First pedestrian death by autonomous car...

[Tedro]

...
The street looks adequately lit.

Most if not all street lights in the Phoenix Metro area are not always all on at the same time, usually just a few minutes at a time depending on the time of day. They turn off and on with usually more than one or more off than on in a row. You get used to it after a while and most people don't notice it because the lights themselves turn on and turn off so slowly.

fake edit: just throwing that out there

[ogden]

What if hacking was cause of particular accident? Are there any computer safety regulations for (autonomous and not only) cars?

[coppice]

Hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road ... all this can be detected and should be the standard behaviour of a safety driver. Any deviance should be punished, in real time with a loudspeaker and offline with performance metrics. This will make being a safety driver incredibly annoying, but it's a job.

So the mind numbing, soul destroying nature of the job isn't enough for you. You want to torture the poor sucker, too? 

[Marco]

Torture does keep you awake. Still better than Amazon warehouse worker and the surveillance potentially saves lives instead of just money

[ogden]

Torture does keep you awake.

Unfortunately job of most testing engineers is more or less torture. Some likes it

[raptor1956]

What if hacking was cause of particular accident? Are there any computer safety regulations for (autonomous and not only) cars?

I doubt the cars are "connected" in a way that would expose them to hacking, but I can't say that for sure.  I'd guess that if they are connected then they had better have encryption and non trivial passwords...


Brian

[Brumby]

For all the excuses about "it's impossible to keep paying attention in an autonomous car" they do make it awfully easy for the driver not to even have their eyes on the road.

Hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road ... all this can be detected and should be the standard behaviour of a safety driver. Any deviance should be punished, in real time with a loudspeaker and offline with performance metrics. This will make being a safety driver incredibly annoying, but it's a job.

You have restated something which hasn't been shown to be the case... and that is the defined role of a "safety driver".  You have put a definition against it which, I believe, could be rather inaccurate.

I refer you to the discussion thread on the topic:
EEVblog #1066 - Uber Autonomous Car Fatality - How?

[Marco]

The role of Uber is to take reasonable measures to minimize risk during their testing. Making optimal use of the human component goes towards that ... part of optimal use is hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road. Not making them do that to meet some semantic definition of their role is rather silly.

Uber cars were running red lights frequently in San Francisco, they could have killed more. At some point the attention of the safety drivers will make the difference between life and death, better make them keep attention as much as possible. Regardless of how you want to define their role.

[Halcyon]

The role of Uber is to take reasonable measures to minimize risk during their testing. Making optimal use of the human component goes towards that ... part of optimal use is hands on wheel, foot on break pedal, eyes on road. Not making them do that to meet some semantic definition of their role is rather silly.

Uber cars were running red lights frequently in San Francisco, they could have killed more. At some point the attention of the safety drivers will make the difference between life and death, better make them keep attention as much as possible. Regardless of how you want to define their role.

A company, such as Uber, can only do so much. Ultimately the responsibility for adhering to the road rules and driver attitude comes down to the person who (voluntarily) sits in the driver seat. Sure, Uber can offer training, guidelines etc... but the buck stops with the driver.

If the human driver in this instance was negligent in some way, then I expect the law to come down on him. However in this particular case, the pedestrian shares some, if not most of the blame.

[Brumby]

A company, such as Uber, can only do so much. Ultimately the responsibility for adhering to the road rules and driver attitude comes down to the person who (voluntarily) sits in the driver seat. Sure, Uber can offer training, guidelines etc... but the buck stops with the driver.

The question then becomes: Who is the driver?   The autonomous system that has been given the primary driving role, or the person sitting in the "traditional" driver's seat?

The answer cannot be an automatic reference to the person (as you might, traditionally) because the role of driver is no longer defined in the traditional sense.

[Marco]

A company, such as Uber, can only do so much.

If it's less than what I suggest, they aren't doing enough.

Ultimately the responsibility for adhering to the road rules and driver attitude comes down to the person who (voluntarily) sits in the driver seat. Sure, Uber can offer training, guidelines etc... but the buck stops with the driver.

Vigilance control systems are more of a necessity in these cars than in trains ... did they have any vigilance control system at all?

[BrianHG]

As for all the comments and arguments here, forget the BS dashcam, which may have been deliberately crapped up, until the accident scene is replicated by forensics, IE an equally dressed pedestrian, in the same place walking at the same speed.  With an equivalent car & headlights, traveling at the same speed as well, same location, and a real human eye-quality camera + the same camera from the self driving car's AI are re-filmed properly without heavy compressing by a investigating third party with no ties to Uber or any self driving car firms, absolutely everything observed to date, and every other driver doing their own filming on the same road posting it on youtube only serves to spread BS and we will never be sure of anything about the true visibility from that accident.

