Mods you're wasting money on...

What we don't know is at what level they will land when the dust settles.
Full hands off autonomy outside of a highway setting has myriads of questions.
A person could hold an autonomous car in it's tracks.
Well... Not the Uber one.
But, think about that.
Anyone up to no good could hold the passenger of an autonomous car at their mercy.
Robbers, rapists, gangs, protesters, abusive partners who won't let the woman leave.
Would you want your wife, girlfriend, or daughter in one?
I wouldn't.

I had recently filled out my Autopacifica survey...among the ?'s they asked "would you pay $5000 for fully autonomous driving vehicles. The price points on items I knew was reasonable. I can see paying it when I'm old and can't drive as opposed to moving to a place where I can walk places.

I think there is more fear of this than there should be.....another item I read was some one saying how in 20 years driving your own car will be like taking your horse into NYC in the 1950's...yeah you could but would it be worth the effort.

They released the video of the accident with the electric car. It was a pretty dark when the person was hit. It was like 1.5 seconds from when you were actually barely able to see the sneakers of the pedestrian and when the car hit her. They also showed that the person in the car was looking down right before the car hit the ped. Person was also wearing some pretty dark clothing.

I'm not sure if a person driving a regular car would have been able to react in time. Looks like she just stepped out of the shadow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...autonomous-uber-crash/?utm_term=.7a79c904c0f0

Where the high beams on? If they were, then it shouldn't have been a problem. But from the looks of it, the high beams were off.

Chogokin said:

They released the video of the accident with the electric car. It was a pretty dark when the person was hit. It was like 1.5 seconds from when you were actually barely able to see the sneakers of the pedestrian and when the car hit her. They also showed that the person in the car was looking down right before the car hit the ped. Person was also wearing some pretty dark clothing.

I'm not sure if a person driving a regular car would have been able to react in time. Looks like she just stepped out of the shadow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...autonomous-uber-crash/?utm_term=.7a79c904c0f0

Click to expand...

I don't believe the lighting we see in that video was true to life.

So a pedestrian illegally crosses the road at night wearing dark clothing in the exact spot where there are no street lights, managing to somehow not hear or see that a car was coming and everyone blames the self driving car?

Growing up I was always told to cross in a cross walk and look both ways / make eye contact with drivers, otherwise you are gonna get hit and its your fault. Even then I've still been hit 3 times by a car while riding my bike because I didn't do that. Jeez, what a world we live in. Remember back in the days of horses when people would get trampled all the time?

Edit: In the video you can even see the driver...passenger? look up in time to see the pedestrian and try to react before slamming into them, where as the pedestrian never even notices. The lighting may have been better in person, but clearly not good enough for the sensors the car uses.

So in order of attentiveness Driver > Car > Pedestrian. It sucks it happened no doubt, but also easy to prevent. All the pedestrian had to do was be aware of their surroundings while crossing the road. It's pretty important thing to be doing when you are playing frogger with 4k LBS vehicles, even if you are in a crosswalk in broad daylight. How do I know, cause that's one of the places and times I got hit... got lucky and only broke a leg.

Wrath And Tears said:

So a pedestrian illegally crosses the road at night wearing dark clothing in the exact spot where there are no street lights, managing to somehow not hear or see that a car was coming and everyone blames the self driving car?

Growing up I was always told to cross in a cross walk and look both ways / make eye contact with drivers, otherwise you are gonna get hit and its your fault. Even then I've still been hit 3 times by a car while riding my bike because I didn't do that. Jeez, what a world we live in. Remember back in the days of horses when people would get trampled all the time?

Edit: In the video you can even see the driver...passenger? look up in time to see the pedestrian and try to react before slamming into them, where as the pedestrian never even notices. The lighting may have been better in person, but clearly not good enough for the sensors the car uses.

So in order of attentiveness Driver > Car > Pedestrian. It sucks it happened no doubt, but also easy to prevent. All the pedestrian had to do was be aware of their surroundings while crossing the road. It's pretty important thing to be doing when you are playing frogger with 4k LBS vehicles, even if you are in a crosswalk in broad daylight. How do I know, cause that's one of the places and times I got hit... got lucky and only broke a leg.

Click to expand...

Following this off topic a bit, but:

The main benefit of driverless cars is their ability to see things sooner and react faster than a human. In this case, the machine failed to see something that both radar and lidar should have EASILY been able to see. If the driverless car isn't any safer than a person driving, then it will never be widely accepted, that's the issue here.

If this was a normal car this wouldn't even be news, it would just be "idiot killed jaywalking at night". But since this was a driverless car with lidar and radar on a wide open road with nothing around, it's "Uber driverless car fails basic functionality".

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater said:

Following this off topic a bit, but:

The main benefit of driverless cars is their ability to see things sooner and react faster than a human. In this case, the machine failed to see something that both radar and lidar should have EASILY been able to see. If the driverless car isn't any safer than a person driving, then it will never be widely accepted, that's the issue here.

