Uber ~ Automated Driving Death

[mitchmitchell]

How about installing air bags on the front bumper, angled slightly upward, so the victim (human, dog, cat, drug-dealer...) will be sent upward to land on an inflated air bag on the roof of the car.... wait when we get to the time when we get an RF chip installed at birth, and the car does a background check, on the soon to be victim ms before impact, it can then decide to activate the front air bag or if it was the drug-dealer, don't inflate the air bags and increase speed, and alter the cars camera output by inserting a 30 second commercial in place of the impact footage. This will also help with the world's overpopulation issues.

If your going that far just have it upload the impact footage to YouTube dubbed to Queen's "Another one bites the dust" and generate some revenue!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[asbril]

1 hour ago, mitchmitchell said:

If your going that far just have it upload the impact footage to YouTube dubbed to Queen's "Another one bites the dust" and generate some revenue!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

I don't like where this is going....... Its probably my lack of sense of humor.

[Mustang65]

31 minutes ago, asbril said:

I don't like where this is going....... Its probably my lack of sense of humor.

I apologize for taking this one step farther than I probably should have, it was meant to be in a context of what the extremes could be , should a hacker get into the code but I did not convey the message that way

[Mustang65]

Take hacking one more step.. IRAN vs our Drones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident

Can you imagine driving down the road and a hacker gets into your self-driving-car's computer.... If they did it to the drone they surly can do it to a car.

If you recall, the police wanted automakers to put code in cars so that they, if needed could shut down your engine, control your brakes, and the locks on the doors. It never made it. I wonder why?

[mitchmitchell]

Take hacking one more step.. IRAN vs our Drones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Can you imagine driving down the road and a hacker gets into your self-driving-car's computer.... If they did it to the drone they surly can do it to a car.
If you recall, the police wanted automakers to put code in cars so that they, if needed could shut down your engine, control your brakes, and the locks on the doors. It never made it. I wonder why?

No need for it to be a self driving car for that. I use a CAN bus sniffer on my truck. If a hacker gets to that bus you're toast. This is an existing issue, no need to wait for self driving cars - I'm pretty sure you can steer, accelerate, change gears etc that way.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[asbril]

Arizona Governor Suspends Uber’s Self-Driving Cars From Roads

Arizona Governor Suspends Uber’s Self-Driving Cars From Roads - WSJ.pdf

[mitchmitchell]

Arizona Governor Suspends Uber’s Self-Driving Cars From Roads

Arizona Governor Suspends Uber’s Self-Driving Cars From Roads - WSJ.pdf

I read part of the writeup about the pressure to put on a show for the new CEO (who had considered shutting down the program initially). I'm betting there was an environment at Uber that contributed to this accident - not sure why Uber isn't just a user of this technology instead of a developer anyway.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[asbril]

Just now, mitchmitchell said:

I read part of the writeup about the pressure to put on a show for the new CEO (who had considered shutting down the program initially). I'm betting there was an environment at Uber that contributed to this accident - not sure why Uber isn't just a user of this technology instead of a developer anyway.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

You are so right. Instead of  "stealing" the technology from Google, why not teaming up with them ? Though Uber could be the nr 1 user of self driving cars, that does not mean that they should design them. Example of Peter's Principle ?

[Teken]

Suspending vs killing the program is two different things. The two man rule should be brought back to ensure a measure of fail over. I would love to see the Lidar logs as to what the system detected vs what it thought it did along with the other sensors.

Also, they need to get better cameras from various angles for these vehicles ~ Just brutal video!

[asbril]

And the story continues.....

Tesla Says Autopilot Was Engaged in Fatal Crash Under Investigation in California - WSJ.pdf

[larryllix]

On 26/03/2018 at 11:03 PM, Teken said:

Suspending vs killing the program is two different things. The two man rule should be brought back to ensure a measure of fail over. I would love to see the Lidar logs as to what the system detected vs what it thought it did along with the other sensors.

Also, they need to get better cameras from various angles for these vehicles ~ Just brutal video!

