Discussion:
Preliminary NTSB Report on Uber Autonomous Car Fatality
(too old to reply)
p***@hotmail.com
2018-05-28 05:34:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
across a road in Tempe, Arizona:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the woman's
family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission to test
autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down self-driving
car operations in the state.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2018-05-28 15:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf
Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the woman's
family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission to test
autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down self-driving
car operations in the state.
Interesting. So the problem wasn't that the self-driving system
failed to recognize her and determine an appropriate action. The
problem was that the designers disabled every means that it had to
_do_ anything about it--they turned off the braking function and
turned off the operator-alert function, "to prevent erratic
operation".
David Johnston
2018-05-28 16:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf
Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the woman's
family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission to test
autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down self-driving
car operations in the state.
Interesting. So the problem wasn't that the self-driving system
failed to recognize her and determine an appropriate action. The
problem was that the designers disabled every means that it had to
_do_ anything about it--they turned off the braking function and
turned off the operator-alert function, "to prevent erratic
operation".
That's probably an issue of too many false positives.
Cryptoengineer
2018-05-29 02:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH01
0-prelim.pdf
Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the
woman's family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission
to test autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down
self-driving car operations in the state.
Interesting. So the problem wasn't that the self-driving system
failed to recognize her and determine an appropriate action. The
problem was that the designers disabled every means that it had to
_do_ anything about it--they turned off the braking function and
turned off the operator-alert function, "to prevent erratic
operation".
That's probably an issue of too many false positives.
I'll be watching to see if the state AG decides that Uber's
culpability rises to the level of criminal negligence, allowing
a court proceeding despite the settlement.

pt
p***@hotmail.com
2018-05-29 18:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf
Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the woman's
family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission to test
autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down self-driving
car operations in the state.
Since the NTSB report there has been a lot about this in the
media. The following is from _The Economist_:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/05/29/why-ubers-self-driving-car-killed-a-pedestrian

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-29 21:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board released
a preliminary report on the March 18 event where an experimental
Uber self-driving car struck and killed a woman walking a bicycle
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf
Earlier, Uber made an undisclosed financial settlement with the woman's
family, the governor of Arizona rescinded Uber's permission to test
autonomous vehicles in Arizona, and Uber closed down self-driving
car operations in the state.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
It also seems that the car's AI had more road sense
than the toxicologically-challenged pedestrian cyclist
who walked confidently into the path of an automobile.
And I write as a toxicologically disinterested cyclist
with a slightly convex rear-view mirror. Indeed, people
walk out in front of me on my bike; I am well aware
that I am not entitled to run them down, but I've
decided it is O.K. to want to.

I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-29 22:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my boot
heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want nose first
into the pavement and skidded several feet. The presumed owner stood
on his porch without comment. I presumed it was his wife's dog, and
he hated it.

Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit never
came near me again.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2018-05-30 01:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my boot
heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want nose first
into the pavement and skidded several feet. The presumed owner stood
on his porch without comment. I presumed it was his wife's dog, and
he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit never
came near me again.
I got very good, age 12-13, at hoisting my feet up onto the
handlebars of my Schwinn and steering away from dogs who
were possessed by the protagonist of PKD's "Roog." As I was
delivering newspapers, and booting Rover in the head might
have affected my tips, I restrained myself.

I need to buy a new mirror for my bike, and an Airzound horn, too.
I've used them in the past, and they can make wandering peds notice.

I've never resorted to it, but some riders swear by the persuasive
application of the Kryptonite or other U-style bike lock. :)

Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-30 16:09:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my
boot heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want
nose first into the pavement and skidded several feet. The
presumed owner stood on his porch without comment. I presumed
it was his wife's dog, and he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit
never came near me again.
I got very good, age 12-13, at hoisting my feet up onto the
handlebars of my Schwinn and steering away from dogs who
were possessed by the protagonist of PKD's "Roog." As I was
delivering newspapers, and booting Rover in the head might
have affected my tips, I restrained myself.
My landlord at the time had two air pumps on his bicycle. One to pump
ait into the tires, the other for dogs. The latter . . . didn't pump
air any more. Or fit in the wire holder that came with it.