If proper third party replication isn't done, this accident will get buried away with time, which is what I expect to happen.

[Halcyon]

The question then becomes: Who is the driver?   The autonomous system that has been given the primary driving role, or the person sitting in the "traditional" driver's seat?

The answer cannot be an automatic reference to the person (as you might, traditionally) because the role of driver is no longer defined in the traditional sense.

In the case of Australia, then the human is ultimately the driver and has overall responsibility of that vehicle. I suspect the laws will be pretty similar in the US.

There can be more than one driver. For example, if you were to control the steering wheel as a passenger from the passenger seat, you are technically a "driver" according to the law.

[Brumby]

Australia's approach at this time is certainly one where the human driver is given the responsibility.

While I admit I haven't done the requisite research, it seems the legislation in a couple of the states in the USA has moved towards supporting autonomous vehicles.

[nctnico]

As for all the comments and arguments here, forget the BS dashcam, which may have been deliberately crapped up, until the accident scene is replicated by forensics, IE an equally dressed pedestrian, in the same place walking at the same speed.

Agreed. People should also realise that an autonomous car likely isn't using the camera information at all or if an autonomous vehicle does use information from a camera, the image quality will be much better than that from a crappy dash cam. The dash cam is just there to get some clues on what happened during driving so people have some visual clues along with the data from all the sensors (LIDAR, camera, ultrasonic distance, etc, etc).

[GlennSprigg]

Quote from: wilfred on March 22, 2018, 08:03:06 PM
I'm not sure if your post was directed at me.
Reply from 'Brumby'....
It certainly was.  Your argument is idealistic.  It completely ignores the practical circumstances.
You are no doubt going to stand by your opinion, no matter what I think, so I'm not going to say anything more about it.  You have just as much right to be wrong as I.

You say you are...." not going to say anything more about it. ".... but you did.., with.....
"You have just as much right to be wrong as I"...

Conversely.... HE has as much right to be RIGHT, as you....
At times like this, there is 'no' ultimate, (yet to be determined), right or wrong, but simply the 'best' people we know, at the time, to attempt the hardest problems of today, in the hope that human kind will prosper from it, if not today then tomorrow.....
It's called 'progress', and as always mistakes will be made. But we learn.

[MT]

Number of accidents per driven miles/km, Uber is on very low counts according to Don MacKenzie at

http://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/2018/03/19/are-ubers-autonomous-vehicles-safe/

[nctnico]

Number of accidents per driven miles/km, Uber is on very low counts according to Don MacKenzie at

http://faculty.washington.edu/dwhm/2018/03/19/are-ubers-autonomous-vehicles-safe/

Without dividing accident statistics per road type the numbers in that article say nothing. In the NL the chance of an accident on a highway is 20 times less compared to driving in a city. So if the majority of the distance driven by autonomous Uber cars is in a city (which given the purpose of Uber is likely) and a significant part of the distance driven by other cars is on highways then the numbers in the article are way off.

[orion242]

I don't really see how you can draw any comparisons in the crash / mile driven rate between humans and AVs.

Are AVs driving in snow?  How about in pouring rain with high wind?  Dirt roads without lane markers?  AVs are only driving in ideal locations, under ideal weather, aka perfect conditions.  This isn't the case for human drivers that still need to get to work when its snowing.

These comparisons are rubbish.

[Rick Law]

While a pedestrian killed is a very big thing...  The thing that scares me as much or more about AV is it's lack of common sense.  Even with machine learning, it will be hard for it to reach the level of a normal 17 year-old.

I know what to expect out of a human driver.  What would an AV do if:
- A very pregnant lady got in the car, frantic and can only scream "the water just broke."
- I (the passenger) open the window and start shooting
- I am molesting a girl in the back as the car goes
- The girl sitting next to me is blind-folded and hands tied
- Something got into the car on Halloween, that something looks even puzzling to a human
- Toilet paper all over the road way (on Halloween or in some areas, typical college graduation season)
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass as if he is about to jump
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass with a frozen turkey (a driver was killed by a kid's practical joke in my State some years back - the turkey more then went through the windshield.  Twelve years ago (approx), a lady in NYC/Long Island was nearly killed by the same prank.)

Common sense allows us to deal with uncommon situations in a reasonably way.  An average 17-year-old would probably have enough common sense to handle any of those situation and the many many others scenario we have yet to imagine.  An AV?  No one knows but the programmer.  For machine-learning type of AV, even the programmer doesn't know.

I think, proper operation of a deadly device requires a bit more than just knowing when to turn and when to brake.

