Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Self Driving Uber Fatality - Thread II 8
- Thread starter drawoh
- Start date
BridgeSmith
Structural
"This is an engineering forum, isn't it?"
Specifically, it's the "Engineering Failures & Disasters" forum, where we discuss why and how engineering failures and disasters occurred, so as to reach conclusions about how to prevent future failures and further unnecessary loss of human life. At least that's my understanding of the purpose of this particular forum. To that end, I am pointing out that in this case the failure was putting computers behind the wheel of vehicles on public roadways when they were not up to the task. I could be wrong in my assertion that they will never be, but what is clear is that they are not ready yet.
If the object is to improve traffic safety, at this point replacing the human driver does not accomplish that goal. Maybe it will someday, but not now. Of course, the real aim is profit - getting a machine to do something instead of paying a person to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for automating menial tasks, but driving is not a menial task. It can be a boring task, and one prone to distraction, but it is not simple, and the consequences of failing to do it capably can be, and have been, fatal. Experiments that put the public at risk to further technological advancement are irresponsible. Such experiments done for the sake of profit are criminal, just like opening a water slide that injures and decapitates people.
Specifically, it's the "Engineering Failures & Disasters" forum, where we discuss why and how engineering failures and disasters occurred, so as to reach conclusions about how to prevent future failures and further unnecessary loss of human life. At least that's my understanding of the purpose of this particular forum. To that end, I am pointing out that in this case the failure was putting computers behind the wheel of vehicles on public roadways when they were not up to the task. I could be wrong in my assertion that they will never be, but what is clear is that they are not ready yet.
If the object is to improve traffic safety, at this point replacing the human driver does not accomplish that goal. Maybe it will someday, but not now. Of course, the real aim is profit - getting a machine to do something instead of paying a person to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for automating menial tasks, but driving is not a menial task. It can be a boring task, and one prone to distraction, but it is not simple, and the consequences of failing to do it capably can be, and have been, fatal. Experiments that put the public at risk to further technological advancement are irresponsible. Such experiments done for the sake of profit are criminal, just like opening a water slide that injures and decapitates people.
HotRod10 said:
This is the entire point- you're making that conclusion, which may or may not be correct, based on incomplete information.
I don't disagree with you on a few of your points but promoting a conclusion which is very possibly incorrect, because it is based on a data set which is massively incomplete, is not something I believe that we, as members of this forum, should promote or even tolerate.
We're all engineers, and we all have the same itch to look at a problem and say "I KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS". I get it. But in this case, we don't. We can't yet. Any conclusion based on what we know today isn't a conclusion, it's a knee-jerk reaction.
HotRod10 said:
I don't disagree with that sentiment taken at face value..
But in this case, it is not possible for this new technology to be released without extensive testing in and among the general public. The general public represent a considerable portion of the exact hazards which this system is being designed to avoid- and those hazards cannot be simulated.
Outlawing testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads is exactly the same as outlawing their development entirely. They cannot be rigorously tested any other way, and they must be rigorously tested if they are ever to be brought to market.
There are a lot of issues with mixing AVs with HVs (human-driven vehicles), given the unpredictability of the latter. If all vehicles were AVs many of the collisions that have occurred wouldn't have happened, particularly if the AVs eventually get upgraded into a mesh network of communication. Intent and coordination can be transmitted between cars fast enough to avoid issues like a Tesla not seeing a semi trailer, etc.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
BridgeSmith
Structural
"...promoting a conclusion which is very possibly incorrect, because it is based on a data set which is massively incomplete, is not something I believe this forum should promote or even tolerate."
So in the absence of adequate information to make an assessment, we should just let anyone who cares to, send an AV out onto the roadways and hope they don't kill too many people? Sorry, but I disagree. Public sentiment will ultimately decide where the line is drawn, but that is my view on the subject.
As far as whether me expressing my view should be "tolerated", may I remind you that public safety is one of the core principles of good engineering, so discussion of whether having AVs on the road at their current level of sophistication puts public safety at risk, is very much relevant to the topic and consistent with the aims of the forum.