He didn't have a paper route.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-05-30 12:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my boot
heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want nose first
into the pavement and skidded several feet. The presumed owner stood
on his porch without comment. I presumed it was his wife's dog, and
he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit never
came near me again.
Cyclists used to have a more effective solution.

[SFW]

https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/guns-wheels-and-steel-cyclists-and-small-arms-in-the-late-19th-century/

Still legal in some areas if you have a CCW, but definitely not going to gain
you friends in the neighborhood.

pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-30 16:12:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my
boot heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want
nose first into the pavement and skidded several feet. The
presumed owner stood on his porch without comment. I presumed
it was his wife's dog, and he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit
never came near me again.
Cyclists used to have a more effective solution.
[SFW]
https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/guns-wheels-and-ste
el-cyclists-and-small-arms-in-the-late-19th-century/
Still legal in some areas if you have a CCW, but definitely not
going to gain you friends in the neighborhood.
I recall a story my father told me from before I was born. The tiny
little town he lived in, in Nebraska, had a problem with vicious
dogs whose owners let them wander free, attacking people in the
streets. So he and a friend each took a baseball bat, and walked
down the center of main street, and killed half a dozen dogs by the
time they got to the other end of town. Several of the dog owners
were quite upset, but the local sheriff was more inclined to
prosecute them for vicious dogs (especially since several children
had been attacked at that point) than anyone else for defending
themsevles. Oddly, all the other vicious dogs in town were kept on
- very short - chains after that. (I suspect a few owners were,
too.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-05-30 17:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my
boot heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want
nose first into the pavement and skidded several feet. The
presumed owner stood on his porch without comment. I presumed
it was his wife's dog, and he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit
never came near me again.
Cyclists used to have a more effective solution.
[SFW]
https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/guns-wheels-and-ste
el-cyclists-and-small-arms-in-the-late-19th-century/
Still legal in some areas if you have a CCW, but definitely not
going to gain you friends in the neighborhood.
I recall a story my father told me from before I was born. The tiny
little town he lived in, in Nebraska, had a problem with vicious
dogs whose owners let them wander free, attacking people in the
streets. So he and a friend each took a baseball bat, and walked
down the center of main street, and killed half a dozen dogs by the
time they got to the other end of town. Several of the dog owners
were quite upset, but the local sheriff was more inclined to
prosecute them for vicious dogs (especially since several children
had been attacked at that point) than anyone else for defending
themsevles. Oddly, all the other vicious dogs in town were kept on
- very short - chains after that. (I suspect a few owners were,
too.)
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when ownerless,
feral dogs were a significant problem.

pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-30 18:05:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:12:56 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted
my boot heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It
want nose first into the pavement and skidded several feet.
The presumed owner stood on his porch without comment. I
presumed it was his wife's dog, and he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit
never came near me again.
Cyclists used to have a more effective solution.
[SFW]
https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/guns-wheels-and-
ste el-cyclists-and-small-arms-in-the-late-19th-century/
Still legal in some areas if you have a CCW, but definitely
not going to gain you friends in the neighborhood.
I recall a story my father told me from before I was born. The
tiny little town he lived in, in Nebraska, had a problem with
vicious dogs whose owners let them wander free, attacking
people in the streets. So he and a friend each took a baseball
bat, and walked down the center of main street, and killed half
a dozen dogs by the time they got to the other end of town.
Several of the dog owners were quite upset, but the local
sheriff was more inclined to prosecute them for vicious dogs
(especially since several children had been attacked at that
point) than anyone else for defending themsevles. Oddly, all
the other vicious dogs in town were kept on - very short -
chains after that. (I suspect a few owners were, too.)
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when
ownerless, feral dogs were a significant problem.
A more common problem, perhaps, than today, but it's not a problem
that has somehow disappeared.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2018-05-30 20:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when ownerless,
feral dogs were a significant problem.
Such times as the 3rd quarter of the 20th century on Eastern Long
Island, NY?

