Autonomous Vehicles NOT Ready for Prime-Time

[LPSISRL]

I purposely waited for more facts to come out before forming an opinion and posting. One of my first thoughts was, "It was late at night. Was this pedestrian drunk or otherwise impaired? " And as it turns out, video from the Volvo's camera show that the woman stepped right out if front of the car. Neither the human operator who saw it happen nor the automated driver had sufficient time to respond. It appears the fault lies with the human pedestrian and not the human driver or automated vehicle.

So here's another bend on this subject. If you were involved in an accident like this being the driver in a normal car, you could spend you life agonizing over if there was something you missed, something you could have done to avoid killing the person who was a mother of 4 small children, wife, sister, etc. (fictitious person here) You might never be the same. You could be charged for manslaughter even if there was nothing you could have done and you did nothing wrong. Humans want revenge and someone to blame even when there really is no one. Even if no criminal charges are brought, you could be sued in civil court for negligent homicide (like O.J.) and found guilty. Wouldn't having an automated vehicle remove all these ramifications or at least isolate you from some? Lower liability in our sue-happy world? Hmmm... food for thought.

[Ronzuki]

Yes, that's a bend alright...more like a sharp-left. Is that really the direction we want to head? Absolve ourselves from accountability by employing, and then shifting blame on to, technology (essentially blaming someone else...it's not my fault) for what happens in life and our actions? Damn dude, that's some twisted thinking. You can get sued over chewing gum if someone doesn't like it. Again, the lawyers are always going to come ahead either way.

Did you all read the numerous humanly simple reasons why automation 'can't see' in the link posted above? All that were mentioned are everyday automation problems. Sensing, 'seeing', is a fundamental aspect of any automation undertaking. Many of the AGV's sensing problems can be solved, many can't. Again, repeatability makes the task much easier and thus less costly. Sure, given enough time, energy and money all sensing obstacles could possibly all be overcome in today's world. The sad fact is that everything has a price-point and a time-to-market component. Uber, and all parties concerned, decided it was time to unleash their product upon the public. Essentially signaling, good enough, it's ready to go. Knowing what I experience in my world of automation I can only imagine the motivations. When the lawsuits start flying, it's going to come out just how good enough it was or wasn't. Blame-game to ensue for certain. Hopefully Kuro has in-roads to providing information on that front...absolutely love to read all that.

So now I'll ask a simple question: given that any modern day rolling computer that's worth a damn to own and drive is averaging in the 30-50k range, at what price-point are you willing to pony up for an AGV? Oh and by the way, you can't ride along on roads w/o clear distinct lines or take a ride in the snow and rain. Makes getting to where you need to be a tad cumbersome after dropping all that coin. That answer to that question alone should end the autonomous vehicle pipe-dream.

What do you think the price tag on one of those Uber Volvo AGVs is? Who do you think pays to maintain and calibrate all that nifty tech? By whom? What are their qualifications? ( I ask since none of us can find a capable Suzuki tech with tools and knowledge) Again, at what cost? How much are you willing to spend annually for vehicle recertification? I live in a state where my safety inspection and emissions testing is performed annually. With nothing at all wrong w/ my Kizashi, that was an all but $100 ordeal. If you, the registered owner, neglect to maintain your equipment, the 'blaming of the technology for a fictitious person dying' defense isn't going to cut it.

How much of your disposable income do you, the average Joe, really want to dump into your transportation?

[KuroNekko]

The video from the Uber is now available.
The video shows what I thought happened was both right and wrong. I was wrong about the direction in which the victim was walking. She didn't leave the sidewalk closest to the vehicle, but was crossing the street towards it. However, I was correct about her jaywalking in the dark and that she literally walks in front of the vehicle's path. By the time any set of cameras or eyes would have detected her, it would have been too late. She literally appears from the darkness directly in front of the vehicle. Given the speed, her actions, and all other conditions, I'm not convinced this accident could have been avoided in this circumstance by man or machine.

