Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Self Driving Uber Fatality - Thread III 4
- Thread starter drawoh
- Start date
GregLocock
Automotive
Well, I guess we'll find out from the final NTSB report. But all the youtubes I've seen look as though they predict a single future path for each object.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
HotRod10 said:
The rules vary. In every jurisdiction that I'm familiar with (Canada), those turning left may enter the intersection and wait for opposing traffic to clear. When the signal lights change, the Right of Way remains with them, as they are already in the intersection. In other words, those given a green light must yield to those that are already in the intersection, giving them time to complete their left turn. Typically one or two vehicles will do so with each cycle.
"The vehicle already in the intersection has the right of way ahead of any car that has not yet entered the intersection."
Ref: Rules of the Road, Nova Scotia Driver's Handbook, Chapter 2 [PDF], page 44.
It appears that Colorado hasn't clearly defined the rules. Appears muddled.
Ref: The Denver Channel's view
Autonomous Vehicles (as well as humans) would need to be aware of the local rules and habits. Assuming that the rules are well defined.
LionelHutz
Electrical
NTSB Report said:
This part makes no sense. I can understand that the programming might be attempting to limit the amount of false emergency braking. But, if the system DID determine it should be emergency braking, they why wasn't it emergency braking? It's rather hard to believe the default programmed behavior is to just drive into something it knows it must avoid, which makes me believe this report is not properly giving the facts.
I wonder if they meant the Volvo emergency braking system determined it should be braking at that point???
NTSB report said:
This tells me the setup of the vehicle was also at fault if the interface was on the console and the operators are expected to watch it instead of using the large transparent safety devices installed in the car. That makes the operators also rely on the computer systems instead of being a backup to them.
LionelHutz
Electrical
IRstuff said:
The report didn't say it detected the pedestrian crossing the street at 500ft, it just that started detecting what was possibly a physical object at that distance.
IRstuff said:
The article says the classification went from object to car and finally to bicycle. The expectation of what each object type might do is different. The unknown object might be expected to stay in place safely off to the side of the road. The car might be expected to travel in a parallel direction since there were no side streets or driveways or parking lots entrances in that area. The final determination that there was a bicycle in profile view could finally change the expectation to it possibly crossing paths with the car. By the report, it would appear that the proper determination of what the object was and how it was travelling occurred less than 2 seconds before the collision which is way too late to be getting it right.
- Thread starter
- #105
LionelHutz,
I get 43mph for six seconds as 115m, or 380ft. If a LiDAR could scan ahead 115m and identify you as LionelHutz, poster on Eng-Tips.com, and work out whether to run you over or not, it would be remarkable. Any object identified by a robot must not be run into. The space the object occupies must not be passed through. The robot must avoid the object by some minimum distance because it may do something unpredictable, and there may be something behind the object that is moving. Somebody mentioned the case of a vehicle running through a puddle and kicking up a splash that was detected by the following LiDAR, causing the robot to take evasive action. Any algorithm that identifies objects that can be run through, must be absolutely reliable.
I was on the highway a couple of days ago when I approached a truck on the inside shoulder. The passenger door opened and a guy got out and signaled me to move across a lane. All I did was slow down and move to the outside edge of the lane. I did not have time to check my blind spot and mirrors, especially since I was no longer matching the speed of traffic. Robots must cope with this.
Uber's decision to not take evasive action meant that the driver was in control, and that she should have been watching forward, gripping the wheel and holding her foot over the accelerator and brake pedals. If Uber wanted a computer fiddled with, they should have provided a passenger.
--
JHG
I get 43mph for six seconds as 115m, or 380ft. If a LiDAR could scan ahead 115m and identify you as LionelHutz, poster on Eng-Tips.com, and work out whether to run you over or not, it would be remarkable. Any object identified by a robot must not be run into. The space the object occupies must not be passed through. The robot must avoid the object by some minimum distance because it may do something unpredictable, and there may be something behind the object that is moving. Somebody mentioned the case of a vehicle running through a puddle and kicking up a splash that was detected by the following LiDAR, causing the robot to take evasive action. Any algorithm that identifies objects that can be run through, must be absolutely reliable.