Several of my high school buddies were from families that owned
or own duck farms. Idiots from New York City would vacation on
the East End, and, as idiots do, got a dog. When Labor Day loomed,
they'd drive into the woods somewhere and let the dog go, then
jump back in the car and drive off. Various abandoned pups would
form a pack and attack the poultry farms. My classmates, or their
older brothers or dads would have to chase the feral curs off
with firearms. The town animal control officer would get there
too late, well after the week's profit would be killed.

East End poultry farming has diminished. There's barely a duck
raised there anymore. That's all moved to rural Pennsylvania.
You can get some nice local wine, though.

Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-30 21:15:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when
ownerless, feral dogs were a significant problem.
Such times as the 3rd quarter of the 20th century on Eastern
Long Island, NY?
Several of my high school buddies were from families that owned
or own duck farms. Idiots from New York City would vacation on
the East End, and, as idiots do, got a dog. When Labor Day
loomed, they'd drive into the woods somewhere and let the dog
go, then jump back in the car and drive off. Various abandoned
pups would form a pack and attack the poultry farms.
When I was in high school in the late 70s in rural Missouri, it was
considered something of s civic duty to shoot feral dogs at every
opportunity. When the packs get big enough, they will come into the
yard and attack your children. And rabies were out of control at the
time, too.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-05-30 21:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Peter Trei
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when ownerless,
feral dogs were a significant problem.
Such times as the 3rd quarter of the 20th century on Eastern Long
Island, NY?
Several of my high school buddies were from families that owned
or own duck farms. Idiots from New York City would vacation on
the East End, and, as idiots do, got a dog. When Labor Day loomed,
they'd drive into the woods somewhere and let the dog go, then
jump back in the car and drive off. Various abandoned pups would
form a pack and attack the poultry farms. My classmates, or their
older brothers or dads would have to chase the feral curs off
with firearms. The town animal control officer would get there
too late, well after the week's profit would be killed.
East End poultry farming has diminished. There's barely a duck
raised there anymore. That's all moved to rural Pennsylvania.
You can get some nice local wine, though.
In the interest of promoting thread drift, I recently learned that the
Big Duck is the origin of an architectural meme:

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/lessons-sin-city-architecture-ducks-versus-decorated-sheds/

[Highly recommended site and podcast, btw. SFW]

pt
Kevrob
2018-05-30 23:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Peter Trei
I expect the 'Cyclist's Friend', etal, date back to a time when ownerless,
feral dogs were a significant problem.
Such times as the 3rd quarter of the 20th century on Eastern Long
Island, NY?
Several of my high school buddies were from families that owned
or own duck farms. Idiots from New York City would vacation on
the East End, and, as idiots do, got a dog. When Labor Day loomed,
they'd drive into the woods somewhere and let the dog go, then
jump back in the car and drive off. Various abandoned pups would
form a pack and attack the poultry farms. My classmates, or their
older brothers or dads would have to chase the feral curs off
with firearms. The town animal control officer would get there
too late, well after the week's profit would be killed.
East End poultry farming has diminished. There's barely a duck
raised there anymore. That's all moved to rural Pennsylvania.
You can get some nice local wine, though.
In the interest of promoting thread drift, I recently learned that the
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/lessons-sin-city-architecture-ducks-versus-decorated-sheds/
[Highly recommended site and podcast, btw. SFW]
Consider LA's Capitol Records building:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records_Building

{See, it looks like a stack of 45 RPM records on a phonograph
spindle. Explain "45 RPM," "phonograph" and "spindle"
to the young `uns."}

The Big Duck has been preserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Duck