About the only way I see this accident really being avoided is for a vehicle to have ultra-powerful offroad-type auxiliary lights to illuminate far down a dark road, beyond standard high beams. Those would have allowed a driver to see the woman crossing in time to slow down or avoid her. However, those types of lights are illegal for street use. It's also quite evident this victim wasn't looking as she crossed the road. She certainly didn't see the Uber coming.

The things I can take away having seen the video is that I have my doubts a human driver in this scenario could have avoided hitting the victim. The other thing is that my obsession with brighter headlights with more powerful bulbs is justified, even if they may not have prevented this specific accident.

The video can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO9iRUx5wmM

Your keep citing accident rates. Here's a low cost, high-impact solution to reduce accidents for you to chew on that would immediately and significantly improve your stats...ready for it?... render dumb phones completely useless in moving vehicles. Cause and effect, people would be looking up and around instead of focusing on their crotch, console, right seat cushion or steering wheel. Phones, like the one the butt-head in the Isuzu box truck was glued to when he almost plowed into my ass end 2 days ago as I had to quickly slow for and stop behind a horse and buggy that shot out from the right shoulder into the traveling lane to make a left turn. It's very simple you see...I was operating my vehicle, saw the buggy, realized what buggies are and what they're likely to do and reacted to the buggy. The moron behind me was distracted by starring down at his phone and didn't notice me slowing down and stopping for the buggy until glancing up from the steering wheel, where the phone was in his hand, at the last second and swerved on to the shoulder stopping by my right rear quarter panel. Human error (let's not sugar coat it, call it what it is, distraction) made possible by what? Correct, technology. Technology that has no business in an automobile. It's very simple logic don't you think? Technology induced problems that we must cure with....more and more, expensive, technology. The Cycle continues.

Your solution has some serious flaws though. First, it requires the very thing you absolutely hate: gubmint control. It suppresses individual freedom for all for the sake of controlling the few who are irresponsible with it. It would also mean no more hands-free calling, for even 911 calls. How about navigation from phone apps? Music streaming? It would also make passenger phones inoperable without complex technology (oh, don't you hate this?) to render what is permissible and what isn't.

More importantly, it doesn't prevent drunks or tired people from driving and causing accidents. It also doesn't prevent reckless driving. Phones are just one of many reasons why human drivers get into accidents.

If anything, I think technology could have prevented this accident. European companies have automatic adaptive headlights that not only automatically engage high beams, but also detect their need on the road by scanning it. They sense dark areas and specifically focus light on those areas while reducing glare for others like oncoming traffic. This very technology could have illuminated the woman in ways headlights currently allowed by US DOT would not. The US DOT doesn't allow this sort of technology because it doesn't fit into the permissible definition written as law from literally decades ago. Meanwhile, other nations have adopted it, making their roads safer. Perhaps a vehicle fitted with Matrix Laser headlights would have illuminated the woman and prevented the accident.
The videos below explain the technology. What's sad is that Matrix LED technology is now 5 years old. Matrix Laser is the new one, utilizing lasers for an extended high beam, working in sync with the entire headlight system.



The latest technology:


Sure, the technology is expensive but try price out legal representation for causing an accident like this. You admitted lawyers win in cases like this, human driver or automation. Why not try to prevent the accident in the first place with the technology available?

[Ronzuki]

Well the newly released video clearly shows EPIC AUTOMATION FAIL a the most basic level. A large simple object in the path wasn't detected. In automation, the "path" is anywhere the AGV can travel, not simply where it IS traveling. Automation 101. Appears as though the arguments posted above stating that nothing could be done by a human are CLEARLY FLAWED. Well, maybe not a human driver staring at his crotch. And lets be completely honest here...it's far greater than a FEW individuals as you so nicely attempted to dissuade me, down-playing the seriousness of the problem. Much like the douche-bag joy riding in the Volvo was video doing instead of his job. There's the facts plain and simple. Twist it around all you like, as the lawyers most certainly will. It's called paying attention to your driving. Again, EPIC FAIL.

