Uber self drive car kills pedestrian

[Lancpudn]

Originally Posted by cat

So these cars can't see very well in the dark and that k!! b looked like he was asleep. I imagine an alert human would have seen her earlier and braked and swerved, at least swerved. It would have only needed a few feet to the left to save her life. Do these cars not have better sensors for night vision or is it relying on cameras? Rip

From police reports he was using his mobile phone, and I agree why did the LIDAR not pick her up!

[rustymotor]

Originally Posted by Lancpudn

From police reports he was using his mobile phone, and I agree why did the LIDAR not pick her up!

I don't think so, looking at the pictures seconds before the impact the lady had her bike to her left, I imagine the radar was trying to decide what was in front of it metal or human not both..

[AndyN01]

Although not particularly clear the video shows "something" moving in the road a couple of seconds before impact.

The lighting (or lack of it) on the carriageway doesn't help but even so......

Now, perhaps stupidly, I thought there would be a vastly more effective technology to "night vision" being used to scan the forward view and react accordingly. I would expect something that would detect movement hundreds of metres ahead in the dark, well beyond the human eye's capabilities.

Similarly I'm disturbed that there doesn't seem to be any sort of evasive action or serious emergency braking. The "driver" appears to be going "Ohhhh" rather than being thrown forwards by the brakes being hit hard.

I'm happy to say I'm looking forward to being able to jump into a vehicle, telling it to drive to my sons house 3+ hours away and sitting back to enjoy the scenery or read a book.

But this is a very, very long way from a competent driver.

Tongue in cheek.....I'll bet he wasn't speeding.....

Rearrange this phrase or saying:

Worms; of; can; a; open

Andy.

[topman]

It surprised me looking at that video, I was left wondering would a driven vehicle have avoided the accident?

[neilbaker86]

The driver is legally responsible for that vehicle. It doesn't matter whether it is an 'autonomous' vehicle or not. At the minute they are legally responsible.

But no, they appear to be staring down at something instead of doing their job and looking at the road. As soon as you see the cyclists feet in the headlights they should've been on the brakes hard. You can tell from the closing speed that the vehicle would still hit her, but it may have made a difference.

The driver shouldn't wait to see if the hardware will do it, they are the driver. Although from what I can tell the driver wasn't paying any attention at all so it wasn't even that some amount of confusion crept in whereby they were confident the technology would at some point swerve or brake for them. They just weren't looking at all.

Technology aside, I do wonder if a pair of human eyes would've even seen her early enough anyway, the bicycle doesn't appear to have any side reflectors or lights, she has a black top on and seems to have started to cross the road in a poorly lit spot without looking.

This would be another advantage of driverless cars, they can use infra-red cameras to see in the dark.

Condolences to the friends and family of the cyclist.

[Snetty]

Originally Posted by neilbaker86

The driver is legally responsible for that vehicle. It doesn't matter whether it is an 'autonomous' vehicle or not. At the minute they are legally responsible.

But no, they appear to be staring down at something instead of doing their job and looking at the road. As soon as you see the cyclists feet in the headlights they should've been on the brakes hard. You can tell from the closing speed that the vehicle would still hit her, but it may have made a difference.

The driver shouldn't wait to see if the hardware will do it, they are the driver. Although from what I can tell the driver wasn't paying any attention at all so it wasn't even that some amount of confusion crept in whereby they were confident the technology would at some point swerve or brake for them. They just weren't looking at all.

Technology aside, I do wonder if a pair of human eyes would've even seen her early enough anyway, the bicycle doesn't appear to have any side reflectors or lights, she has a black top on and seems to have started to cross the road in a poorly lit spot without looking.

This would be another advantage of driverless cars, they can use infra-red cameras to see in the dark.

Condolences to the friends and family of the cyclist.

Good post, I believe the pedestrian may still have been hi had it been a driver controlled vehicle as a human driver would have braked and swerved to avoid the pedestrian.
Also in defence of the so called driver to sit there poised with hands ready to grab the wheel and feet hovering above the pedals ready to react in a split second when the machine fails is an impossible task.

[topman]

Just a quick update on this, the car did see the pedestrian but considered the cyclist to be a false positive.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-swerve-report

[RPWC]

It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
They are not perfected and should not be used on public roads without a driver behind the wheel to take over.

[cat]

Maybe she could have that on her headstone 'False positive' the system is a joke. Does it not have multiple computers/sensors comparing data? A competent human would surely slow down and take more care if the visibility was reduced, seems like the computer has been programed to carry on regardless. I fear the number of false positives will rise

[Groundsman Willie]

I don't think the correct term should be "autonomous vehicle", not where they are sharing the public highway with other, non-autonomous users. If they want to develop vehicles that drive with no human assistance, they should be on their own exclusive use roads.
When they are sharing the public highway, they should only assist the driver, not replace.