I was on the highway a couple of days ago when I approached a truck on the inside shoulder. The passenger door opened and a guy got out and signaled me to move across a lane. All I did was slow down and move to the outside edge of the lane. I did not have time to check my blind spot and mirrors, especially since I was no longer matching the speed of traffic. Robots must cope with this.
Uber's decision to not take evasive action meant that the driver was in control, and that she should have been watching forward, gripping the wheel and holding her foot over the accelerator and brake pedals. If Uber wanted a computer fiddled with, they should have provided a passenger.
--
JHG
JHG said:
Hold the steering wheel to maintain possible back-up control, but don't apply any pressure else...
NTSB Preliminary Report said:
Reminds me of:
- Thread starter
- #107
"The article says the classification went from object to car and finally to bicycle. The expectation of what each object type might do is different. "
That's not really relevant; a moving bush, or whatever, moving into your lane is problematic, particularly when the object is in a traffic lane, and isn't going with the flow of traffic. Even in a most basic use-case, an unknown object in an adjacent lane ought to demand a decrease in speed, particularly when the object itself presents a blind spot to the driver.
The bottom line is that the fundamental target processing was flawed; the difficulty in classification itself is problematic, and should have caused at least a slow-down, all by itself. It's often typical of people designing these sorts of things to ignore what the system did in the past frame(s) and only look at the current frame as the end-all and be-all for decision making. Algorithms exist for doing this sort of thing.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
That's not really relevant; a moving bush, or whatever, moving into your lane is problematic, particularly when the object is in a traffic lane, and isn't going with the flow of traffic. Even in a most basic use-case, an unknown object in an adjacent lane ought to demand a decrease in speed, particularly when the object itself presents a blind spot to the driver.
The bottom line is that the fundamental target processing was flawed; the difficulty in classification itself is problematic, and should have caused at least a slow-down, all by itself. It's often typical of people designing these sorts of things to ignore what the system did in the past frame(s) and only look at the current frame as the end-all and be-all for decision making. Algorithms exist for doing this sort of thing.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
GregLocock
Automotive
drawoh I was quoting the report. It says mitigate, not prevent. If it had started an entirely achievable 0.9g stop at 1.3 seconds it would have hit her at less than 15 mph (in my head), a far cry from 43 mph. Admittedly I think it should have decided it needed to stop or match speeds long before then.
My guess is that AEB was not included in uber's software because the intention was to have a full time driver and an observer. Thus the AEB could be left out. Later on they eliminated the driver as a cost saving but didn't add AEB because it hadn't been needed up to that point.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
My guess is that AEB was not included in uber's software because the intention was to have a full time driver and an observer. Thus the AEB could be left out. Later on they eliminated the driver as a cost saving but didn't add AEB because it hadn't been needed up to that point.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
At any time in the prior 5 seconds, a reduction in speed might have limited the damage to non-fatal broken bones. There were numerous times during that interval that the system should have concluded that the risk of not reducing speed was too high.
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
GregLocock
Automotive
"The expectation of what each object type might do is different. "
6 seconds out object 1010b type unknown closing velocity 43 mph range 380 ft impact in 6 seconds
5 seconds out object 1010b type A closing velocity 43 mph range 315 ft impact in 5 seconds
4 seconds out object 1010b type B closing velocity 43 mph range 250 ft impact in 4 seconds
etc
No, I don't think you need to classify the object in that case to figure out that you are on a collision course. Classifying the object is less important than avoiding a collision. You'd have taken your foot off the throttle wouldn't you?
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
6 seconds out object 1010b type unknown closing velocity 43 mph range 380 ft impact in 6 seconds
5 seconds out object 1010b type A closing velocity 43 mph range 315 ft impact in 5 seconds
4 seconds out object 1010b type B closing velocity 43 mph range 250 ft impact in 4 seconds
etc
No, I don't think you need to classify the object in that case to figure out that you are on a collision course. Classifying the object is less important than avoiding a collision. You'd have taken your foot off the throttle wouldn't you?
