins or profitability).

However, this is the sort of ethical dilemma that our society does not handle well. Democracies seem ill-suited to handle risk analysis, and between lawsuits and regulation, we tend to deny ourselves of the societal benefits that could be gained if these cars live up to their potential, and I think they are showing that they can. (Democracies do many things extremely well, but this is one of those that it does not do well, IMHO... I wouldn't consider changing because of this).

I think this is the first step in tapping the brakes on this idea that we will all be replaced by robots in a decade. This whole "tech revolution" may have been a little oversold. Not surprising. I mean---back in the "Space Age" 60's the thinkers of the time figured that traffic would be a thing of the past by now---as we would all be driving flying cars. Still waiting for the first Jetson's style car.

Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

(03-24-2018 02:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

Judging by the video there's a long, long way to go before human drivers are replaced. The sensor package is lacking in a major way.

(03-24-2018 04:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 02:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

Judging by the video there's a long, long way to go before human drivers are replaced. The sensor package is lacking in a major way.

Ubers system could very well be. I don't know the in's and out's of their system. All I do know is that the competition for this technology is very strong. The best systems will move to the forefront and the others will either fade away or be bought out.

(03-24-2018 04:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 02:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

Judging by the video there's a long, long way to go before human drivers are replaced. The sensor package is lacking in a major way.

w/o question.....the reaction from the person 'behind the wheel' was all you needed to see there...

all I know is I'm like a race horse that's been put out to stud with blinders on, eyes always forward, and head on a swivel.....I like having that control....

(03-24-2018 05:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 04:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 02:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

Judging by the video there's a long, long way to go before human drivers are replaced. The sensor package is lacking in a major way.

w/o question.....the reaction from the person 'behind the wheel' was all you needed to see there...

all I know is I'm like a race horse that's been put out to stud with blinders on, eyes always forward, and head on a swivel.....I like having that control....

Yup. Anyone currently driving will have trouble fully accepting the technology. On the other hand, it will be a boon to the bar industry as DWI will become a thing of the past.

Interesting line of thought on self driving cars---how do market self driving vehicles? "Fun to drive" has always been a HUGE component of selling cars. If they drive themselves---acceleration, agility, and handling will cease to things we care much about. The car will essentially be nothing more than a taxi or a bus. The tight and taunt feeling of being behind the wheel of a new car will be gone. A 10 year old well maintained car and new car feel about the same to a passive passenger. That means a lot of the current motivations to get a newer model every few years is going to vanish if a car is nothing more than passive transportation.

(03-24-2018 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. Anyone currently driving will have trouble fully accepting the technology. On the other hand, it will be a boon to the bar industry as DWI will become a thing of the past.
Interesting line of thought on self driving cars---how do market self driving vehicles? "Fun to drive" has always been a HUGE component of selling cars. If they drive themselves---acceleration, agility, and handling will cease to things we care much about. The car will essentially be nothing more than a taxi or a bus. The tight and taunt feeling of being behind the wheel of a new car will be gone. A 10 year old well maintained car and new car feel about the same to a passive passenger. That means a lot of the current motivations to get a newer model every few years is going to vanish if a car is nothing more than passive transportation.

My thought is that car ownership will go down by a great deal, and Uber-like services will dominate transportation. Without drivers contributing to cost, I could see it being more economic to ride than to own a car, and the profitability of services would probably go up. Some, if not all, manufacturers will lose big if this occurs.

(03-22-2018 08:30 AM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  That person popped out of nowhere similar to a deer. The Vehicle chose to protect the known human inside (not swerving out of control), since it did not know for a fact the object that popped out was human.

The vehicle in this case no matter if it was self-driven or human driven, was clearly not at fault.

What if it was a cyclist that is legally allowed to be on the road?

As a cyclist these autonomous vehicles scare the crap out of me.

It doesn't seem like they are ready yet

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/ube...leges.html

Quote:Uber was accused Tuesday of disabling the software in the self-driving Volvo vehicle that fatally struck a woman last week in Arizona.