There is no credible argument for putting these vehicles on public roads until they are FULLY vetted. Much like there's no credible argument FOR anyone to be Driving Under the Influence of a god-damn dumb phone.

Kuro, your solutions keep throwing more technology at societal problems. More lights, more this, more that. I don't get you. As I said, anything can be solved given enough time, energy and money. At some point, much like many things, it becomes obscene and unsustainable. AGVs in the publics hands is just that.

You say technology could have prevented this accident. Seriously? The technology clearly could not, and did not. There's no god-given right for anyone to be doing anything that would distract them from any task they are performing, be it driving a car or walking across the street. So please explain to me why is it that you, and nearly everyone else on the planet of the generations that were born w/ technology dangling out of their azz seems to think this is how things should be for the betterment of the human race? It's all nifty, neat, cutting-edge and cool...until when it doesn't work.

Certain levels of technology has its uses AND ITS PLACE. I will not ever argue that. Certainly that is what we do here for a living, mainly putting people out of work for their own good. Automobiles are not on that list of places in many people's opinion including a large number of automation engineers who truly understand today's technology's limits. There is absolutely nothing you, the people funding this nonsense, the people who stand to get filthy rich or the gov can say to convince me that full-blown reliance on AGV technology on public roadways is ready for prime-time UNTIL IT IS PROVEN TO WORK consistently, repeatably and reliably. Again, the PUBLIC roadways are clearly not place to carry out mission critical testing. In my world, that's just plain old common sense. But apparently common sense truly has met its end, is dead and seemingly buried.

[LPSISRL]

Don't these things have RF-based sensors as well as cameras?

[Ronzuki]

In order for an automated anything to work in a completely open and unpredictable environment, it must see everything. So they'd better start employing every sensing technology known to man. Radar, Lidar, Hodor, RF, Capacitive, Inductive, Ultrasonic, Optical (of which there are thousands of sensors many sub-categories including cameras)...shall I keep going?

Every technology has a specific purpose and like anything else, ya get what ya pay for and some are better at certain types of sensing than others. On top of that sensors function better or worse under certain conditions or within certain environments. Temperature alone can greatly affect many different sensors' usefulness. Some have de-rated specs (repeatability/reliability) under certain conditions, othesr become totally useless. In automation, the sensors are carefully selected and matched to a specific sensing task. These devices, along with their proper selection and implementation, make or break the success of any automation endeavor. They are the eyes of the equipment. There is no such thing as one sensor fits all sensing needs. The automakers are going to try to pull that card in order to keep the costs down. The purse strings are ultimately going to determine what sensors are designed in to the system. They'll learn, hopefully, their lessons the hard way...at the consumer's expense as always.

Then, as within the industrial automation world, it will be left to the controls and automation engineers to attempt to resolve the inherent mechanical and hardware deficiencies w/ software. That works to some extent until...there are too many exceptions to handle with software fixes. Mechanical engineers and others (the yahoos responsible for putting that rolling weapon on the road) who do not understand the fundamentals of true automation are notorious for this flawed thinking. What I saw in that video release was exactly that. The automation in that Uber AGV didn't see Sh|t. If I were testing one of the AGVs I used to commission that were utilized in the newsprint industry, or anything else for that matter, and the automation demonstrated what that Volvo did, there'd be hell to pay and the vehicle sure as hell wouldn't have been put in to service.

What part of there are way too many exceptions to handle with an AGV (car) in a completely open, non-predictable environment (U.S. public roads) are we not comprehending here? Seriously not enough money on the planet to put what is truly needed in to a car to have it deal w/ every situation the environment it is operating in can throw at it. You all want to go on believing, because someone who knows diddly-squat about real automation says it's safe and it 'works' and are ready to coexist on the roads with us, you go right ahead. They say it's safe, they investigated, so it must be right? Me, I'd just as soon run the things off the road if they came near me. You can bet your azz the cameras and surveillance systems, with that regard, of the Uber and Google-mobiles are functioning tip-top and were fully tested prior to release.