Kevin R
p***@hotmail.com
2018-05-31 01:33:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Robert Carnegie
I did once have an encounter with a pedestrian who
impeded me deliberately; having some concern for my
safety, I kicked him as hard as I could, and rode on.
I did that to a dog once (which riding my bicycle). Planted my
boot heel square in the center of the mutt's forehead. It want
nose first into the pavement and skidded several feet. The
presumed owner stood on his porch without comment. I presumed
it was his wife's dog, and he hated it.
Funniest thing I've ever seen a dog do. And the little shit
never came near me again.
Cyclists used to have a more effective solution.
[SFW]
https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/guns-wheels-and-ste
el-cyclists-and-small-arms-in-the-late-19th-century/
Still legal in some areas if you have a CCW, but definitely not
going to gain you friends in the neighborhood.
The .22 Velo Dog (from velocipede) was a small center fire cartridge
intended for use in revolvers carried by bicyclists to shoot at
dogs. Many years ago it found applications outside bicycling:

www.bullseyepistol.com/askins.htm

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
puppetsock
2018-06-01 19:25:49 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 1:34:02 AM UTC-4, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
[snippers]

Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?

Let me see if I am accurate on the details.

Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.

If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
Peter Trei
2018-06-01 21:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
Maybe, maybe not.

But we know that the car first noticed the pedestrian 6 seconds before the
collision. In driving and computer time, that's an epoch. It 'decided'
that emergency braking was needed at 1.3 seconds, but that feature was
turned off. It did not sounded an alarm for the human
driver, who was watching an internal data screen, which was part of her job.
Nothing I've read suggested that the car was allowed to swerve around the
pedestrian (which is often possible even when braking to a stop is not).

It sounds to me like Uber could be accused of misconduct - disabling a safety
feature, and *requiring* distracted driving of the safety driver.

Its a first example of something that worries me with all systems which require
a human to continually pay attention, but do nothing 99.999% of the time; we're
crap at it. Even if an alarm *had* sounded a couple seconds before, it's likely
that the driver could not have assessed to situation and taken action in time.

pt
J. Clarke
2018-06-02 02:51:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-02 11:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?

If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
J. Clarke
2018-06-02 13:14:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-02 14:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
that's what you're going by. I think it says this:

The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.

Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.

I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.

But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.
J. Clarke
2018-06-02 14:37:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.
Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.
I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.
But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.
I am not misdescribing it. The Uber system made a determination. The
Uber system did not act on that determination. The reason given for
it not acting is that emergency braking was disabled.

(a) If you believer that the report states otherwise show where it
recants "the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking
maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision".

(b) if you cannot find where it recants that statement then explain
why such braking maneuver was not made other than that " emergency
braking maneuvers are not enabled".
Dimensional Traveler
2018-06-02 17:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.
Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.
I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.
But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.
I am not misdescribing it. The Uber system made a determination. The
Uber system did not act on that determination. The reason given for
it not acting is that emergency braking was disabled.
(a) If you believer that the report states otherwise show where it
recants "the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking
maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision".
(b) if you cannot find where it recants that statement then explain
why such braking maneuver was not made other than that " emergency
braking maneuvers are not enabled".
I think the issue may be with you saying the report said that the Uber
driver alerts were disabled. I read the news report on it a few days
ago and as I recall the Uber system _did_ alert the driver, just not in
time for the human to prevent the collision.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-02 18:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.
Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.
I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.
But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.
I am not misdescribing it. The Uber system made a determination. The
Uber system did not act on that determination. The reason given for
it not acting is that emergency braking was disabled.
(a) If you believer that the report states otherwise show where it
recants "the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking
maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision".
(b) if you cannot find where it recants that statement then explain
why such braking maneuver was not made other than that " emergency
braking maneuvers are not enabled".
I think the issue may be with you saying the report said that the Uber
driver alerts were disabled. I read the news report on it a few days
ago and as I recall the Uber system _did_ alert the driver, just not in
time for the human to prevent the collision.
Mainly I'm disagreeing on "the means of alerting the
human driver is disabled". The Uber car is stated to
have a display to communicate to the human operator.
But a feature to say "please brake now" to the operator
wasn't disabled, it does not exist at all. I'm saying
so because even random braking by the car itself
would be safer than random braking by the operator
when commanded by the car, and also because emergency
braking is stated to be entirely the operator's
responsibility.