So in the absence of adequate information to make an assessment, we should just let anyone who cares to, send an AV out onto the roadways and hope they don't kill too many people? Sorry, but I disagree. Public sentiment will ultimately decide where the line is drawn, but that is my view on the subject.
As far as whether me expressing my view should be "tolerated", may I remind you that public safety is one of the core principles of good engineering, so discussion of whether having AVs on the road at their current level of sophistication puts public safety at risk, is very much relevant to the topic and consistent with the aims of the forum.
HotRod10 said:
That is, most certainly, not what I said.
Surely you understand that banning public testing of autonomous vehicles (which is the idea you seem to be supporting. If that's not correct, then correct me) is synonymous with banning them permanently.
There is no other way to test them for public release, than to test them in public. The number of things the system has to interact with are too varied and too nuanced to be accurately repeated in a laboratory, or even in a closed-road environment, to a level where they will be ready for unrestricted use on release day 1.
HotRod10 said:
I couldn't agree more that safety, in the context of whatever particular things we are working on, is absolutely job 1 for all of us.
Making decisions based on incomplete data is rarely a core value of any safety scheme I've ever heard of.
Your opinion is your opinion, and you have every right to have one. You seem to be of the mind that autonomous vehicles capable of real independent operation under all or even most conditions are an impossibility; my own opinion is pretty close to that actually. I'm not advocating that your posts be censored or anything of the sort.. I'm just encouraging you to realize that the data available to you (and me, and everyone else) at this point warrants nothing more than an opinion. Conclusions are a long way off.
But I do think, that in the long term, it is a possibility that this technology can result in safer transportation for all of us. In the short term, that means public testing is a necessity. There's just no way around it.
RoopinderTara
Mechanical
IRSTuff- thanks for your corrections to the article!
Roopinder Tara
Director of Content
ENGINEERING.com
Roopinder Tara
Director of Content
ENGINEERING.com
BridgeSmith
Structural
"Surely you understand that banning public testing of autonomous vehicles (which is the idea you seem to be supporting. If that's not correct, then correct me) is synonymous with banning them permanently."
I don't agree. Certainly it makes it more difficult and expensive to test them in a simulated environment. However, it is not impossible, just not as economical. Public safety demands that AVs, like any other potentially lethal product, be tested as thoroughly as possible BEFORE being released into the public arena.
"Making decisions based on incomplete data is rarely a core value of any safety scheme I've ever heard of."
There is an old saying we still use in our office - "When in doubt, make it stout". In the absence good evidence of the adequacy of a design, good engineering always takes the conservative approach. As engineers, "Making decisions based on incomplete data" is par for the course. If bedrock could be 40 feet down or 50 feet down, we're drilling 60 feet just to be sure the bridge doesn't fall down.
"I'm just encouraging you to realize that the data available to you (and me, and everyone else) at this point warrants nothing more than an opinion. Conclusions are a long way off."
I stated my opinion; my conclusion; my guess of where current path will lead, and the dangers I foresee in following it. I was not attempting to make a definitive statement, or present it as fact. Obviously, no one knows the future, save God Himself.
Rushing an AV out onto the streets, as Uber did, I believe is irresponsible, and it sure didn't help their reputation or public sentiment towards AVs in general. My political views lean towards the libertarian side, but there is a place for regulation and oversight, and I believe this is one area that needs some fairly stringent ones.
"...public testing is a necessity. There's just no way around it."
AFTER extensive and successful testing to the greatest extent possible in a controlled environment is complete, and then only with clearly marked vehicles. Hey, if human student drivers have to be in marked cars, first time AV drivers should too.
I don't agree. Certainly it makes it more difficult and expensive to test them in a simulated environment. However, it is not impossible, just not as economical. Public safety demands that AVs, like any other potentially lethal product, be tested as thoroughly as possible BEFORE being released into the public arena.
"Making decisions based on incomplete data is rarely a core value of any safety scheme I've ever heard of."
There is an old saying we still use in our office - "When in doubt, make it stout". In the absence good evidence of the adequacy of a design, good engineering always takes the conservative approach. As engineers, "Making decisions based on incomplete data" is par for the course. If bedrock could be 40 feet down or 50 feet down, we're drilling 60 feet just to be sure the bridge doesn't fall down.