Another question to ponder...why do you suppose trains run on tracks? Why not go trackless? Certainly takes a whole bunch of randomness, unknowns and variables out of the automation equation right?. And yet, with all the modern technology available in the world, we still can't get trains to stop crashing. Why? It costs money, serious money, to install the automation on a fixed course (the tracks) that works, and works reliably. Maybe if we could go a couple decades w/o trains on rails having mishaps I'd say we may be ready to tackle a car in the wild, wild, west of our roadways.

[Ronzuki]

Don't these things have RF-based sensors as well as cameras?

To answer the question...who the hell knows? It's all a big secret. They're competing interests involved in this non-sense and they've been dueling in court over the tech.

I'm certain the lawyers are going to be tearing into all that with this case in the upcoming litigation. We may find out, we may not. I'd wager not likely. The media will throw around incorrect and inaccurate information, as always, until the cows come home, so believe whatever you want.

[KuroNekko]

Well the newly released video clearly shows EPIC AUTOMATION FAIL a the most basic level. A large simple object in the path wasn't detected. In automation, the "path" is anywhere the AGV can travel, not simply where it IS traveling. Automation 101. Appears as though the arguments posted above stating that nothing could be done by a human are CLEARLY FLAWED. Well, maybe not a human driver staring at his crotch. And lets be completely honest here...it's far greater than a FEW individuals as you so nicely attempted to dissuade me, down-playing the seriousness of the problem. Much like the douche-bag joy riding in the Volvo was video doing instead of his job. There's the facts plain and simple. Twist it around all you like, as the lawyers most certainly will. It's called paying attention to your driving. Again, EPIC FAIL.

There is no credible argument for putting these vehicles on public roads until they are FULLY vetted. Much like there's no credible argument FOR anyone to be Driving Under the Influence of a god-damn dumb phone.

Kuro, your solutions keep throwing more technology at societal problems. More lights, more this, more that. I don't get you. As I said, anything can be solved given enough time, energy and money. At some point, much like many things, it becomes obscene and unsustainable. AGVs in the publics hands is just that.

You say technology could have prevented this accident. Seriously? The technology clearly could not, and did not. There's no god-given right for anyone to be doing anything that would distract them from any task they are performing, be it driving a car or walking across the street. So please explain to me why is it that you, and nearly everyone else on the planet of the generations that were born w/ technology dangling out of their azz seems to think this is how things should be for the betterment of the human race? It's all nifty, neat, cutting-edge and cool...until when it doesn't work.

Certain levels of technology has its uses AND ITS PLACE. I will not ever argue that. Certainly that is what we do here for a living, mainly putting people out of work for their own good. Automobiles are not on that list of places in many people's opinion including a large number of automation engineers who truly understand today's technology's limits. There is absolutely nothing you, the people funding this nonsense, the people who stand to get filthy rich or the gov can say to convince me that full-blown reliance on AGV technology on public roadways is ready for prime-time UNTIL IT IS PROVEN TO WORK consistently, repeatably and reliably. Again, the PUBLIC roadways are clearly not place to carry out mission critical testing. In my world, that's just plain old common sense. But apparently common sense truly has met its end, is dead and seemingly buried.

The only "EPIC FAIL" I see here is this woman's sense of self-preservation. Thought you were a fan of Darwinism. Well, here it is! She was jaywalking in the dark with no lights on her bicycle and didn't notice a car coming because she didn't even look. As I stated before, it was just chance it was an automated vehicle that hit her. It could have been anything on wheels. Hell, a cyclist could have hit this woman. It's only on the news because it was an automated Uber. That's it.