The car also has a Volvo feature to test whether the
driver is alert, and presumably to stop the car safely
if they are not. Presumably, when it buzzes, you have
to press the "I am awake" button. That function is
disabled when using the computer to drive, but I do not
think the feature counts as a "means of alerting the
human driver".

To be precise - presumably the Uber car can brake itself,
but it is not allowed to emergency brake itself. The
difference presumably is in the force involved, and
perhaps also whether braking just means the collision
will be slower.
J. Clarke
2018-06-02 20:43:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:00:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snippers]
Has there been any official statement on the degree, if any,
to which the struck pedestrian is considered responsible?
Let me see if I am accurate on the details.
Pedestrian pushing a bike across the highway. The pedestrian was
crossing a 4 lane highway, at night, far from any cross walk.
Wearing dark clothing. And never looked in the direction traffic
might be coming until just before she was hit. The bike had front
and back reflectors but no side, and the bike headlight faced
front only.
If there was no computer driving aspect of this, would we be
saying the driver of the car was culpable? Note, I ask this,
not state it. I don't know from traffic law. Maybe some fraction
rather than fully culpable?
That's a good question, however since it appears that the computer saw
her and calculated a course of action that would have avoided the
impact but had had its access to the controls it needed in order to
implement that course of action disabled, whether she was at fault may
be moot.
Does it sound the horn?
If an object is seen reacting to a car horn, it's
more likely to be a human or a large animal.
Good question whether its horn access, if any, was disabled. The
means of alerting the human driver was disabled, and the control of
braking was disabled.
I think you're misdescribing what the report says, if
The Volvo car comes with features of automatic emergency
braking and driver wakefulness sensing. These automations
were inactivated intentionally when the Uber computer
control was in use. The computer driver should drive
safely without input from these Volvo features.
Uber's computer decided at T minus 1.3 seconds that
"an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate
a collision". There could be confusion of statements
here with the Volvo emergency braking function, which
was disabled, and Uber's computer's functions, but it
seem to be said that Uber's computer recognises a case
for emergency braking but does not perform emergency
braking, "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior" - which I suppose means sudden braking when
not required. Instead, emergency braking is the
responsibility of the operator - and the computer
doesn't tell the operator to perform emergency braking,
either; they're supposed to, uh, watch the road.
I suppose if the computer did tell the operator to
emergency brake, they'd get the same "erratic vehicle
behavior" 0.5 seconds later, because you'd brake first
and ask why later - but only after human reaction time
delay has elapsed. Still - this is O-rings all over again.
I remember the emergency stop exercise from failing
the driving test: the examiner beats the dashboard
as your signal to brake hard to a stop, presumably
also checking the rear mirror for whatever may hit you
from behind. In real life the rear view might modify
your decision to brake, but in the test I suppose the
examiner chooses a safe moment.
But if I had to be able to do this, then a robot car
should be able, too.
I am not misdescribing it. The Uber system made a determination. The
Uber system did not act on that determination. The reason given for
it not acting is that emergency braking was disabled.
(a) If you believer that the report states otherwise show where it
recants "the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking
maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision".
(b) if you cannot find where it recants that statement then explain
why such braking maneuver was not made other than that " emergency
braking maneuvers are not enabled".
I think the issue may be with you saying the report said that the Uber
driver alerts were disabled. I read the news report on it a few days
ago and as I recall the Uber system _did_ alert the driver, just not in
time for the human to prevent the collision.
"Disabled" is the wrong word. There wasn't anything to disable. From
the NTSB report:
"The system is not designed to alert the operator."

Regardless of what the details are, it didn't have the means to alert
the operator.

Loading...