Rollfast

I'm also building another '95 Schwinn with a springer up with some 50s Tiger parts and S-2s to probably give someone for Christmas...that's my money pit.


Secret's out now...

Rollfast

Since Chrysler killed Plymouth off to stay alive, I'm just hoping they don't die with Fiat. And Pontiac was my other favorite.

Maelochs

I am pretty sure All the car companies are planning to sell driverless cars and Not just for fleet use ... but most of them don't want to pay to do it.

I figure Waymo is into the tech, GM has the money and figures it can get fleet sales, the other manufacturers are just playing ... no way to ignore what's coming but no money to go in hard and heavy. They will buy proprietary tech and tweak it (I think ... you seem to agree.)

Uber want ed to be the "disruptive" AV-market bad boy ... and proved to be bad.

I figure Uber wanted to corner the AV-taxi/rideshare market for a while ... i agree with you, no one company will be able to hold it ... but on the other hand, doesn't everybody say "Call an Uber"? i don't here "Call a Lyft" or Take a taxi."

That name recognition helps when breaking into new markets, and even overseas. Three quarters of the world might use the words "Waymo" and "AV" interchangeably in the future.

Basically i agree with all your post, just looking at the same ideas with my own twist. but yes ... that's about hwo it looks from here.

Rollfast

I don't think the word taxi is in danger of becoming extinct anytime soon. There are millions worldwide who take pride in this skill and trade, just like bus and passenger train drivers.

AlmostTrick

Sounds sweet. Have any pics?

genec

Nah, he doesn't share... I drew my own conclusion based on viewing the vid and having read the first press releases.

genec

Yeah, "voluntary..." Right.

Siu Blue Wind

Rollfast, let's keep this more on topic please. If not, I can close this thread.

I-Like-To-Bike

StreetsblogUSA has an interesting take on this fatal collision and the familiar refrain from the police when a non motorized victim is involved.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/03/...ing-narrative/

Extract:It should be noted that at least one poster in the comments section of the blog repeatedly chants the same claptrap about the victim is totally to blame for suddenly stepping out of the shadows and appearing like a flash, just like the Tempe police chief, and let the facts be damned.

Rollfast

Sorry. I'm not sure why I'm in charge of keeping this open though.

McBTC

What if no human and only if radar-equipped was a vehicle capable of 'spotting' a darkly-clad pedestrian under these circumstances but, the radar merely spotted an unmoving object in the center of a divided roadway?

McBTC

How much programming has to go into this computer application before it is safe-- enough to determine if the unmoving object in the center of the highway may be wearing shoes or if there's a shopping cart or a bicycle laden with trash next to it?

Shimagnolo

Not true.
LIDAR is adjacent to the visible light spectrum and it's range can vary depending on the color/texture of the surface it hits, just as with visible light.
The black top/shirt she was wearing was definitely bad for LIDAR detection.
Source: https://web.pdx.edu/~jduh/courses/geog493f12/Week04.pdf
Source: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/...res_moskal.ppt

McBTC

Something pretty telling probably going on here to in that with new technology, many indulge their fears and seek more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. There are many examples--e.g.,

The latest is Facebook. Railroads sparked fears back in the early 1800s and probably cars (If man was meant to go that fast...)

Too much salt, MSG, saturated fats (evil bacon), global warming, the Y2K bug, Russian collusion, second-hand smoke, exploding carbon fiber bike frames...

02Giant 

You know more about the LIDAR system in use at the time than the manufacturer.

LIDAR Supplier Defends Hardware, Blames Uber for Fatal Crash [Updated] - The Truth About Cars

“We are as baffled as anyone else,” Thoma Hall wrote in an email to Bloomberg. “Certainly, our Lidar is capable of clearly imaging Elaine and her bicycle in this situation. However, our Lidar doesn’t make the decision to put on the brakes or get out of her way.”

The Velodyne executive did weigh in on a matter that’s left a large portion of the public addled by saying lidar is totally effective, regardless of illumination. Over the past week, confused comments on social media flooded in, suggesting it was “too dark” for the self-driving vehicle to “see” the pedestrian. “However, it is up to the rest of the system to interpret and use the data to make decisions. We do not know how the Uber system of decision-making works,” she added.

KD5NRH

Funny that people here wouldn't comprehend that this is the only reason Critical Mass isn't a bloodbath.

Maelochs

Ummmm ... I will try to respond even though this is not written in any language I speak.

