Author Topic: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update  (Read 152912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7795
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #125 on: April 08, 2018, 07:26:10 pm »
I assume it refers to being attacked by the driver.
Yep. All those fake Mexican taxis that drive you to quiet place where the rest of the gang is waiting. They'll be out of business.

 

Offline apis

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 575
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #126 on: April 09, 2018, 01:06:46 am »
How is someone safer from attack in an autonomous car?  Is the car going to magically come to your defense somehow if you're being attacked?!

I would think that having another human around would make travel significantly safer than a lone person traveling in an autopod...
Taxi drivers are much more at risk of being robbed by the passengers of course, but the opposite also happens. And apparently it is much more common for women to be sexually harassed or raped than what most people believed (before the metoo thing), so a young lady who've had a few drinks might prefer to take a robocar taxi home. That humans won't have to do the risky job of driving taxis is another bonus.

There will also be a way to contact a human operator at the taxi company in each car, so you could use that to call for help if the car was attacked by people on the outside I suppose.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2018, 01:09:24 am by apis »
 

Offline apis

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 575
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #127 on: April 09, 2018, 01:30:25 am »
They help greatly around here where the freeway/motorway is the choke point along with the roads and limited parking downtown. Many thousands of cars stay in the suburbs and those people take a bus to downtown, keeping thousands of cars off the freeways and out of the crowded downtown core.
And you could have the same system with robocars, you just take your (or a taxi) robocar to the park&ride area and then you switch to robobus/train.

Autonomous cars that are not privately owned don't solve the issue anyway, all they do is eliminate the taxi driver, it's a fancy way of replacing another relatively low skill job with automation.
In a functioning free market the price of taxi travel would go down significantly compared to today, however there is a risk there will only be one or a few very large companies offering the service (as is so common these days), and then you no longer have a working free market so the prices will not 'magically' reach the optimum value. But that is a political problem, not a problem with the technology.

Autonomous cars that are privately owned don't solve any problem except laziness and/or inattention. If they can take themselves somewhere without anyone on board then I imagine we'll see hundreds of them clogging the streets circling the block while their owners eat lunch or conduct business once they figure out that driving a few miles is cheaper than parking for a half hour.
Operating a car today costs about $20/hour, which is much more than any hourly priced parking. If you have a robot car you could just let it drop you off at the restaurant, etc, then it checks online for the cheapest free parking lot nearby and drives there directly and parks. So it will probably mean less driving compare to humans driving around looking for a free parking spot. Robot cars also have the potential to park much closer together (if there is no one inside that has to get out) so you can utilise the available parking space more efficiently.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2018, 07:38:10 pm by apis »
 

Offline Muttley Snickers

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #128 on: April 09, 2018, 02:41:38 pm »
Their department responsible for the R&D could probably learn a thing or two from B&R, these fellows had it all sorted out and working a treat fifty odd years ago from what I remember.   :D ;D

     
One smart cookie, better make that two for good measure.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Offline gregariz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 551
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #129 on: April 10, 2018, 03:46:36 am »
Unlike what the Sheriff said, it's looking more like a preventable accident. From Ubers video I thought the incident happened in a less built up area.
But those mobile phone videos show otherwise. Even though  digital cameras over expose at night when set to automatic, the mobile videos show many light sources and Ubers video shouldn't been so dark.   

And it probably doesn't matter either way, because it's the LIDAR that should have picked it up and it didn't, under almost ideal practical circumstances.

Yes, I am in Phoenix quite often. Phoenix has been the testing ground for a lot of self driving car testing. You can barely drive anywhere without passing them several times a day - I don't know how many are on the roads in phoenix but it's a lot.  There are a couple of reasons for it but I suspect the prime one is that Phoenix has an ideal road system - ie the whole city is made up of roads that go east-west and north south - however it is a big city so there can be plenty of traffic to contend with. There are relatively few winding roads anywhere in the city.

