Harley Lover Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Yes, the technology failed, that I can agree with. I would think that the sensors should have 'seen' her and reacted, but they didn't for some reason. OK, so she didn't 'step' out in front of the car, she walked out in front of it. Is there a difference? You can say she was 1.5 lanes across the road, but you are completely neglecting the fact that a car with headlights is much easier to see than a pedestrian in the dark of night. My point is that her "fault" is not relevant to the fact that the technology completely failed in its mission. If she could "see" the car, then how soon should the car have "seen" her? The lidar on this car should be able to detect her sooner than she could "see" the vehicle. Soon enough to stop or avoid her! If the tech cannot do that, then what is the point? All the baying at the moon about her "fault" ignores the fact that this tech is not supposed to let this happen. Period. Especially in the circumstances as presented here, in which the vehicle had plenty of time to detect her, did not have any atmospheric compromises (rain, snow) to interfere with its detection, yet it plowed right into her with no slowing, no avoidance of any kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Bike also should have had proper reflectors in the wheels. Also depended on the state and local laws Pedestrians can always have right of way. In Ann Arbor for instance you are required to stop for a pedestrian WHERE EVER they want to cross, cross walk or not. This is actually being debated currently. http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/09/debate_over_ann_arbors_crosswa_1.html You read that wrong. It doesn't say you have to stop for a pedestrian outside a crosswalk. It says you have to stop for pedestrians WAITING at the curb in a crosswalk. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) My point is that her "fault" is not relevant to the fact that the technology completely failed in its mission. If she could "see" the car, then how soon should the car have "seen" her? The lidar on this car should be able to detect her sooner than she could "see" the vehicle. Soon enough to stop or avoid her! If the tech cannot do that, then what is the point? All the baying at the moon about her "fault" ignores the fact that this tech is not supposed to let this happen. Period. Especially in the circumstances as presented here, in which the vehicle had plenty of time to detect her, did not have any atmospheric compromises (rain, snow) to interfere with its detection, yet it plowed right into her with no slowing, no avoidance of any kind. OK, I agree with you 100% that the technology should not have allowed it to happen (though it does not remove her fault). However, remember that this is beta software, and the reason the car had a 'safety driver.' Yes, it should have detected it, but it didn't. Even if it wasn't beta, software still has bugs. And that, my friends, is why I'm not a fan of fully autonomous driving. Edited March 23, 2018 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 My point is that her "fault" is not relevant to the fact that the technology completely failed in its mission. If she could "see" the car, then how soon should the car have "seen" her? The lidar on this car should be able to detect her sooner than she could "see" the vehicle. Soon enough to stop or avoid her! If the tech cannot do that, then what is the point? All the baying at the moon about her "fault" ignores the fact that this tech is not supposed to let this happen. Period. Especially in the circumstances as presented here, in which the vehicle had plenty of time to detect her, did not have any atmospheric compromises (rain, snow) to interfere with its detection, yet it plowed right into her with no slowing, no avoidance of any kind. Seriously? We've said over and over that two things are true - she was at fault for walking into the path of a vehicle and therefore she is responsible for her own death AND the technology failed completely. Look at it another way - that type of technology is not required and if she had walked in front of a car without that technology she would still be just as dead and just as liable. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. One does not negate the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 No way that's 60-80 feet. 40-50 at best. And about 1.5 seconds. IMO 90% of drivers would not have been able to avoid the collision even if they were paying attention. Had the technology worked in either a driver or driverless vehicle at least the speed would have been greatly reduced. Everybody should agree on that. You should look at the video again. When the shoes first appear you can see 2 full white lines. The car is just entering the space between the white line it just passed and the first visible white line you can see. She is about 1/2 way in the space after the second white line. So car is in the space, just pass the white line out of frame, 30 feet to the first white line, 10 feet for the line, 30 feet space to the second white line, 10 feet for the second white line, she is ~ 1/2 way in the next space 15 feet. 30+10+30+10+15+=95 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 You should look at the video again. When the shoes first appear you can see 2 full white lines. The car is just entering the space between the white line it just passed and the first visible white line you can see. She is about 1/2 way in the space after the second white line. So car is in the space, just pass the white line out of frame, 30 feet to the first white line, 10 feet for the line, 30 feet space to the second white line, 10 feet for the second white line, she is ~ 1/2 way in the next space 15 feet. 