"I'm just encouraging you to realize that the data available to you (and me, and everyone else) at this point warrants nothing more than an opinion. Conclusions are a long way off."
I stated my opinion; my conclusion; my guess of where current path will lead, and the dangers I foresee in following it. I was not attempting to make a definitive statement, or present it as fact. Obviously, no one knows the future, save God Himself.
Rushing an AV out onto the streets, as Uber did, I believe is irresponsible, and it sure didn't help their reputation or public sentiment towards AVs in general. My political views lean towards the libertarian side, but there is a place for regulation and oversight, and I believe this is one area that needs some fairly stringent ones.
"...public testing is a necessity. There's just no way around it."
AFTER extensive and successful testing to the greatest extent possible in a controlled environment is complete, and then only with clearly marked vehicles. Hey, if human student drivers have to be in marked cars, first time AV drivers should too.
HotRod10 said:
This is where we are now, basically. These systems all work great on paper.
HotRod10 said:
How exactly would marking the vehicles have prevented this pedestrian accident, the Tesla concrete barrier accident, the Tesla white trailer incident, or any of the other incidents which have been highly publicized?
I am relatively confident in saying they would not have.
I'll pose the same question I posed earlier in this thread, again:
This knee jerk reaction that many people are having is due to a single pedestrian fatality.
What quantity of fatalities represent an acceptable number to you? If your answer is going to be representative of what will happen in the real world, it cannot be zero. So, how many?
BridgeSmith
Structural
"This is where we are now, basically. These systems all work great on paper."
I'm not talking about on paper, or even lab tests giving the computer "brain" simulated inputs. I'm talking about full-scale, outdoor testing of the whole system in the actual car, driving through a mock-up of a city street with numerous moving objects.
I'm not talking about on paper, or even lab tests giving the computer "brain" simulated inputs. I'm talking about full-scale, outdoor testing of the whole system in the actual car, driving through a mock-up of a city street with numerous moving objects.
HotRod10 said:
Dude. That's been done.
Waymo has been working on test tracks, in the exact mockup situation you're describing, for a decade. That work continues.
It isn't enough. The scenario you don't like (that I don't really either), cars not ready for full release being on public roads, is not possible to avoid.
"However, it is not impossible, just not as economical."
The number of road miles required to test such a system cannot be realistically dumped onto one car; it requires hundreds cars; there are not hundreds of test facilities in the US. Moreover, trying to create scenarios such as the Tesla collisions with the semi and the median barrier are things that would likely have passed under test conditions, which is what allowed them to think the system was ready in the first place.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
The number of road miles required to test such a system cannot be realistically dumped onto one car; it requires hundreds cars; there are not hundreds of test facilities in the US. Moreover, trying to create scenarios such as the Tesla collisions with the semi and the median barrier are things that would likely have passed under test conditions, which is what allowed them to think the system was ready in the first place.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
davidbeach
Electrical
So, if the AV avoids all the PDO crashes that a human driver would have but has a similar level of crashes at all worse levels is that an improvement or not? They'll initially eliminate the PDO crashes without any impact on any of the more severe, then they'll begin to reduce the count of the minor injury crashes without impact on the more sever events, then ....
The AV crash profile will always tilt toward the fatalities, and the more strongly it tilts that way the better they're doing. But the more it tilts that way the greater the percentage of fatalities in the overall mix. When they get to 100% fatalities is that better or worse?
At least that's how it seems to me.
The AV crash profile will always tilt toward the fatalities, and the more strongly it tilts that way the better they're doing. But the more it tilts that way the greater the percentage of fatalities in the overall mix. When they get to 100% fatalities is that better or worse?
At least that's how it seems to me.
BridgeSmith
Structural
"It isn't enough."
Obviously not, but is that a reason to put the public at risk to continue the experiment?
"...cars not ready for full release being on public roads, is not possible to avoid."
Yes it is; you just don't like what it means for this experiment you love so much.
"So, if the AV avoids all the PDO crashes that a human driver would have but has a similar level of crashes at all worse levels is that an improvement or not?"
