When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
urgh, please dont blame the victim, it is in very poor taste.
What's in poor taste is commenting on other posters' views with moral indignation and self righteous nonsense while talking about Camrys. There are a number traffic laws governing how vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles interact on AZ roads. Maybe you go and read some of them and stop talking about crash standards. The driver of a vehicle should always do everything in their power to avoid striking a pedestrian, but that does not mean a pedestrian gets to cross a road without due care and attention to motorized vehicles. Learn.
[quote[ (a) A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.[/quote]
I commend your "googling" skills. Its pointless to argue with you, you're stuck in whatever you want to believe.
Yep, what I thought. You don't want to admit that you know absolutely nothing about ML so you come back with a witless retort. B/c the fact of the matter is that real time data is analysed by supervised machine learning and that is the point you just don't want to admit to, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is involved in ML.
What's in poor taste is commenting on other posters' views with moral indignation and self righteous nonsense while talking about Camrys. There are a number traffic laws governing how vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles interact on AZ roads. Maybe you go and read some of them and stop talking about crash standards. The driver of a vehicle should always do everything in their power to avoid striking a pedestrian, but that does not mean a pedestrian gets to cross a road without due care and attention to motorized vehicles. Learn.
(a) A [b]pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
The victim can be charged with a traffic infraction, which is not even a misdemeanor and only carries an administrative fine. In NYC the driver of the car would be charged with negligent automotive manslaughter, which is a criminal felony and carries a prison sentence. So yes, very poor taste to blame the victim here.
Other guilty parties here are Uber, suppliers of all the autonomous software and equipment, and AZ DOT officials that allowed these half assed abortions on their roads. I hope a lot of heads roll and laws are changed to ban these things from public roads immediately.
I was driving a new Porsche (long story), and a kid maybe 13 or so, smashed into the rear right 1/4. I was livid re: damage to the new car, while the kid had a broken wrist, and smashed face. I have to admit, as I was 19 y.o., I cared less about the kid being injured, and a lot about my Porsche (diminished value immediately came to mind). If this happened today, I'd care more about the kid.
The last laugh was on me, he was cited for the accident, but gave the PD falsified information and was a minor (imagine a 13 y.o. outsmarting a 19 y.o.), so I had to have it repaired under my own collision, the infraction was meaningless, I took the hit (I learned the hard way that there is no good body work as the shop worked on Ferraris lol).
Who's judging? We all live in a society and do have opinions. Although yes, I do think the times someone has admitted misstating facts or seeing things wrongly, are few and far between on the forum! lol
She didn't emerge out of shadows, its the lack of contrast in the video makes it seem this way. You can see many street lights in the video, so the street was very well lit. The cars speed wasnt very fast either, only 38mph. And the pedestrian didn't just dart out of nowhere like originally claimed - she was actually crossing slowly and there was plenty of time for an attentive human driver to see her and react appropriately.
I did not see any street light the area where she was crossing. It is no guarantee that a human would have spotted it. I have had people run across the road in winter in evenings and there was no time to avoid if he was not fast enough. Dark clothing makes it more difficult to spot also
IMO, given the decision of the pedestrian, had the self-driving electronics been working as they should be designed to work, or, had the driver been paying attention, this tragedy was avoidable.
since it's just your opinion, i'll wait and see what the inevitable 'thorough investigation' by trained people reveals.
just saw the footage. I'm appalled neither the self driving car nor the driver supervising it took evasive actions and attempt to swerve out of the way. the human driver should have been looking out the windshield instead of down and the self driving car is operating in GHz capable of analyzing video footage frame by frame. I'm sure the cameras installed have a "night mode" i.e. security cameras and any distortions in the image should not have been ignored and failed safe by slowing down. frame by frame the self driving car should have got a live feed in night mode of an object moving across the roadway. this use case/scenario should have been tested in an empty parking lot and it's beyond me why this wasn't caught in testing prior to hitting the streets. i hope they do a thorough root cause analysis as to why their safety algorithms failed
The rumors that she jumped out in front of the car and the accident was likely unavoidable are totally false based on the footage, it was the vehicles/software's fault, it did not work properly. In that situation a human driver would likely slow down and be prepared to slam on the brakes/drive more cautiously and would likely see and avoid the collusion or at least would have braked hard to reduce the severity where the computer simply kept the car going at full speed and did not even brake when a collision with a human was clearly evident. I really don't want big rigs with this flawed technology on the road let alone passenger cars everywhere.
So here is more on this. First of all, apparently the video footage that we saw was recorded of an LCD screen on which it was being played, therefore we have such terrible lack of contrast and it seems that the pedestrian suddenly appeared out of shadow. In fact, the pedestrian slowly made it across the left middle, and almost finished making it across the right lane in which she was hit. The cad didn't even have to fully stop - just slowing down and yielding the the pedestrian would have been sufficient, or going around him. Here are the frames from the video, the road has excellent lighting and there are no objects to create shadows. The dark spots are only due to camera quality and the LCD it was recorded from. Just take a look at the attached image.
