IAmZlatan
Winger
The pedestrian doesn’t even look up, so I’m inclined to agree here.
-
Happy St George's Day Guest
Self-driving car kills pedestrian
- Thread starter Frijj
- Start date
I'm trying to view on mobile so maybe my fault, but I can't see a crossing?
Just drive down the road you can't miss it
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Did you notice the paved section in the middle that has the 'no crosswalk' sign on it? I did and then saw this tweet HERE with more info and it's understandable people will cross here given the middle bit and where it leads to and from. So again would a self driving car know this as a human may well know places where people may cross roads 'illegally' so already aware of potential hazard?Just drive down the road you can't miss it
Logon or register to see this image
Logon or register to see this image
Aye I noticed it. Very strange. As if someone's trying to trick self driving cars?
It will eventually
Billy2Sheds
Winger
Or stuck to shandy...
DaveH
Striker
I know the camera view is different to the eyes, but I'm not confident I would have seen that person from the video. They chose to cross at the darkest spot, wearing dark clothing too.
I think it does raise the question as to why the car did not have a thermal camera? One of the key safety things about self drive cars is humans rely completely on our own (sometimes tired) eyes. A computer with multiple sensors has the potential to be far better than that. Darkness should not matter. I'm also interested to know why the cyclist was not picked up by the radar system. With normal visual, thermal and radar/lidar they should be able to amalgamate the data to give a very accurate view, even in pitch blackness.
I think it does raise the question as to why the car did not have a thermal camera? One of the key safety things about self drive cars is humans rely completely on our own (sometimes tired) eyes. A computer with multiple sensors has the potential to be far better than that. Darkness should not matter. I'm also interested to know why the cyclist was not picked up by the radar system. With normal visual, thermal and radar/lidar they should be able to amalgamate the data to give a very accurate view, even in pitch blackness.
I'm Spartacus
Striker
Well the tech has literally just killed someone, I think it's right to show concern. That's not an unreasonable opinion to hold, is it? I am not comfortable with car manufacturers using the roads as a test lab for their products when they're putting human life in danger. Until they can shown in test environments to be able to deal with pedestrians acting spontaneously, or cyclists filtering through traffic (etc.) then I don't think they should be near roads. You can blame the driver, but he is never going to be paying full attention when there's the promise that the vehicle he's in is 'autonomous'.
Also, how does the person just 'appear'? They walk across 3 lanes of traffic while pushing a bike, they weren't even running or moving at any sort of pace. It's a scenario that happens all the time, people crossing major roads not at a designated crossing because A) there isn't one in the first place B) the one there is situated miles away C) because the road has severed connections between places for anyone not in a car. It doesn't leave people with many options.
Designing a road which has no suitable crossing for a pedestrian is regressive road design. Not sure how anyone could think otherwise. It's how these deaths are more common than they should be.
I'm not desperate to blame the tech, I just think too many have been suckered in with hype. As I've said earlier about AVs, I expect they'll happen but I think their use will end mostly restricted to main roads and long distance travel, which I don't have any issue with.
You can leave the vegan comments at the door, it only makes you look a little precious.
There's nothing wrong with showing concern but your posts on this thread seem to demonstrate an antipathy towards self-driving cars and a dismissal of the technology outright.
Self-driving cars have been on the road in some form or another for nearly a decade now and this is the first person that's been killed. This could be a case of an individual manufacturer cutting corners, a pedestrian crossing in a place she couldn't be seen or a failure of whatever system Uber were using.
There is plenty of evidence that they are safe on roads and they need to be tested and driven on roads or they will never ever be able to do so. That's why the safety driver in a test vehicle should have been paying more attention. Think of it like a learner driver and an instructor. The instructor should be paying attention at all times and able to stop the car if necessary.
The person should never have been crossing the road there. Can you explain to me how someone can cross a road like that and not realise there's a car coming? I'm absolutely baffled as to how the pedestrian did not see the car.
I made the vegan comment because when it comes to roads, you come across as a eco/cycle/hippy/anti-car/sustainable travel warrior. I get that transport is your thing and I think you're right about a lot of things, but I think you're letting your passion for cycling and your dislike of cars cloud your judgement somewhat here. Perhaps I am doing the same but for the other side.
Think a lot of the confusion here is being caused by our own definitions of autonomous vehicles/self drive.
Well, they're not all the same I suppose. This might be a particularly poor one but Google's have fantastic safety records as far as I can gather searching for reports on their safety record.
They will be on the roads, but the first major issue will be when a car gets in a situation where it's going to crash either way and has to decide what it crashes into.
DaveH
Striker
I think that is very difficult to do. If Im doing a long trip and the wife takes over driving then I can barely stay awake. Some proposed systems say the driver must be alert with hands on the wheel, checking mirrors as if they were driving. You may as well drive in those cases. Perhaps this is just the transitional step but I think we need to move to fully autonomous as soon as it is safe to do so.
Sorry, maybe I worded that badly but I meant whilst the tech is still in testing, the driver needs to be as attentive as possible
Fully autonomous would mean the car decides where to go .I don't fancy that idea
L
lenshack
Guest
I would have thought “self driving car” meant exactly that, with no third party input required other than the destination.
With the requirement for someone to be available at all times to take over the steering, as I understand it,
in reality it hasn’t even reached that stage yet.
The mind boggles at what mayhem could occur if they turned these things loose in a busy city centre of some backward country, with traffic regulation and road signs about as clear as mud.
With the requirement for someone to be available at all times to take over the steering, as I understand it,
in reality it hasn’t even reached that stage yet.
The mind boggles at what mayhem could occur if they turned these things loose in a busy city centre of some backward country, with traffic regulation and road signs about as clear as mud.
Edinburgh Black Cat
Striker
Hard to blame the 'driver' taking the video at face value.
Maybe raises the question of infra red detection system for the car though.
Maybe raises the question of infra red detection system for the car though.
It's still in beta
When Concorde crashed, it statistically became the most unsafe passenger aircraft, despite its previously impeccable record.
There’s probably a billion or more cars on the world’s roads, and hardly any driverless cars. I wonder how the statistics would look if they were adjusted accordingly?
Having said that, viewing the footage, I’d say the pedestrian was mainly responsible for their own demise.
People have to take some responsibility for their own safety, but you get hammered for saying that these days.
Frankly, the pedestrian was either deaf and blind, or simple.
I reckon I’d have stood a reasonable chance of seeing the pedestrian, though it’s hard to tell as cameras and eyes are very different. The technology should have spotted the pedestrian, no question. The car didn’t even look like it braked at the last split second, or took any evasive action.