Again, I'm not at all convinced a human driver could have avoided hitting this woman given the circumstances. Let's not lose sight of this. Are you going to try convince me that you or someone else could have really avoided this accident? Then that again is another "EPIC FAIL".
I have custom headlight bulbs that are brighter than stock and also got LASIK done so I see 20/15 (oh wait, are those bad implements of technology?) so I am confident I see better than most people out there while driving, day or night. I still would have likely hit this woman even if I was fully aware and attentive. Some things are simply just out of one's control when others make grave mistakes that really can't be avoided. You brought up motorcycle safety training in an earlier post. Guess what? I went through that too and recently at that. You're correct that they teach you to be fully aware of your surroundings to try and prevent situations. However, it's largely based on the fact that many threats become present outside your control. You need to try your best to detect and avoid them but sometimes, it's just not possible. Hence, they are strict about riders wearing the proper gear. If one could avoid all threats at any given scenario, why stress protective gear like helmets, jackets, gloves, etc. for a collision? Prevention is always best but it's not always realistic.

This is the reason I don't fault the Uber's back-up driver. I really don't think the human driver could have averted this collision. Given the human was also not driving, I'm not certain why there's an expectation that the human should be fully attentive at all times unless that's the job description. I thought it was more to monitor the vehicle and make sure it didn't act abnormally like go off course or go out of control. Even if this back-up driver was fully attentive, again, the collision would still have likely happened.

This also goes to my point in response to this remark, "So please explain to me why is it that you, and nearly everyone else on the planet of the generations that were born w/ technology dangling out of their azz seems to think this is how things should be for the betterment of the human race?"
Simple: because the status quo is unacceptable, especially in regards to auto accidents. I keep talking about factual matters like stats and death rates and you have done just about nothing to offer a realistic solution. You tried to blame phones as distractions but phones don't have much to do with drunk driving, tired driving, or reckless driving all of which have huge impacts on auto accident rates. In the case of deadly accidents, more so than phones. Distractions from phones is just one reason and isn't even a majority factor in most serious accidents.

The reason I brought up the latest headlight technology is because I carefully examined what I thought to be the main contributor to the accident in this case: darkness. The woman walked out of the darkness and immediately into the lane of the vehicle. Hence, I thought about ways to illuminate the darkness which was the leading factor in why this jaywalker wasn't visible therefore detected for avoidance. Even if Lidar or other technology doesn't rely on light, guess what? A human driver does. Automated Uber or not, this woman would have been hit. It had nothing to do with attentiveness and more to do with visibility. Hence, my focal point on technology to improve visibility. Again, the constant fist-shaking and vendetta against "dumb-phones" hardly applies to all scenarios and didn't even play a factor here at all in why the woman was hit.

Lastly, regarding this: "Again, the PUBLIC roadways are clearly not place to carry out mission critical testing. In my world, that's just plain old common sense. But apparently common sense truly has met its end, is dead and seemingly buried."
It would seem like common sense on a superficial level until you really think about it critically. What is automated driving supposed to do? It's supposed to drive on public roads. How do you even create an environment to mimic the complexities of public roads if they aren't just that? It's logically flawed. The best example would be from the following scenario: an automated vehicle company never tests on public roads. It always runs simulations, testing, and experiments in a laboratory setting, closed course, or computer software simulations. It then releases a product for the market after years of testing. A short while after market release, it causes an accident. It is then determined it was never tested and vetted on public roads though it was designed to run on them. Guess what people would then complain? "Why wasn't this tested on the very roads it was designed to run on before being released to the public!?"
See, you can only "fully vet" something after testing it in the very environment it was designed to operate on. Furthermore, Uber was doing just that. Uber isn't an automation company. They are a ridesharing company. They are actually testing automation for the purpose of their main business of driving people around. Hence, they were in the process of testing and vetting the technology. This is why there was a human back-up driver and none of the automated Ubers are driving actual Uber customers around.

Now, it's come apparent that some people will never feel safe about automated driving until it's 100% free from flaws and is absolutely perfect. That's just a naive perspective when uncontrolled variables are constantly involved. One cannot be 100% flawless unless the environment it is in is that way too. This recent Uber crash is an example of how that's an unrealistic expectation. A woman caused the accident by jaywalking at night from the dark onto the path of a moving vehicle. Automated or not, it would have resulted in a collision in which the woman would have likely died as she did. I simply think people have unrealistic expectations from automation technology that they would never apply to themselves. Realistically, automation can't be absolutely perfect. It just needs to be better than a human driver. This incident doesn't prove automation is flawed in ways a human driver isn't.