If the Lidar (not radar) spotted an unmoving object in the roadway ... I would Hope the computer (the AV operating system (iCar OS-1)) would slow and prepare to take evasive action at least

Any anomaly---anything which didn't belong there (there aren't many unmoving anythings in the middle of the road) should bring at least a caution response.

it iwsnt that hard to figure---what would You do if you were driving down a road and saw, in the distance, something in the middle of the road which you couldn't identify it?

Don't know about you, but I would slow, because if i din't know what it was, I wouldn't be able to predict what it might do.

Could be a pedestrian. Could be a sign someone put up over a big pothole or sudden sinkhole. Could be a cop directing traffic around an accident up ahead out of sight. Could be Anything ... so until i identified it and then could decide the appropriate course of action, I would slow and approach cautiously.

Which is what i would program a car to do.

Seems so simple when one actually thinks just a little (or for me a lot, because I am not that smart.0

Maelochs

Also re: Lidar----this lady was pushing a bicycle festooned with plastic grocery bags. There was plenty of area and plenty of the exposed surface was Not black.

Lidar is not magic---it has limitations, okay ... but I don't see why a laser could not penetrate clear air and reflect off a five-by-five-foot target.

If Lidar Cannot pick out that pedestrian then maybe AVs Aren't ready for prime time.

However, given the fact that cars from other other companies, with better AV systems (Waymo and Cruise would be two examples) were more than 1000 times as effective at operating on the road ... one has to think the operating system----the brain--in Uber AVs is a little ********.

"[I]According to RadioFreeMobile, AV test data submitted to California shows Waymo had one “disengagement”—where the human driver had to take over for the computer—per 5,128 miles traveled.

“Cruise, the GM AV subsidiary, reported 1,200 miles between interventions, the New York Times reported.

“Internal documents from Uber (which was temporarily banned from testing in California) recorded one disengagement in every mile of driving.

“A BuzzFeed article from March 16, 2017, showed that Uber’s high disengagement rate from California persisted in Arizona.

“Company documents obtained by the New York Times showed that even after a year of testing, Uber’s AVs struggled to travel 13 miles—the company’s stated goal—without disengagement.”
( https://www.ntd.tv/2018/03/27/arizona...ntain-dialogue)

Maelochs

What some people in this thread choose to refuse to comprehend is that while it is never legal t Deliberately hit a pedestrian, there are situations in which one can hit a pedestrian without breaking any laws.

I-Like-To-Bike

More on the Uber's AV test car's possible "blind spot" for pedestrians. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1H337Q
Extract:

Daniel4

Uber's safety system may have been turned off. No response from Uber when CBC asked.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-arizona-crash-1.4594939

RFEngineer

This is my biggest fear with AVs. The inevitable "cheapening" of the hardware included on each vehicle. Companies are going to want to profit and the sensors are expensive, so they will remove all they can so they can make money.


Maybe the future will look like this: "Human drivers cause 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles, let's reduce the cost of our AVs until they cause, say, 1.2 deaths per 100 million miles. Maximize profit!"


Obviously, Uber is nowhere close to these safety numbers, but I can absolutely see this mentality taking over if/when AVs become main-stream.
Alan

I-Like-To-Bike

That is one scenario. Another is Maximize Profits, period and if possible sell the public and gullible or bought poltiicians on the idea that AVs are safer whether they are or not.

McBTC

From the link above: “In addition to Lidar, autonomous systems typically have several sensors, including camera and radar to make decisions,” Thoma Hall explained. “We don’t know what sensors were on the Uber car that evening, if they were working, or how they were being used.”

I don't think anyone is bothering to really think about how slow 38 mph really is. Still... if someone suddenly steps out in front of your car you're going to cover 37' before your foot can hit the brake. My guess is, the uber driver probably was the only car driving under 45 mph there...

Maelochs

Yup. I bet 55 mph is normal through there and would be more except for the upcoming light.

I believe it is Noisebeam who is a local ... he knows.

I think the Ars Technica video (which was overexposed, as much as the Uber video was underexposed) driver made some comment about it ... not interested enough to go back and check.

As you say though ... with reaction time between .5 seconds and .94 ....

But still ... if the car had Lidar and wasn't using it, Uber would need a pretty good explanation ...

On the legal front though ... Uber can say that since the Arizona governor never set a standard, no matter what system they were using, was not legally substandard.