Any attentive driver would have no problem seeing and avoiding the pedestrian. This is why there was no sense of urgency on the part of the pedestrian, and glimpse of surprise in her body language when she got hit - she most likely was sure that the driver saw her and would yield or go around her. Instead the monkey that uber hired to drive this self driving machine decided not to pay attention to the road and rely on sensors and software that are clearly not anywhere nearly ready to be tested on public roads. This was a simple textbook scenario, and should have been easy for the autonomous system to deal with.
Uber’s former head of self-driving cars put safety second
Evidence previously surfaced in the Waymo v. Uber trial told of Anthony Levandowski’s ambivalence towards car safety
“We don’t need redundant brakes & steering, or a fancy new car, we need better software,” then-Google engineer Anthony Levandowski wrote in an email to Larry Page in January 2016. “To get to that better software faster we should deploy the first 1000 cars asap. I don’t understand why we are not doing that. Part of our team seems to be afraid to ship.” Shortly thereafter, Levandowski would leave to found his own self-driving trucking company, which was quickly acquired by Uber.
Anthony Levandowski wasn’t the only Uber employee who took the “move fast and break things” attitude to an alarming place, but many of his comments are now a matter of public record thanks to Waymo v. Uber, the lawsuit filed against the ride-sharing company for Levandowski’s alleged theft of 14,000 documents and the misappropriation of Google trade secrets. Uber fired Levandowski in 2017 and settled the lawsuit in February 2018. Uber has a new CEO who appears to be sincere in his desire to transform the corporate culture created by Travis Kalanick. But the company may be haunted by Levandowski’s legacy for some time, especially in the wake of the self-driving car accident in Tempe, Arizona that left a pedestrian dead.“WE DON’T NEED REDUNDANT BRAKES & STEERING”During the trial in February, lawyers for Waymo — the rebranded Google self-driving car project — painted a picture of a problem employee who clashed with his new boss over his slower, more cautious approach to self-driving cars. Waymo CEO John Krafcik said that Levandowski had vehemently held that redundant systems for steering and braking were unnecessary. “I think it’s fair to say we had different points of view on safety,” said Krafcik in court.
New YorkMagazineonce attributed Levandowski as saying, “I’m pissed we didn’t have the first death,” to a group of Uber engineers after a driver died in a Tesla on autopilot in 2016. (Levandowski has denied ever saying it).
“The team is not moving fast enough due to a combination of risk aversion and lack of urgency, we need to move faster,” Levandowski told Page in another communication that was shown during the Waymo trial.
His messages to Travis Kalanick were more casual. “We need to think through the strategy, to take all the shortcuts we can find,” he said in one text message. And in another, “I just see this as a race and we need to win, second place is first looser [sic].”
Kalanick was similarly breezy. “Burn the village,” he texted Levandowski at one point.
“Yup,” Levandowski replied, within seconds.
In court, Kalanick said he did not remember what that exchange referred to. Whatever these communications were — jokes, off-color remarks, effusive babble — they don’t look good in the context of Levandowski’s views on safety and even worse after Tempe, Arizona.
We also get the same reckless rhetoric from Elon Musk regarding autonomous systems in Tesla vehicles. His own engineers are warning him that the tech is not ready and quitting on him, but he keep pushing them to release it in productions cars regardless. These people don't care for public safety, they just have a wet dream and see dollar signs, and want to get praised by delusional greenie soyboys that don't get out much in the real world. And then you have greedy politicians that don't understand technology, but are getting bribed lobbied by interest groups and allow this fallacy on public roads.
the video recording camera doesn't have enough dynamic range, so the video depicts pitch blackness.
but I'm sure a human would have seen the road much better just from ambient light.
Also, bmw and merc night vision would have allowed a human to see a person or animal crossing
Uber is misleading the public. Look at this video posted by someone of the same road.
https://youtu.be/CRW0q8i3u6E
Now look at the Uber video. Notice anything? In the Uber video there is no string of lights at the side of the road shown in the front camera view. But look in the in the car view of the driver. Notice the string of lights? Where did the lights go in the front view?
^^^Mods? Clickbait to drive traffic to a youtube channel with a user who just joined this forum. The youtube video shows a road leading up to the First Solar building on the left and ends at the intersection. This event happened well past that. Sad, to see clickbait trolls emerging from this.
Edit: while I'm not sure that the poster is not trying to drive clicks to a youtube channel, I retract my statement that it is strictly for trolling. Apologies to you rfdlurker. The youtube does show the correct location, although it is still a better video quality than what is publicly being shown.
This is the First Solar building that shows up in a long shot in the video. It sits at the intersection of Mill Avenue North and Curry Road where the crosswalk happens to be located. That is where the youtube video in the link that this poster provided ends. The Tempe Police chief stated that the collision happened 100 yards from a crosswalk.
This is the actual location of the incident from the NY Times and from other images as well as the onboard video. What happened? Did the youtube video person suddenly run out of battery power?
03-21-18, 09:08 PM
