Uber Troubles For Uber

[YNM]

1 hour ago, micha said:

And how about if you value your life so much YOU take some responsibility for your own actions too and don't just rely on society/engineering to wrap you in a safe little cocoon?

Great ! I think we can load passengers on flatbeds right ! After all, some of them "surf"...

 

1 hour ago, micha said:

Reduce the lengths of roads? How about shrinking the planet then, Mr Wiseguy ?

... Or narrow the roads.

 

Let's not forget : Tempe is an outskirt of Phoenix, the capital of Arizona. They house 3.6 million people. We're not talking "in the middle of nowhere" here. That road has 8000 car (unit equivalent) users every day. It is a "throw of rock" away from the Tempe City Hall.

 

But you know what ? It's fine. I don't mind so much people killed as long as it's not in my clear view.

Carry on chaps, gotta kill some more.

Edited March 22, 2018 by YNM

[tater]

7 hours ago, YNM said:

What a drawback.

It's called reality. We're not talking about the town square here, we're talking about people crossing roads outside of inhabited areas at night, wearing dark clothes, who cannot apparntly be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street. Literally anyone with any sense who looked right would not have crossed. You see a single car, then nothing. Wait for the single car, THEN cross.

[tater]

8 hours ago, micha said:

@YNM: I can understand some of your viewpoints about reducing the dangers of mixing vehicular traffic with pedestrian traffic, but what may seem doable in a high-density low-distance environment is infeasible in a low-density high-distance one.  You can almost always engineer something to be better or safer, but until we live in a post-scarcity world, cost is (unfortunately) always going to be the major factor (funnily enough, only when us mortals are involved; never seems to be an issue when our ruling classes or their immediate sycophants are involved) in any improvement works.

Yeah, he had similar issues with US cities he claimed were not "walking cities" without ever visiting any of them (he thought San Francisco and NYC were not even remotely pedestrian, lol). The scale in the US is different. In his world, apparently there would be endless crosswalks, lights every 5m or something, so that pedestrians breaking the law would no longer be breaking the law. That or we should magically have public transport. The nearest grocery to my house is ~2 miles (3.2 km) away, and about 200m below me in altitude. I can ride my bike there, but the trip home is a workout, and I'd need multiple trips for a typical grocery store run. There is no public transport, and if there was any, the trip would take longer than walking since the city could not have it run often enough given low density population out here.

The road where this happened in AZ could be here in NM. Looks the same. Every industrial neighborhood doesn't need a crosswalk every 10 meters. Reality check: traffic signals cost about $500,000 each in the US in cities. Any really safe crosswalk should have a signal.

Edited March 22, 2018 by tater

[tater]

5 hours ago, YNM said:

... Or narrow the roads.

 

Let's not forget : Tempe is an outskirt of Phoenix, the capital of Arizona. They house 3.6 million people. We're not talking "in the middle of nowhere" here. That road has 8000 car (unit equivalent) users every day. It is a "throw of rock" away from the Tempe City Hall.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I would not presume to preach about Jakarta, I've never been there (closest is KL about 30 years ago). I'll ask now for this thread (vs the one about PT), have you ever been in Phoenix? It's incredibly spread out, and people don't walk much. If you'd ever seen it in person, you'd know that it's incredibly hot there much of the year. People don't walk because of the heat. Even the shopping malls there have valet parking, it's all about going from air conditioning to air conditioning. Like most western US cities, you get to the edge of the city, and it becomes empty desert. My own exit is the last in ABQ, in town they are about 1 mile apart, then the next past ours is ~15 miles north, and then the next exit with any population above a couple hundred people is Santa Fe, 55 miles away.

 

[YNM]

46 minutes ago, tater said:

In his world, apparently there would be endless crosswalks, lights every 5m or something, so that pedestrians breaking the law would no longer be breaking the law. That or we should magically have public transport.

Well if you deem things are fine then OK, I can't push that. I can only hope someone doesn't get ran over again because they're lured by the inviting but illegal to pass on paths, but given statistics that's more than likely.

Also, jaywalking isn't a crime in the UK. Try to think about it.

34 minutes ago, tater said:

I'll ask now for this thread (vs the one about PT), have you ever been in Phoenix? It's incredibly spread out, and people don't walk much. If you'd ever seen it in person, you'd know that it's incredibly hot there much of the year. People don't walk because of the heat. Even the shopping malls there have valet parking, it's all about going from air conditioning to air conditioning.

No. (it's featured in ATS though, so perhaps I could pay a look).

I'll stop asking about PT. Go ahead with your horde of automated electric steel SUVs.

It's also bloody hot down here (not where I stay for now though, here up the mountains it's bloody cold). You have a dry 50 degrees celcius, we have 100% humidity 30 degree celcius. Try going to a body-temperature sauna, that's what being here feels like.

Edited March 22, 2018 by YNM

[tater]

Phoenix is actually humid to me (NM is pretty dry, single digit humidity is common). It's exacerbated by urban heat island effect. Nice and cold at night. Expensive Phoenix neighborhoods are great, I could see living there (near the Camelback, for example).