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
LionelHutz
Electrical
While shaking my head at the stupidity of this argument....the object wasn't anywhere close to being in the path of the Uber 6 seconds before the impact. She was probably still 2 to 3 car lanes away from the path of the Uber when she was first detected. Sorry, but your royally failed at making any kind of serious point here.
Sure, the accident was not avoidable due to the driver not looking out the windshield or being ready to take over. But, the accident would have been very easy to avoid for a driver actually paying attention to the road out of the windshield who was ready to start driving the car.
IRstuff
As I ALREADY posted, from what the report is saying the correct object detection/determination occurred far too late.
But, when the first initial detection occurs, there really is no way to determine the rate or direction of travel yet, is there? The Uber wouldn't even yet know the object was moving, would it?
Once the Uber first decided this object might be another car, it likely expected this object to be either travelling towards it in an adjacent lane or travelling away from it in an adjacent lane. Wouldn't this be logical of the Uber when it detected what it believed was the front end or back end of a car in an adjacent lane? Would it be logical of the Uber to expect this object would cross it's path at a 90* angle or would it be logical of the Uber to expect this object was changing lanes?
Just to make sure it's clear for those that seem to have forgotten. I will point out that she WAS NOT in the lane the car was travelling in from the point of first detection. From the data I'm seeing, she was NOT in the path of the Uber or even in the lane the Uber was travelling in for around 4.5 of those seconds.
GregLocock
Automotive
She was on a constant bearing from the car. Watchkeeping 101.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Assuming your 3 lanes in 6 seconds, that's 3.4 mph; if the car can't do THAT math, we're in way big trouble.
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
- Thread starter
- #115
LionelHutz,
LiDAR needs one scan to see the object. It needs two scans to work out the object's velocity, and three to work out the acceleration. If the scanner runs at 10Hz, this take 200ms. This all takes place at around 100m range, which the robot can manage with a fairly gentle stop, or a lane change.
What we think about robots honking horns at us?
--
JHG
LiDAR needs one scan to see the object. It needs two scans to work out the object's velocity, and three to work out the acceleration. If the scanner runs at 10Hz, this take 200ms. This all takes place at around 100m range, which the robot can manage with a fairly gentle stop, or a lane change.
What we think about robots honking horns at us?
--
JHG
LionelHutz
Electrical
There's going to be a lot of automated cars braking to a stop for every pedestrian walking up to a street corner in the future then.....
The final report should be interesting. There could have been a conflict between the classification and direction detection due to the classification of the object having a programmed expectation saying that object type shouldn't or couldn't be travelling perpendicular to it's path. Another possibility is the detection first thinking the object was only changing lanes or pulling out of a driveway into an adjacent lane.
The final report should be interesting. There could have been a conflict between the classification and direction detection due to the classification of the object having a programmed expectation saying that object type shouldn't or couldn't be travelling perpendicular to it's path. Another possibility is the detection first thinking the object was only changing lanes or pulling out of a driveway into an adjacent lane.
"There's going to be a lot of automated cars braking to a stop for every pedestrian walking up to a street corner in the future then"
In most states, that's pretty much a requirement, given that pedestrians have the right of way; if they get there first, then the car damn well better stop. For intersections with lights, the car should already have the capability to decipher the lights and make valid decisions.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
In most states, that's pretty much a requirement, given that pedestrians have the right of way; if they get there first, then the car damn well better stop. For intersections with lights, the car should already have the capability to decipher the lights and make valid decisions.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
LionelHutz
Electrical
So, at green lights just keep driving and take a chance at running over unknown objects that are nearby? Otherwise, come to a full stop for any object detected that is within 3-4 car lanes to either side until 100% certain that object won't end up in the travel path? That's an easy enough rule set to follow....
My point was not to describe the entire solution, but to simply point out that basic rules were already being violated. If Uber's internal review have revealed an unavoidable accident, the outcome possibly would be different than if they found that basic safety rules were violated.
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
LionelHutz
Electrical
Road rules must be different where you are than here where I live. Here, drivers only have to stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossovers, which are defined by their special signs and markings. They don't have to stop at crosswalks, which are basically defined as the strip of road going between 2 sidewalks. They certainly don't have to stop to allow pedestrians to randomly cross the road jaywalking style.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News