[nctnico]

While a pedestrian killed is a very big thing...  The thing that scares me as much or more about AV is it's lack of common sense.  Even with machine learning, it will be hard for it to reach the level of a normal 17 year-old.

I know what to expect out of a human driver.  What would an AV do if:
- A very pregnant lady got in the car, frantic and can only scream "the water just broke."
- I (the passenger) open the window and start shooting
- I am molesting a girl in the back as the car goes
- The girl sitting next to me is blind-folded and hands tied
- Something got into the car on Halloween, that something looks even puzzling to a human
- Toilet paper all over the road way (on Halloween or in some areas, typical college graduation season)
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass as if he is about to jump
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass with a frozen turkey (a driver was killed by a kid's practical joke in my State some years back - the turkey more then went through the windshield.  Twelve years ago (approx), a lady in NYC/Long Island was nearly killed by the same prank.)

Why would an AV have to deal with that? Can your phone do anything useful by itself in those situations?

[Rick Law]

While a pedestrian killed is a very big thing...  The thing that scares me as much or more about AV is it's lack of common sense.  Even with machine learning, it will be hard for it to reach the level of a normal 17 year-old.

I know what to expect out of a human driver.  What would an AV do if:
- A very pregnant lady got in the car, frantic and can only scream "the water just broke."
- I (the passenger) open the window and start shooting
- I am molesting a girl in the back as the car goes
- The girl sitting next to me is blind-folded and hands tied
- Something got into the car on Halloween, that something looks even puzzling to a human
- Toilet paper all over the road way (on Halloween or in some areas, typical college graduation season)
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass as if he is about to jump
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass with a frozen turkey (a driver was killed by a kid's practical joke in my State some years back - the turkey more then went through the windshield.  Twelve years ago (approx), a lady in NYC/Long Island was nearly killed by the same prank.)

Why would an AV have to deal with that? Can your phone do anything useful by itself in those situations?

You really think a guy would have time to make a phone call while he is in a car molesting someone?  A human driver would know to do something.  An AV car, may be not.

That reply you quoted was not intended to say that we rely on the car to do law enforcement.  It was intended as an illustrate how simple expectations we have from common sense go out the window when we are deal with a machine without common sense.

[bd139]

The three times I've woken up in a bus garage before suggests that a human operator doesn't necessarily possess the skills for inferring what is going on very well...

This dude has far more clue:

[nctnico]

While a pedestrian killed is a very big thing...  The thing that scares me as much or more about AV is it's lack of common sense.  Even with machine learning, it will be hard for it to reach the level of a normal 17 year-old.

I know what to expect out of a human driver.  What would an AV do if:
- A very pregnant lady got in the car, frantic and can only scream "the water just broke."
- I (the passenger) open the window and start shooting
- I am molesting a girl in the back as the car goes
- The girl sitting next to me is blind-folded and hands tied
- Something got into the car on Halloween, that something looks even puzzling to a human
- Toilet paper all over the road way (on Halloween or in some areas, typical college graduation season)
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass as if he is about to jump
- Someone standing at the edge of the over-pass with a frozen turkey (a driver was killed by a kid's practical joke in my State some years back - the turkey more then went through the windshield.  Twelve years ago (approx), a lady in NYC/Long Island was nearly killed by the same prank.)

Why would an AV have to deal with that? Can your phone do anything useful by itself in those situations?

You really think a guy would have time to make a phone call while he is in a car molesting someone?  A human driver would know to do something.  An AV car, may be not.

That reply you quoted was not intended to say that we rely on the car to do law enforcement.  It was intended as an illustrate how simple expectations we have from common sense go out the window when we are deal with a machine without common sense.

There is no reason why an AV should be any smarter than a hammer. After all an AV is a tool. A sophisticated tool but a tool nevertheless. An AV should stick to the traffic rules and (if possible) don't hit anything. Still want common sense? Put a monitoring device inside an AV so a (human) call center operator can deal with 'situations'.

[Rick Law]

...
...
There is no reason why an AV should be any smarter than a hammer. After all an AV is a tool. A sophisticated tool but a tool nevertheless. An AV should stick to the traffic rules and (if possible) don't hit anything. Still want common sense? Put a monitoring device inside an AV so a (human) call center operator can deal with 'situations'.

We are actually on the same page.  My argument is not whether AV should have that capability or not.  Instead, I was arguing about our expectations.

You know to not to expect (in your words) AV smarter than a hammer, where as, many others expect AV to be rather smart, perhaps even smarter than human.

My point is, we should expect it to be a rather dumb tool lacking common sense.  That deficit in turn makes it to be lacking the real intelligence of a real driver.  It will therefore will make mistakes that human with our common sense could easily avoid.