The front camera only seems to be there for political purposes and the rendering is almost useless to assign blame with. Possibly some HDR camera technology is in order where two sensors with different sensitivities capture a wider range of contrast and blend them, more similar to the human eye My cell phone camera does this very well. . After all who is going to ever view the recordings?... Humans.

The camera system should have been better than a $29 webcam,  if future lives are going to depend on the use of the recordings for  development of the safety mechanisms.

In this example, the camera lens was blinded from seeing the pedestrian by the extreme contrast of, the street light lit pavement to  darker areas, on the sensor, and the woman wasn't in that  brighter illumination until too late to stop. In reality an attentive human probably could have seen the woman a few lanes over but the cheap camera system cannot show it accurately.

[apostolakisl]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/08/new-high-speed-train-in-florida-kills-4th-person-since-launching-service.html

Barely news.  Curious.

[Teken]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/08/new-high-speed-train-in-florida-kills-4th-person-since-launching-service.html
Barely news.  Curious.

I don't follow how this is related to this topic besides the fact. Four stupid humans thought they could beat a speeding train. ?

You simply can't teach stupid.

When my daughter was seven I taught her a few basic things of life. Don't lick anything metal in winter. Never walk on the lakes and rivers. Don't play on the snow hills.

Don't cross the street without looking both ways and don't jay walk.

Never play on the train tracks and never try to beat a train.

Don't piss in the wind (well I thought she was going to be a boy) but told her anyways! ?

Regardless, we have four perfect examples of stupid people who are dead because they lacked any common sense.

This is exactly how I expect this whole automated car thing to end up.

The End . . .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mitchmitchell]

I don't follow how this is related to this topic besides the fact. Four stupid humans thought they could beat a speeding train. ?

You simply can't teach stupid.

When my daughter was seven I taught her a few basic things of life. Don't lick anything metal in winter. Never walk on the lakes and rivers. Don't play on the snow hills.

Don't cross the street without looking both ways and don't jay walk.

Never play on the train tracks and never try to beat a train.

Don't piss in the wind (well I thought she was going to be a boy) but told her anyways! ?

Regardless, we have four perfect examples of stupid people who are dead because they lacked any common sense.

This is exactly how I expect this whole automated car thing to end up.

The End . . .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You often can teach the stupid folks, the hard part is making sure they survive the lesson to put their new painfully acquired knowledge to use. Of course if these folks had miraculously survived and tried it again well...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[mitchmitchell]

You often can teach the stupid folks, the hard part is making sure they survive the lesson to put their new painfully acquired knowledge to use. Of course if these folks had miraculously survived and tried it again well...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You'd think this would happen less with a high speed train cause you wouldn't have to wait as long but noooo......

Teken, you see where my lack of faith in human drivers comes from.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Teken]

11 hours ago, mitchmitchell said:

You'd think this would happen less with a high speed train cause you wouldn't have to wait as long but noooo......

Teken, you see where my lack of faith in human drivers comes from.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

What this high lights to the Nth degree is no matter what you do there are people in this society who lack common sense. We as a society have *Literally* regulated almost everything for the benefit of stupid. What is going to happen to fully automated vehicles is it will usher in a whole new era of rich incompetent fools. When the technology comes down in price another new era of lazy and incompetent will arise. 

I truly believe this technology has value in the big scheme of things.

But, at the current pace and the way its deployed its nothing but a death trap waiting to happen for everyone.

 

[apostolakisl]

Seems my point needs to be written out here.

1) 4 people die after illegally entering the path of a vehicle (train) in just a couple months of operation

2) 1 person dies after illegally entering path of a vehicle (self-driving car) after years of driving millions of miles (speaking to all self-driving cars since I don't know Uber's numbers)

 

Number 1 above barely makes news and only after 4 separate incidents in a short period of time.

Number 2  above is splashed across front pages despite what would appear to be much less carnage in the face of vastly higher number of opportunities.

 

The ensuing argument from a number of people seems to be centered on how a self-driving car is no good/no where near ready/will never be safe/etc. and can't be allowed.  These same people barely bat an eye at status quo risks even though they look to be considerably worse.  The fact is that the response to self-driving cars is emotional, not empirical.  

Understand that I am not saying accidental deaths are OK.  I am saying that accidental death will happen and it is our job to reduce that risk based on empirical evidence, not emotion.

 

[Teken]

13 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

Seems my point needs to be written out here.

1) 4 people die after illegally entering the path of a vehicle (train) in just a couple months of operation

2) 1 person dies after illegally entering path of a vehicle (self-driving car) after years of driving millions of miles (speaking to all self-driving cars since I don't know Uber's numbers)

 

Number 1 above barely makes news and only after 4 separate incidents in a short period of time.

Number 2  above is splashed across front pages despite what would appear to be much less carnage in the face of vastly higher number of opportunities.

 

The ensuing argument from a number of people seems to be centered on how a self-driving car is no good/no where near ready/will never be safe/etc. and can't be allowed.  These same people barely bat an eye at status quo risks even though they look to be considerably worse.  The fact is that the response to self-driving cars is emotional, not empirical.  

Understand that I am not saying accidental deaths are OK.  I am saying that accidental death will happen and it is our job to reduce that risk based on empirical evidence, not emotion.

 

My reply wasn't based on any emotion what so ever I simply stated a fact. These four people who died were plain stupid ~ The End. These four deaths were not accidents they were premeditated events that happen because the *Human* lacked any common sense. An accident is something you have no control over and have no awareness of how or what will happen.

These four people who thought they could beat a speeding train decided their time is worth a lot more than their lives.

When the self preservation mode is purposely ignored such as the above this literally means they were too stupid to live.

How does this apply to automated vehicles?!?!

People are saying because a vehicle has dozens, thousands of sensors, incorporates some kind of AI, high speed processing, and Man-Bear-Pig programming. That these vehicles will ultimately be safer for the public at large.

My position on that is the idea and concept, never mind deployment is completely flawed.

Why???

Because the basic infrastructure is not in place to make it safe in all road environments. There are two concepts for this whole automated vehicle thing and the first is critically flawed. It has a steering wheel and its *Assumed* the stupid *Human* will be focused and hands on the wheel to intercede when required. When we all know plainly this will never happen because several stupid humans have proven it so.

Each of these events were purported as safer . . .

The facts presented here today counter that to the T.

With respect to the second iteration of a fully automated vehicle with out a steering wheel that will never happen unless dedicated infrastructure is in place. At the current pace of development those who continue to push this terrible concept with out first thinking what needs to be. Will be out of business, in jail, and bankrupt because America is the land of *I sue you because I am too stupid to know better*.

Why people believe every aspect of our lives must be automated is beyond me . . .

 

[mitchmitchell]

My reply wasn't based on any emotion what so ever I simply stated a fact. These four people who died were plain stupid ~ The End. These four deaths were not accidents they were premeditated events that happen because the *Human* lacked any common sense. An accident is something you have no control over and have no awareness of how or what will happen.
These four people who thought they could beat a speeding train decided their time is worth a lot more than their lives.
When the self preservation mode is purposely ignored such as the above this literally means they were too stupid to live.
How does this apply to automated vehicles?!?!
People are saying because a vehicle has dozens, thousands of sensors, incorporates some kind of AI, high speed processing, and Man-Bear-Pig programming. That these vehicles will ultimately be safer for the public at large.
My position on that is the idea and concept, never mind deployment is completely flawed.
Why???
Because the basic infrastructure is not in place to make it safe in all road environments. There are two concepts for this whole automated vehicle thing and the first is critically flawed. It has a steering wheel and its *Assumed* the stupid *Human* will be focused and hands on the wheel to intercede when required. When we all know plainly this will never happen because several stupid humans have proven it so.
Each of these events were purported as safer . . .
The facts presented here today counter that to the T.
With respect to the second iteration of a fully automated vehicle with out a steering wheel that will never happen unless dedicated infrastructure is in place. At the current pace of development those who continue to push this terrible concept with out first thinking what needs to be. Will be out of business, in jail, and bankrupt because America is the land of *I sue you because I am too stupid to know better*.
Why people believe every aspect of our lives must be automated is beyond me . . .
 

Teken - can you elaborate on what you consider the needed basic infrastructure is?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Teken]

21 minutes ago, mitchmitchell said:

Teken - can you elaborate on what you consider the needed basic infrastructure is?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

For starters dedicated lanes similar to what you see in large cities where buses have priority use besides EMS / Fire / Police. 

[apostolakisl]

1 hour ago, Teken said:

My reply wasn't based on any emotion what so ever I simply stated a fact. These four people who died were plain stupid ~ The End. These four deaths were not accidents they were premeditated events that happen because the *Human* lacked any common sense. An accident is something you have no control over and have no awareness of how or what will happen.

These four people who thought they could beat a speeding train decided their time is worth a lot more than their lives.

When the self preservation mode is purposely ignored such as the above this literally means they were too stupid to live.

How does this apply to automated vehicles?!?!

People are saying because a vehicle has dozens, thousands of sensors, incorporates some kind of AI, high speed processing, and Man-Bear-Pig programming. That these vehicles will ultimately be safer for the public at large.

My position on that is the idea and concept, never mind deployment is completely flawed.

Why???

Because the basic infrastructure is not in place to make it safe in all road environments. There are two concepts for this whole automated vehicle thing and the first is critically flawed. It has a steering wheel and its *Assumed* the stupid *Human* will be focused and hands on the wheel to intercede when required. When we all know plainly this will never happen because several stupid humans have proven it so.

Each of these events were purported as safer . . .

The facts presented here today counter that to the T.

With respect to the second iteration of a fully automated vehicle with out a steering wheel that will never happen unless dedicated infrastructure is in place. At the current pace of development those who continue to push this terrible concept with out first thinking what needs to be. Will be out of business, in jail, and bankrupt because America is the land of *I sue you because I am too stupid to know better*.

Why people believe every aspect of our lives must be automated is beyond me . . .

 

The fact that you have never posted about trains hitting pedestrians, or cars with people driving them hitting pedestrians flies in the face of your "I'm not basing this on emotion" argument.  If it were based on empirical evidence rather than emotion, you would be far more concerned about the other pedestrian incidents since they seem to have a higher incidence per unit of measure.  And of course you are not alone.  The outcry to shut down uber's testing was widespread, no one seems to be asking for this train to be shut down even though they it is clearly more dangerous to essentially the same type of people breaking the same type of law.

And I think you miss the whole point of driverless technology and why it exists today and not 10 years ago.  It is precisely because it has come to the point where it can function within our current infrastructure.  "Infrastructure" built-out automated systems could have worked 50 years ago.  They didn't happen for obvious reasons.

[Teken]

39 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

The fact that you have never posted about trains hitting pedestrians, or cars with people driving them hitting pedestrians flies in the face of your "I'm not basing this on emotion" argument.  If it were based on empirical evidence rather than emotion, you would be far more concerned about the other pedestrian incidents since they seem to have a higher incidence per unit of measure.  And of course you are not alone.  The outcry to shut down uber's testing was widespread, no one seems to be asking for this train to be shut down even though they it is clearly more dangerous to essentially the same type of people breaking the same type of law.

And I think you miss the whole point of driverless technology and why it exists today and not 10 years ago.  It is precisely because it has come to the point where it can function within our current infrastructure.  "Infrastructure" built-out automated systems could have worked 50 years ago.  They didn't happen for obvious reasons.

My replies as it pertains to your comments bolded in matching colors:

I didn't know calling out the obvious was a requirement. People die annually by train, car, bus, motor cycle, bicycle, walking, etc.

Why would a train be shut down due to a person failing to use any common sense and ignoring their human survival instincts?? You do realize unlike a vehicle the train always has the right of way and is locked into a stationary track. Unlike any other vehicle a train can not stop on a dime given the massive weight and force of said train. Its not like a train could move over or make some other vector adjustment.

Random Insight: I have three friends that are / were train engineers. Two of them have left work due to the fact hitting countless people over the years has affected their mental state. Each of them know 100% there was nothing they could do except sit and watch for the impact. No matter how right they are, having the right of way, lights and guard rails down, this has a toll on those charged with care and control of such large vehicles.

 

[apostolakisl]

1 hour ago, Teken said:

My replies as it pertains to your comments bolded in matching colors:

I didn't know calling out the obvious was a requirement. People die annually by train, car, bus, motor cycle, bicycle, walking, etc.

Why would a train be shut down due to a person failing to use any common sense and ignoring their human survival instincts?? You do realize unlike a vehicle the train always has the right of way and is locked into a stationary track. Unlike any other vehicle a train can not stop on a dime given the massive weight and force of said train. Its not like a train could move over or make some other vector adjustment.

Random Insight: I have three friends that are / were train engineers. Two of them have left work due to the fact hitting countless people over the years has affected their mental state. Each of them know 100% there was nothing they could do except sit and watch for the impact. No matter how right they are, having the right of way, lights and guard rails down, this has a toll on those charged with care and control of such large vehicles.

 

In response to the blue.

Why would a self-driving car be shut down for exactly the same reason?  Yet hordes of people are calling for the one and not the other. 

Emotion is the answer.  History is littered with countless instances where fear and/or prejudice of the new, different, unknown, etc has unjustifiably affected the targeted thing when by all objective measures, the targeted posed at least no more of a threat than whatever the status quo was.  Because of emotion, the new/unknown is often subjected to much more scrutiny than the old/known.  And in fact, sometimes it is the opposite.  Sometimes the new is given a pass.  We see this more often when dealing with individual people as the target rather than technologies, but I see it too.  Where some old timer is read the riot act while some new celebrity gets away with murder. 

[Teken]

7 minutes ago, apostolakisl said:

In response to the blue.

Why would a self-driving car be shut down for exactly the same reason?  Yet hordes of people are calling for the one and not the other. 

Emotion is the answer.  History is littered with countless instances where fear and/or prejudice of the new, different, unknown, etc has unjustifiably affected the targeted thing when by all objective measures, the targeted posed at least no more of a threat than whatever the status quo was.  Because of emotion, the new/unknown is often subjected to much more scrutiny than the old/known.  And in fact, sometimes it is the opposite.  Sometimes the new is given a pass.  We see this more often when dealing with individual people as the target rather than technologies, but I see it too.  Where some old timer is read the riot act while some new celebrity gets away with murder. 

Well, I can't argue those points because I hold this same view. 

I would say emotion does play a role considering we are humans so at some level it impacts what we do / say. But, that is easily tempered by facts and experience assuming *Human* wants to use it.

My key driving point is people are arguing the point that a machine can and will do better than man. As I stated early on Boeing / Airbus have proven beyond a shadow of doubt they can fly any plane across the globe via auto pilot.

These same companies have proven to every government body that same technology can indeed take off and land the same.

Yet, we don't allow such automation to intercede into this mode of transportation. 

[apostolakisl]

42 minutes ago, Teken said:

Well, I can't argue those points because I hold this same view. 

I would say emotion does play a role considering we are humans so at some level it impacts what we do / say. But, that is easily tempered by facts and experience assuming *Human* wants to use it.

My key driving point is people are arguing the point that a machine can and will do better than man. As I stated early on Boeing / Airbus have proven beyond a shadow of doubt they can fly any plane across the globe via auto pilot.

These same companies have proven to every government body that same technology can indeed take off and land the same.

Yet, we don't allow such automation to intercede into this mode of transportation. 

It would be hard for me to comment on airplanes since I don't have any data.  But I don't recall ever hearing that a plane crash was a result of autopilot making a mistake.  Human and mechanical error seem to split the reasons in my anecdotal experience of memories.  Now of course a human was still there, so maybe autopilot screws up all the time and the human just takes over before any ill affect?  Don't know.  Do know that what seems like forever ago (at least 15 years, probably more) a pilot announced to the cabin (me being in the cabin) that the landing we just completed was done on autopilot.  I also know that (via the news) black box data indicates that pilots were being shown a multitude of "hey dummy, your going to crash this plane" warnings, yet the pilot continued right on with crashing the plane.