First off, that's a big assumption. What makes you think that the AVs can avoid PDO crashes any more successfully than the fatal ones? In any case, it would still be worse. A human driver, once proved fatally incompetent (by say, running down a pedestrian), does not get another chance, regardless of how many miles he or she might have under their belt.
Obviously not, but is that a reason to put the public at risk to continue the experiment?
"...cars not ready for full release being on public roads, is not possible to avoid."
Yes it is; you just don't like what it means for this experiment you love so much.
"So, if the AV avoids all the PDO crashes that a human driver would have but has a similar level of crashes at all worse levels is that an improvement or not?"
First off, that's a big assumption. What makes you think that the AVs can avoid PDO crashes any more successfully than the fatal ones? In any case, it would still be worse. A human driver, once proved fatally incompetent (by say, running down a pedestrian), does not get another chance, regardless of how many miles he or she might have under their belt.
"A human driver, once proved fatally incompetent (by say, running down a pedestrian), does not get another chance, regardless of how many miles he or she might have under their belt."
Not always true. I was in traffic school with someone who had previously had a fatal accident, and was driving again when he was cited for some other traffic violation.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Not always true. I was in traffic school with someone who had previously had a fatal accident, and was driving again when he was cited for some other traffic violation.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
BridgeSmith
Structural
"I was in traffic school with someone who had previously had a fatal accident..."
If it was truly an accident, and not due to his incompentence, that is understandable. However, if he displayed the kind of poor judgement we've seen from some AVs, his license should be permanently revoked.
If it was truly an accident, and not due to his incompentence, that is understandable. However, if he displayed the kind of poor judgement we've seen from some AVs, his license should be permanently revoked.
HotRod10 said:
If you think I 'love' this 'experiment' than you need to work on reading comprehension.
I am not convinced that the true autonomous network of cars that people like Elon Musk envision is possible at all, let alone possible with current technology. I think the jury is still out, but if I had to guess my opinion shades towards true level 5 capability being, at best, a long way off. Decades off.
The difference between us is not our level of love or hate for autonomous vehicles... it is whether or not we think the technology justifies the testing required to see if it is actually viable.
BridgeSmith
Structural
"...whether or not we think the technology justifies the testing required to see if it is actually viable."
Agreed. That is the sticking point. I don't think it is justified at the current state of the technology, given the risks to the public, especially when most are ignorant of those risks. The problem for those of your view is that even if you win the intellectual argument, you may lose the PR battle. It doesn't take many fatalities to turn public sentiment, especially when the risk of that happening has been downplayed to the point where most generally believe it's not supposed to happen.
Most people, I suspect, were like me, not realizing that AVs were even on the road. After the Tesla incident with the truck, the company stated in strong terms that the "autopilot" was not an autonomous driving system, but a driver assist feature. I had no idea other AVs were even on the roads, and hiding the fact that they are does not help the public perception, especially when the first we hear of it is a fatal crash.
Agreed. That is the sticking point. I don't think it is justified at the current state of the technology, given the risks to the public, especially when most are ignorant of those risks. The problem for those of your view is that even if you win the intellectual argument, you may lose the PR battle. It doesn't take many fatalities to turn public sentiment, especially when the risk of that happening has been downplayed to the point where most generally believe it's not supposed to happen.
Most people, I suspect, were like me, not realizing that AVs were even on the road. After the Tesla incident with the truck, the company stated in strong terms that the "autopilot" was not an autonomous driving system, but a driver assist feature. I had no idea other AVs were even on the roads, and hiding the fact that they are does not help the public perception, especially when the first we hear of it is a fatal crash.
LionelHutz
Electrical
JgKRI said:
Well, obviously that's the bigger question, but it doesn't yet matter much when the cars are driving into things that should be easily avoided....
HotRod10 said:
That's wishful thinking....
I don't see AVs as necessarily a means of reducing deaths, although I think there's a strong possibility of that. My biggest desire is for AVs to reduce traffic congestion, by making car motions and maneuvers more coordinated and less subject to human whim. Additionally, the potential elimination of both human reaction time and the potential for cars to intercommunicate among themselves may lead to breaking the speed-flow vs. car density bottleneck.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question