30+10+30+10+15+=95 I see two white lines and she is about halfway after the second one. That's 10+30+10+15 = 65 feet. You have to start measuring from the front of the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 You should look at the video again. When the shoes first appear you can see 2 full white lines. The car is just entering the space between the white line it just passed and the first visible white line you can see. She is about 1/2 way in the space after the second white line. So car is in the space, just pass the white line out of frame, 30 feet to the first white line, 10 feet for the line, 30 feet space to the second white line, 10 feet for the second white line, she is ~ 1/2 way in the next space 15 feet. 30+10+30+10+15+=95 I see two white lines and she is about halfway after the second one. That's 10+30+10+15 = 65 feet. You have to start measuring from the front of the car. Another way to do the math:At 38miles/hour, the car travels ~56feet/second (38*5280/3600). 1s, 56 feet 1.5s, 84 feet 2s, 112 feet ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsPat Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Selfridge Air Force Base is named after Thomas Etholen Selfridge - the first person to be killed in a plane crash. Maybe something ought to be named after the first person killed by a self-driving car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 You read that wrong. It doesn't say you have to stop for a pedestrian outside a crosswalk. It says you have to stop for pedestrians WAITING at the curb in a crosswalk. Big difference. No if a pedestrian is waiting at a curb anywhere in the city you must stop Not just a at a crosswalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKX1960 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Regardless of the fault of the pedestrian, the technology failed completely. The Volvo didn't brake, didn't swerve, didn't react at all to the pedestrian - it just plowed right into her. And she didn't "step out in front of the car", she was already 1 1/2 lanes across the road when the Volvo struck her. The technology failed to recognize a pedestrian who was already well in the road before the arrival of the vehicle - she didn't "step out in front of the car". Thankfully we have the video that shows exactly where she was and how much progress she had made. The victim's Daughter hired an attorney. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 I see two white lines and she is about halfway after the second one. That's 10+30+10+15 = 65 feet. You have to start measuring from the front of the car. The front of the car is just past the white line out of frame so you have to add the 30 feet or lets say 20 feet before the car is at the first white line in frame. So 75-85 feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKX1960 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 The front of the car is just past the white line out of frame so you have to add the 30 feet or lets say 20 feet before the car is at the first white line in frame. So 75-85 feet. Cortica, a technology company that develops autonomous artificial intelligence, analyzed the video and provided its evaluation exclusively to CNET. Its system detected Herzberg at 0.9 second before impact when the car was about 50 feet away. Cortica's CEO, Igal Raichelgauz, said that would have been enough time for an autonomous vehicle to react and save Herzberg's life. "The advantage of machine response time and control, the right actions could be made to certainly mitigate the damage," Raichelgauz said. Tempe police say the car didn't slow down or swerve as Herzberg appeared on the road. It hit her traveling at 38 mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) No if a pedestrian is waiting at a curb anywhere in the city you must stop Not just a at a crosswalk. Again that's not correct. The pedestrian has to be at a crosswalk or intersection. Pedestrians not at a crosswalk or intersection must yield to vehicles. 10:148. - Pedestrians crossing streets. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. (b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. © Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. You only have to stop if there is a person waiting at the curb to enter the crosswalk or intersection. Edited March 23, 2018 by akirby 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 The front of the car is just past the white line out of frame so you have to add the 30 feet or lets say 20 feet before the car is at the first white line in frame. So 75-85 feet. I don't think we're using the same starting point. Doesn't matter. There was enough time for a properly functioning automatic braking system to at least start braking and slow down before impact. There was not enough time to say that a human driver would absolutely have had time to avoid the accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Again that's not correct. The pedestrian has to be at a crosswalk or intersection. Pedestrians not at a crosswalk or intersection must yield to vehicles. 10:148. - Pedestrians crossing streets. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. (b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. © Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. You only have to stop if there is a person waiting at the curb to enter the crosswalk or intersection. Thanks, the way it has been explained to me by others is incorrect then, the unmarked crossing is what is confusing - only unmarked at an intersection not unmarked in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Cortica, a technology company that develops autonomous artificial intelligence, analyzed the video and provided its evaluation exclusively to CNET. Its system detected Herzberg at 0.9 second before impact when the car was about 50 feet away. Cortica's CEO, Igal Raichelgauz, said that would have been enough time for an autonomous vehicle to react and save Herzberg's life. "The advantage of machine response time and control, the right actions could be made to certainly mitigate the damage," Raichelgauz said. Tempe police say the car didn't slow down or swerve as Herzberg appeared on the road. It hit her traveling at 38 mph. There is no way a company like this can say that their technology would have detected the person and saved their life. There are way too many variables. They can say that in a similar situation their software (as designed) would have initiated braking 0.9 seconds before impact which could have resulted in non life threatening injuries. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation. Vehicle stopping distances can vary greatly depending on tires and tire condition and road conditions, vehicle weight, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Thanks, the way it has been explained to me by others is incorrect then, the unmarked crossing is what is confusing - only unmarked at an intersection not unmarked in general. I can see how they would misinterpret that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) Holy freaking $hit! So pedestrians can just step out in front of a moving vehicle and expect the driver to avoid them regardless? Seriously? Come on man, that's just idiotic thinking! Blame the headlights! Blame the driver for texting! Blame the car for going too fast! Blame the sign! Blame the engineers who designed the road! Blame the sun for going down too soon! Blame whatever the hell you feel like, but dammit, don't expect someone to look before stepping out in front of a car. Good grief people! This is a snippet of what is wrong with society today. Take responsibility for your actions! It's really sad the woman is dead, but I'm glad the cops have found no wrongdoing on the part of the driver or the car. Yes, he should have been paying more attention and maybe the woman would have lived, but she died due to her own negligence. The driver is going to have to live with this the rest of his life, too. Not only did her actions lead to her death, but now another person is going to live with those nightmares and guilt forever. This is not about blame, it should be about preventing this tragedy from happening again. Sure, a person is in the wrong place but that does not vacate the responsibility of drivers to be vigilant, for authorities To do a better job of stopping people crossing roads at that point especially At night. If nothing is learned from this fatality then thats the real tragedy There are many points at which this terrible tragedy could have been prevented the car responding to her presence is the last in a long line of factors but it is the one with lasting consequences Edited March 23, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 "Police have said the Volvo had a video camera that recorded the crash. The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said. The speed limit in the area is 35 mph". The last speed limit sign is 45, the speed limit goes from 30 near the Rio Salado Prky to 35 on the Bridge over the Tempe Town lake Salt River to 45 just before the Red Mountain Fwy overpass. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4349572,-111.9414301,3a,75y,342.86h,64.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_i-hwzem35hckWpcSqL_DA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 The vehicle was probably accelerating actually as this 45 sign is just south of the accident location. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) Im glad the observer wasnt charged and I hope this serves as a powerful lesson to those who eagerly embrace the rapid onrush of autonomous vehicles that this tech is far from infallible and that maybe it cant do all that their makers claim Edited March 23, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Police chief said victim "came from the shadows" - don't believe it: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/?comments=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) The victim's Daughter hired an attorney. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would imagine that this paragraph from the Ars Technica article will play into it: And even if it's true that the road were poorly lit, it's not clear if that would exonerate Uber. Uber's cars have lidar and radar sensors in addition to cameras, and those sensors don't require ambient light to function. So the vehicle should have spotted Herzberg even if the road was pitch black. (Emphasis added.) That ain't gonna play well, regardless of who was to blame. Edited March 24, 2018 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 This will be interesting. If you think about it, this isn’t really any different than something like a brake failure. Unless there was negligence involved (that can be proven) it may just be a mechanical failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 This will be interesting. If you think about it, this isnt really any different than something like a brake failure. Unless there was negligence involved (that can be proven) it may just be a mechanical failure. Which is why a lawsuit for anything other than wrongful death shouldnt get very far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) This will be interesting. If you think about it, this isn’t really any different than something like a brake failure. Unless there was negligence involved (that can be proven) it may just be a mechanical failure. how about a software failure? how about a fundamental failure in the concept itself? Edited March 24, 2018 by 2b2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.