In my own driving experience I have seen them do dangerous things on 2 occasions. One was they cut me off at the lights as I was right turning and had right of way to move into any appropriate lane. The google self driving car decided it would cross traffic and enter into the centre lane - the one I was going to take as I had a left turn further ahead. The second case was on a left turn across traffic into a residential street. The green light was given and it sat there jerking for a bit. 2 cars behind it (including me) eventually just drove around it and entered the street. It finally made it into the street before pulling over.

I honestly can't say I have seen an Uber self driving car - unless they are using Google's but IIRC they are not Volvo's. I have used Uber here but as a matter of principal generally avoid them as I worry about the quality of driver testing and insurance.
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4521
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #130 on: April 10, 2018, 03:57:28 am »
Having ridden in a convention taxi cab a few times, it did not exactly inspire confidence in the driver training and abilities, I'd just as soon hop in a car with a random stranger.
 

Online wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4935
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #131 on: April 11, 2018, 05:17:37 pm »
Their department responsible for the R&D could probably learn a thing or two from B&R, these fellows had it all sorted out and working a treat fifty odd years ago from what I remember.   :D ;D

   

I was thinking of this exact same sequence. But because they broadcast this episode on TV a week or two ago I can also recall that the Batmobile correctly and legally stopped for a small boy who ran out into the street. Thus increasing the dramatic tension.

Great minds clearly think alike.
And fools never differ. :)
 

Offline Clear as mud

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Country: us
    • Pax Electronics
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #132 on: April 11, 2018, 10:23:29 pm »
I just saw this this morning.  I'll probably come back later and read the rest of the thread, but I noticed there were a couple of posts on the first two pages saying they could not figure out where the bicycle came from at 6:17.  It can be seen in front of the van parked on the left at 6:17.

I went back and watched the video a few times and figured out where the cyclist came from.  He can be seen at 6:13 heading towards us, just beyond the second crosswalk.  He only appears for a second or so between pedestrians and the automatic system does not detect him at that time either, but he's still pretty far away.  After that he is eclipsed for about three seconds by the man walking diagonally from right to left across the road.  The cyclist is approaching from further down the whole time, but most of the time he's behind that other pedestrian, then after passing the two parked vans, the cyclist turns and goes toward the sidewalk, at which time he comes out from behind the pedestrian and can be seen again (6:17 in the video).
 

Offline apis

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 575
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #133 on: April 12, 2018, 01:22:20 am »
I just saw this this morning.  I'll probably come back later and read the rest of the thread, but I noticed there were a couple of posts on the first two pages saying they could not figure out where the bicycle came from at 6:17.  It can be seen in front of the van parked on the left at 6:17.
Indeed, I had to go back an watch it again to see it. It's interesting since it's a good illustration of how we humans also fail at this task. And we could watch it from the comfort of our chairs while sipping coffee and pausing and going back and forth in the video. The algorithm has to run in real time.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 6808
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #134 on: April 12, 2018, 03:34:27 pm »
How can you say we humans "also fail at this task"?

Perhaps I should get clarification on exactly what the task is.

IF it is the identification of every object within one's environment, then I would challenge that task as not even being reasonable.

As far as performing a risk assessment is concerned - a much more pragmatic task - then that bicyclist would have been ignored by most people - as they never really entered the scene as any real risk.

Let's not hold the bar so high that we get lost in detail that holds little significance in the whole picture.
 

Offline apis

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 575
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: EEVblog #1068 - Autonomous Uber Incident Update
« Reply #135 on: April 12, 2018, 10:17:37 pm »
I completely agree. We should look at the big picture instead of demanding perfection from every detail.

IF it is the identification of every object within one's environment, then I would challenge that task as not even being reasonable.
Indeed, my point was that demanding that this collision avoidance system can identify every object is unreasonable and that humans can not do that either. What matters is that it can reduce the number of accidents (which it apparently can, significantly so).

A robocar must be much more reliable than a collision detection system (which is why they do not solely rely on this kind of computer vision system). But it is also unreasonable to demand that robocars should be perfect before admitting they are useful. What the manufacturers need to prove is that the cars are safer than human drivers, not that they are infallible (which they of course never will be).
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf