Autonomous cars? I think not

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5735
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby bychosis » Fri May 25, 2018 2:18 pm

Out of all the things to disable, why was the emergency braking system disabled? Worried about whiplash for he 'driver' when teh emergency braking system kicks in and the driver is looking at their phone in their lap?
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Jmuzz » Fri May 25, 2018 2:53 pm

MichaelB wrote:Oh dear. Think Uber may be in a bit of poo.


Depends on driver responsibilities.
The reports description is that the car was not an autonomous model, it is just an advanced cruise control which can follow a mapped route.
It doesn't clarify whether the car even supports stopping for lights or can overtake slower vehicles.

If that is the case then the driver is still the driver and is supposed to be giving full attention not playing with phone.
It will depend on what instructions were provided to the driver, were they made aware that it is only lane following cruise control or did they genuinely think it was a full automatic robot?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19297
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 25, 2018 3:56 pm

Worse than playing with the mobile phone
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Strawburger
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Strawburger » Fri May 25, 2018 8:49 pm

Yet again the human was at fault...
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Jmuzz » Fri May 25, 2018 9:27 pm

bychosis wrote:Out of all the things to disable, why was the emergency braking system disabled?


Perhaps it gets sent crazy by the self drive radar, or vice versa.

Or perhaps related to driver not holding steering wheel so an emergency brake could cause the steering to serve, or drivers hand to hit wheel while trying to grab it during hard braking, causing swerve into another worse object or to roll.

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby London Boy » Fri May 25, 2018 11:40 pm

bychosis wrote:Out of all the things to disable, why was the emergency braking system disabled? Worried about whiplash for he 'driver' when teh emergency braking system kicks in and the driver is looking at their phone in their lap?

Seemingly that was a safety measure. Leave the braking to the human rather than risk a vehicle that brakes unnecessarily and causes cars behind to crash. Flawed logic I know, though I do get the idea that a vehicle should be predictable to other road users. The human factor was the cause, not the technology per se, and that includes the person killed who was loaded up with meth and cannabis at the time.

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5394
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Ross » Sat May 26, 2018 7:11 am

London Boy wrote: and that includes the person killed who was loaded up with meth and cannabis at the time.


I find it quite interesting that in The Canberra Times/Bloomberg link it says that the family of the victim have already settled a compensation claim with Uber. This seems extraordinary fast, especially as the crash report has only just been released. Compensation cases (in Australia, maybe USA is different?) often take years to settle.

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5394
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Ross » Sat May 26, 2018 7:21 am

Not sure how autonomous cars will react around roadworks where there are just plastic cones set out to mark the "road" and a roadworker with a "lollipop" stop/go sign and a reduced speed limit? The traffic cones are often just lazily set out and not really in a tight or symetrical configuration.

Often there are signs out a km or so ahead of roadworks warning/alerting motorists of roadworks ahead, how will autonomous cars deal with this as they aren't able to read (it could be argued no differently to motorists who ignore/don't see them because of mobile phone use/other distraction...).

Will each traffic ccone require an embeded chip so te austonomous vehicle recognises what it is? Will the temporary speed limit signs also need an ebedded chip so the car knows to drive at 40km/h instead of 100km/h? What about the stop/go sign?

human909
Posts: 9136
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby human909 » Sat May 26, 2018 8:20 am

Ross wrote:I find it quite interesting that in The Canberra Times/Bloomberg link it says that the family of the victim have already settled a compensation claim with Uber.

Uber played smart. Better to settle compensation BEFORE the crash report is complete if you don't think it is going to come out in your favour.

Ross wrote:This seems extraordinary fast, especially as the crash report has only just been released. Compensation cases (in Australia, maybe USA is different?) often take years to settle.


This wasn't a 'compensation' case in a court of law. This was a contract agreed to by two parties. Thus it can be very quick. Contracts can take under 10 seconds to agree upon form and complete in fact you do this almost every day. More comprehensive ones just takes two parties and their lawyers to agree and do their due diligence on the terms and it is done.

Uber would have seen writing on the wall, said hey here is $2million dollars (or whatever) for you loss accept it in the next 3 weeks or the offer is gone.

zebee
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:37 am

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby zebee » Sat May 26, 2018 9:01 am

Some more info has surfaced.

Braking was disabled because it was unreliable - kept coming on when they didn't want it to. But they did not have any warning to the driver that the car detected something that it should brake for.

Driver was not looking at phone, driver was looking at the car interface. Not clear if they were doing the logging and reporting they were required to do or looking at the interface because they were bored.

Shifts were 8+ hours with almost no breaks. Usually on the same loop of driving. Which is not really going to make the human involved able to manage a sudden major change. Especially at night.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... idn-t-stop

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Jmuzz » Sat May 26, 2018 9:14 am

Ross wrote:I find it quite interesting that in The Canberra Times/Bloomberg link it says that the family of the victim have already settled a compensation claim with Uber. This seems extraordinary fast, especially as the crash report has only just been released. Compensation cases (in Australia, maybe USA is different?) often take years to settle.


Google was always going to settle out of court as quickly as possible. It is nothing to them to throw millions at it to eliminate the family causing a scene.
Settlement would include clauses that family never talk to the media or make any statement blaming anyone.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4645
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat May 26, 2018 12:24 pm

Ross wrote:
London Boy wrote: and that includes the person killed who was loaded up with meth and cannabis at the time.


I find it quite interesting that in The Canberra Times/Bloomberg link it says that the family of the victim have already settled a compensation claim with Uber. This seems extraordinary fast, especially as the crash report has only just been released. Compensation cases (in Australia, maybe USA is different?) often take years to settle.

Only if they go to court (believe me, I know). Compensation can be privately agreed between parties in a matter of minutes.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4645
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat May 26, 2018 12:25 pm

Jmuzz wrote:
Ross wrote:I find it quite interesting that in The Canberra Times/Bloomberg link it says that the family of the victim have already settled a compensation claim with Uber. This seems extraordinary fast, especially as the crash report has only just been released. Compensation cases (in Australia, maybe USA is different?) often take years to settle.


Google was always going to settle out of court as quickly as possible. It is nothing to them to throw millions at it to eliminate the family causing a scene.
Settlement would include clauses that family never talk to the media or make any statement blaming anyone.

You mean Uber, not Google.

User avatar
Strawburger
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Strawburger » Sun May 27, 2018 8:29 pm

Ross wrote:Not sure how autonomous cars will react around roadworks where there are just plastic cones set out to mark the "road" and a roadworker with a "lollipop" stop/go sign and a reduced speed limit? The traffic cones are often just lazily set out and not really in a tight or symetrical configuration.

Often there are signs out a km or so ahead of roadworks warning/alerting motorists of roadworks ahead, how will autonomous cars deal with this as they aren't able to read (it could be argued no differently to motorists who ignore/don't see them because of mobile phone use/other distraction...).

Will each traffic ccone require an embeded chip so te austonomous vehicle recognises what it is? Will the temporary speed limit signs also need an ebedded chip so the car knows to drive at 40km/h instead of 100km/h? What about the stop/go sign?


Additional measures to ensure the vehicle will be able to read what it needs to. It would just be a modification to the traffic management process
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby biker jk » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:30 pm

zebee wrote:Some more info has surfaced.

Braking was disabled because it was unreliable - kept coming on when they didn't want it to. But they did not have any warning to the driver that the car detected something that it should brake for.

Driver was not looking at phone, driver was looking at the car interface. Not clear if they were doing the logging and reporting they were required to do or looking at the interface because they were bored.

Shifts were 8+ hours with almost no breaks. Usually on the same loop of driving. Which is not really going to make the human involved able to manage a sudden major change. Especially at night.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... idn-t-stop


The "driver" was indeed looking at her phone (was watching The Voice) and may now be charged with vehicle manslaughter. Uber policy prohibited the use of mobile phones by the safety drivers.

https://goo.gl/GNkagg

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5735
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby bychosis » Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:10 pm

Put someone in charge of something where they don’t have to ‘do’ anything except observe and what did they think would happen.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19297
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:01 pm

They wont be successful in Australia until the have MGIF successfully implemented
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

uart
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby uart » Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:20 pm

Jmuzz wrote:Google (Uber) was always going to settle out of court as quickly as possible. It is nothing to them to throw millions at it to eliminate the family causing a scene.
Settlement would include clauses that family never talk to the media or make any statement blaming anyone.


Unfortunately the victim (Elaine Herzberg) had previously served jail time for drug convictions, so I imagine it is very unlikely that either her or her family were wealthy - likely the exact opposite. The settlement amount will no doubt remain private, but I suspect that Uber realised fairly quickly that they could be bought off fairly easily - and the sooner the better (and cheaper).

User avatar
Tequestra
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:12 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Tequestra » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:31 pm

I hope this thread is still the right one. I just happened upon another ABC article on that Arizona crash where the autonomous SUV hit a woman pushing her bicycle across the highway.

Arizona police say the woman riding inside a self-driving Uber that crashed and killed a pedestrian in Arizona earlier this year was watching The Voice on her phone at the time.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/w ... sh/9902208

I hope I haven't doubled-up on someone else's report. The story tells me that it was 'Updated about an hour ago'.
Viva le Tour Electrique' !!!

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8021
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby find_bruce » Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:18 pm

bychosis wrote:Put someone in charge of something where they don’t have to ‘do’ anything except observe and what did they think would happen.
Ever catch a commercial flight ? And that is just routine pilots - test pilots would be at another level

User avatar
redsonic
Posts: 1099
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby redsonic » Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:56 pm

Pilots have it drummed into them that monitoring tasks require a lot of concentration to avoid complacency. I wonder how much training Uber gave the driver about this particular trap?

On a different note, the ABC article states:
Ms Vasquez told police Ms Herzberg "came out of nowhere" and that she didn't see her prior to the collision.

Gee, where have we heard statements like this before? Without front and rear facing cameras and detailed telemetry, the above statement from the driver would normally be the end of it as far as the police are concerned.

"they came out of nowhere." Here we have evidence it is code for "I was watching TV at the time"

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby antigee » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:24 pm

came across this article recently published:
"Cars and trucks with electronic driver assist systems may not see stopped vehicles and could even steer you into a crash if you're not paying attention, an insurance industry group warns...."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classifie ... tory.html#

as far as I know no paywall - if want to read without the Journalists input the referenced report can be found here (also if you make it to the end some other relevant reports are linked)

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopne ... rack-tests

uart
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby uart » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:34 pm

redsonic wrote:On a different note, the ABC article states:
Ms Vasquez told police Ms Herzberg "came out of nowhere" and that she didn't see her prior to the collision.


Yeah, when teleportation is invented then that might be a real excuse. Until then ... not so much.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19297
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:30 pm

Of course the Australian version of the Autonomous cars will need to customised to match current driving expectations - settings;
1. MGIF
2. Scream up wrong lane and push in near the front
3. Accelerate on orange lights that don't have speed/red light cameras
4. Blast horn if vehicle in front doesn't commence within [user selectable] 10'ths seconds from light turning green
5. Park on no stopping if closer to coffee shop
6. Ignore one metre rule
7. Ignore advisory signs
8. Wind windows down and play doof doof music full blast
Retiree options;
9. Get confused between the accelerator and brake pedals
10. Drive at 50kph in an 60kph zone
11. Drive at 50kph in an 80kph zone
12. Drive at 50kph in an 100kph zone
13. Park 800mm from the kerb
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5394
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Autonomous cars? I think not

Postby Ross » Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:53 am

Strawburger wrote:
Ross wrote:Not sure how autonomous cars will react around roadworks where there are just plastic cones set out to mark the "road" and a roadworker with a "lollipop" stop/go sign and a reduced speed limit? The traffic cones are often just lazily set out and not really in a tight or symetrical configuration.

Often there are signs out a km or so ahead of roadworks warning/alerting motorists of roadworks ahead, how will autonomous cars deal with this as they aren't able to read (it could be argued no differently to motorists who ignore/don't see them because of mobile phone use/other distraction...).

Will each traffic ccone require an embeded chip so te austonomous vehicle recognises what it is? Will the temporary speed limit signs also need an ebedded chip so the car knows to drive at 40km/h instead of 100km/h? What about the stop/go sign?


Additional measures to ensure the vehicle will be able to read what it needs to. It would just be a modification to the traffic management process


That reply reads like a govt press release. Tells us nothing. I'm interested in a real world actual processes answer.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users