Aptiv PLC, the company that makes the collision-avoidance technology, told Bloomberg that Uber disabled the software in the self-driving SUV that killed Elaine Herzberg, 49, as she was crossing a street in Tempe on March 18.

Quote:Uber declined to comment on the accusation and Volvo told Bloomberg they were waiting for the investigation to be completed before they speculated. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey suspended Uber from testing autonomous vehicles in the state following the deadly incident.

Mobileye, which produces the sensor chips in the safety systems supplied to Aptiv PLC, told Bloomberg it tested the software Monday following the crash by watching the footage of the accident. The company said the software “was able to detect Herzberg one second before impact in its internal tests” despite the video’s poor visual quality.

The software by Aptiv, using the sensors and chips from Mobileye, make the vehicle able to detect a person or object nearby in order to avoid hitting it. Vehicles with the technology are able to stop automatically if it detects an object.

I'm reminded of the character in iRobot who enjoys the nostalgia of driving his own car.... I imagine that as coll as autonomous cars will initially be, the 'freedom' of driving your own car will also remain.

Just see all the people who have a love for classic cars.

Uber is done as a SDC developer. They may continue to be a SDC ride share operator if they license vehicles/technology from Waymo or another approved developer.

(03-22-2018 08:30 AM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  That person popped out of nowhere similar to a deer. The Vehicle chose to protect the known human inside (not swerving out of control), since it did not know for a fact the object that popped out was human.

The vehicle in this case no matter if it was self-driven or human driven, was clearly not at fault.

That's some effed up logic, did you learn that in college?

Uber has now given up on Self Driving Car testing in California (already banned in AZ since the accident). The victim may have been homeless but some family has come forward to reach a financial settlement w/ Uber, amount undisclosed.

Lawyer: Not all family members of Uber crash victim have settled with company

https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/bu...474832002/

(03-28-2018 08:06 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 08:30 AM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  That person popped out of nowhere similar to a deer. The Vehicle chose to protect the known human inside (not swerving out of control), since it did not know for a fact the object that popped out was human.

The vehicle in this case no matter if it was self-driven or human driven, was clearly not at fault.

That's some effed up logic, did you learn that in college?

that's too funny.....I took psy301 first semester.....during the introduction and syllabus distribution that lasted all of 10 mins (I'm certain his coffee was getting cold), when cap't tenure walked out, everybody in the class looked at each other with a, "wtf did I just hear and wtf did any of that mean?".....

all I did was laugh out loud to the easiest A ever......10 mins to take my final.......

you forget a lot of the bs over time.......but you don't forget stories like those......

(03-29-2018 02:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Uber has now given up on Self Driving Car testing in California (already banned in AZ since the accident). The victim may have been homeless but some family has come forward to reach a financial settlement w/ Uber, amount undisclosed.

go figure, eh?

who'd a thunk it?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-...SKCN1IP26K

Quote:Uber had disabled an emergency braking system in a self-driving vehicle that struck and killed a woman in Arizona in March after failing to identify the pedestrian, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report released on Thursday.

The report said the modified 2017 Volvo XC90’s radar systems observed the pedestrian six seconds before impact but “the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle.”

At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined emergency braking was needed. But Uber said emergency braking maneuvers were not enabled while the vehicle was under computer control in order to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The Volvo XC90 is typically equipped with automatic emergency braking systems designed to prevent frontal crashes.

Uber Technologies Inc, which voluntarily suspended testing in the aftermath of the crash in the city of Tempe - the first death involving a fully self-driving vehicle - said on Wednesday it would shut down its Arizona self-driving testing program and focus on limited testing in Pittsburgh and two cities in California.

(03-24-2018 02:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Every new tech has bugs. Automatic transmissions used to get stuck in gear. Cruise control would come on and drop out of cruise mode. It's a shame that someone died. We are at the beginning and the learning curve is already happening and catching up.

There were numerous fatalities in the infancy of manned flight so...