If this was a normal car this wouldn't even be news, it would just be "idiot killed jaywalking at night". But since this was a driverless car with lidar and radar on a wide open road with nothing around, it's "Uber driverless car fails basic functionality".

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Alright, that is totally fair and makes a lot of sense. I've always looked at it as "any computer is only as good as it's programming, and there are reasons why software is always being updated". I looked at this accident and saw clear human error in the programming, versus error with the hardware itself. I guess in the end it is one in the same though, if one fucks up, there's nothing the other can do about it.

Edit: Also don't feel bad about being off topic, this off topic conversation has continued for almost 3 pages. Otherwise I would have and maybe should have kept my fingers from typing.

My condolences to the deceased. Thousands of pedestrians are killed each year and tens of thousands are injured by human drivers. No is freaking out about that. No system is going to be perfect and naturally there are going to be accidents with self driving cars. That being said, they are going to be much safer.

agree^^^^

Wrath And Tears said:

Alright, that is totally fair and makes a lot of sense. I've always looked at it as "any computer is only as good as it's programming, and there are reasons why software is always being updated". I looked at this accident and saw clear human error in the programming, versus error with the hardware itself. I guess in the end it is one in the same though, if one fucks up, there's nothing the other can do about it.

Edit: Also don't feel bad about being off topic, this off topic conversation has continued for almost 3 pages. Otherwise I would have and maybe should have kept my fingers from typing.

Click to expand...

I've got a 2015 with the Collison avoidance, which basically give a tone and a large red icon on my center screen. It's not connected to my brakes. And it's a good thing, it's gone off numerous times for plastic bags and steep driveways. I'd have been rear ended several times to save Wal-Mart bags!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Gogo GTI said:

My condolences to the deceased. Thousands of pedestrians are killed each year and tens of thousands are injured by human drivers. No is freaking out about that. No system is going to be perfect and naturally there are going to be accidents with self driving cars. That being said, they are going to be much safer.

Click to expand...

The visceral response to a people being killed by machines is a different one.

I want driverless cars everywhere, the more the better. Why? A driverless car done right won't cruise in the fuckin left lane, ignoring my horn/flashing lights to get the hell out of the way! It won't take me beeping to get it moving when the light is green like I do now when a moron at what seems like every single light can't resist checking their Facebook because, well, the light is red. It won't park like a jackass taking up 2 spots on a busy street. It won't illegally double park like every damn uber driver in the city who causes traffic.

The majority of drivers see driving as a boring chore they just have to do to get places vs something enjoyable. They don't pay attention to common sense rules of the road and drive like morons. Morons of the world, all of you, the driverless car is coming and please buy one. It will make my life so much better as I zip past you with your face planted in your phone inside your driverless car. Knock yourselves out.

As for safety, the outrage over this incident is bullshit. The cyclist cut across lanes of traffic expecting a car to brake for him. Instant Darwin award. If you do that, don't look before you cross, etc you're asking to get hit. The traffic violation is on the cyclist in this instance, car was not at fault. Would it be nice if sensors on the sides caught this and stopped in time? Sure, they'll get there eventually, but to act like the car murdered this guy who just casually zipped in front of it expecting the accommodation is stupid.

I'm full on team driverless cars. Would never buy one outside of physically losing the ability to drive but let's go!

Wrath And Tears said:

Alright, that is totally fair and makes a lot of sense. I've always looked at it as "any computer is only as good as it's programming, and there are reasons why software is always being updated". I looked at this accident and saw clear human error in the programming, versus error with the hardware itself. I guess in the end it is one in the same though, if one fucks up, there's nothing the other can do about it.

Edit: Also don't feel bad about being off topic, this off topic conversation has continued for almost 3 pages. Otherwise I would have and maybe should have kept my fingers from typing.

Click to expand...

Yes, the finger pointing has already started. Velodyne has come out to say that it wasn't the system but the Uber programming.

An Austrian newspaper said that with this iteration, driverless cars are like playing Russian roulette.

The also brought up a good point about the humans in the car.

In normal driving, a driver reacts to an event. In an autonomous vehicle, the driver reacts to the vehicle not reacting to an event.

I believe that the only way that autonomous driving will succeed is if we adapt to the technology. That works by slowly adding these systems to cars slowly and allowing us to get used to these technologies - which is what we are doing with ACC, Front Assist, ParkPilot and so forth.

over 80,000 deaths due to alcohol per year. Although this is a interesting story I am following (I find automation cool I fix stuff for a living) just be aware of the real problem.

also deaths from texting and driving...don't blame the phones. Operators #1 and phone mfrs #2 for not disabling stuff when moving (too bad co-polits) car mfrs #3 for same reasons as 2