[Woodie]

The only "EPIC FAIL" I see here is this woman's sense of self-preservation. Thought you were a fan of Darwinism. Well, here it is! She was jaywalking in the dark with no lights on her bicycle and didn't notice a car coming because she didn't even look. As I stated before, it was just chance it was an automated vehicle that hit her. It could have been anything on wheels. Hell, a cyclist could have hit this woman. It's only on the news because it was an automated Uber. That's it.

I'm not a big fan of the automated vehicle, but I'm with you 100% on this one. No car, no driver, could have avoided this dope's "suicide by Uber". This was a $55K SUV with LED headlights and then the extra steps of radar and lidar, and there still wasn't enough warning on this 45 mpg pitch black strip of roadway.

This also goes to my point in response to this remark, "So please explain to me why is it that you, and nearly everyone else on the planet of the generations that were born w/ technology dangling out of their azz seems to think this is how things should be for the betterment of the human race?"
Simple: because the status quo is unacceptable, especially in regards to auto accidents.

I disagree with that completely. Accidents and deaths due to accidents are WAY down from what they were fifty years ago. Mainly due to improvements in headlights, tires, brakes, and a reduction in drunk driving. We're now at the point where the law of diminishing returns demands that further improvements would just be prohibitively expensive. A strictly enforced 20 mph speed limit and requiring every vehicle to have a Breathalyzer connected to the ignition would probably bring that down to near zero, but the economy would also grind to a halt.

[KuroNekko]

This also goes to my point in response to this remark, "So please explain to me why is it that you, and nearly everyone else on the planet of the generations that were born w/ technology dangling out of their azz seems to think this is how things should be for the betterment of the human race?"
Simple: because the status quo is unacceptable, especially in regards to auto accidents.

I disagree with that completely. Accidents and deaths due to accidents are WAY down from what they were fifty years ago. Mainly due to improvements in headlights, tires, brakes, and a reduction in drunk driving. We're now at the point where the law of diminishing returns demands that further improvements would just be prohibitively expensive. A strictly enforced 20 mph speed limit and requiring every vehicle to have a Breathalyzer connected to the ignition would probably bring that down to near zero, but the economy would also grind to a halt.

You're right that it's safer now than 50 years ago but nearly all the credit goes to improvements in automotive technology. As you stated yourself, improvements in everything from headlights, tires, brakes, etc. made cars safer. Not only that, implementations such as the 3 point seat belt, airbags, crumple zones, and more rigid structures allowed for better accident survival rates. I don't see how this goes to prove that technology was detrimental. It's literally the life-saver here. Also, your last sentence has nothing to do with improved automotive technology and more to do with Draconian driving laws.

While cars are safer now more than ever, there are also way more cars now on the road than ever. With more cars and people on the road, it offsets the improvements in safety because one is more likely to get into an accident with another vehicle if there are more out there. Hence, while technology has made things better and safer, the increased number of people driving has counterbalanced this to make the roads less safe. The recent drop in gas prices have even spiked car accident causality rates to prove this. The following is from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data:
In 2013, there were 32,893 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the United States.
In 2016, there were 37,461 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the United States.
That's an increase in over 4,500 people dying despite only a difference of 3 years. 3 years isn't much time for automotive technology to improve much, but it sure had a difference on average fuel prices in the nation:
In 2013, the average price for Regular gasoline in the US was $3.51.
In 2016, the average price for Regular gasoline in the US was $2.14.
The lower cost of gasoline had more people driving in 2016 than in 2013. This then resulted in more accidents and more people dying. This seems to show the most dangerous factor is the human driver yet it's the most difficult to improve. It's then not hard to see why some have put more faith in technology which actually has a reliable track record of improving safety. It's hard enough getting some people to simply drive sober despite an average of $10,000 in fines and jail time for DUIs in some places.