Western US cities are not going to magically become pedestrian cities. partially because of weather, partially because they are already spread out. If Phoenix were to be built up into highrise buildings, even that wouldn't work (shaded areas would be great, other areas would have light reflected from highrise windows and literally cook people, lol).

Public transit is a poor term. Mass transit makes more sense. Why? Because minus the "mass" aspect of use, it is entirely unsustainable. It's a density issue. Travel times need to be comparable. Transit works in walking cities like SFO and NYC because traffic is bad enough and density is high enough that transit is at the least comparable to driving, and walking is comfortable. Traffic is soul-killing in places like LA (it's not bad in Phoenix in my experience), but it is so spread out that transit really doesn't work. The trick is getting from transit centers to destinations (house to transit hub, transit hub to work/shops/etc). If you can get most places in Phoenix in under 30 minutes, it's hard to sell transit that would take you at least an hour, plus you's have to walk with your groceries in 50C heat, and no shade.

I know all about SE Asia, I bummed around there for months (didn't make it past Malaysia, though I spent about 3 months in Thailand). As an aside, I rode motorcycles around Thailand, and realized that I liked and followed traffic laws in the US, because they were actually useful. Thailand was like a dystopia as a driver, it was terrifying.

32 minutes ago, YNM said:

Well if you deem things are fine then OK, I can't push that. I can only hope someone doesn't get ran over again because they're lured by the inviting but illegal to pass on paths, but given statistics that's more than likely.

People are lazy. The woman who was killed was literally too lazy to look right before crossing. It was 10pm, maybe she was tired. We'd all like vehicles to always safely stop for pedestrians, but in the real world this does not happen every time---in all but one case in history, with a human driving. The bottom line is that a pedestrian that wants to not be killed is a complete idiot if they do not treat vehicles as threats to their lives and act accordingly. This is true even at crosswalks, with the light set to stop traffic! I told my kids ages ago that you don't trust lights, you STILL look both ways, left, right, left (right side drive, reverse for UK), THEN cross if safe. Cars sometimes run lights. The design of the crossing, the law, etc do not matter, check yourself before crossing a street, being "dead right" is not desirable. Had the woman in question checked, she'd be alive right now.

[LordFerret]

9 hours ago, tater said:

I was suggesting it wasn't impossible. I just saw the video from the car. You're right, accidental. Still, she literally crossed several feet into a deep shadow, and just a bit to her right, the street was completely illuminated. There's at most 2 seconds between her being visible, and being hit.

Our eyes are better than that, able to see into those shadows to a degree. Don't rely too heavily on this video, the quality is poor and it's a bad example to show someone what night driving looks like in reality.

 

8 hours ago, tater said:

... but the fault is entirely that of the woman crossing inappropriately, and utterly inattentively.

...This woman had a problem. ... Her choice to cross was idiotic.

This does not matter. Rule one driving across this nation last time I checked, was "pedestrians have the right of way".

I'm finding it rather rude of you to insinuate the woman had a 'problem', but so be it, your opinion. Mine is that Uber has a problem.

 

8 hours ago, YNM said:

Are we tolerating deaths now ?

In a nutshell, yes. These days the only excuse / exception I find has a political agenda behind it - then it matters. This applies to the likes of 'rights' movements, where plenty is said atop a soap box, but yet in reality where the abuses really occur (no matter where in this world) the voices are silent and all manner of stuff is tolerated. I don't want to get too deeply into that, because it's very political... and as we all know, that's a big No-No here.

 

8 hours ago, micha said:

That video is rather misleading - visible light cameras are notoriously bad for distinguishing light from dark; a human drivers' eyes would perform significantly better in that situation.

From a software perspective, a driverless car should use significantly different algorithms depending on whether it's driving in heavy traffic (ie, following other vehicles) or whether it's on a near-empty road by itself.  The latter has significantly higher potential for non-traffic incidents and such the car should monitor a much wider arc and distance ahead for anything which moves.

@YNM: I can understand some of your viewpoints about reducing the dangers of mixing vehicular traffic with pedestrian traffic, but what may seem doable in a high-density low-distance environment is infeasible in a low-density high-distance one.  You can almost always engineer something to be better or safer, but until we live in a post-scarcity world, cost is (unfortunately) always going to be the major factor (funnily enough, only when us mortals are involved; never seems to be an issue when our ruling classes or their immediate sycophants are involved) in any improvement works.

As to @LordFerret's  original posting (ie, Mathematics becoming sentient) - I think it would make more sense to compare it to DNA.  That is, it'll be at the core of AI and ultimately driving its shape and behaviours, but it won't be sentient in and of itself.

That's my point, stated above. It is misleading. And yes, other detection systems should be in use... auto-focus cameras would have seen her perhaps, no?

Mathematics & sentience... DNA? Hummm. YOU, your entity, soul, what-have you, that energy flowing about in your head that is you and your thoughts, is not DNA. That DNA is just part of the physical construct which houses. That energy flowing about - that's the manifestation of the Mathematics I'm talking about... or, vice versa.

 

8 hours ago, YNM said:

- Redesign the cycle path with barries between the cycle path and the road (or where car parking are allowed, make the cyle path behind the parking cars),

- Close down sites where "illegal crossing" might be a recurring theme, or put better scrutiny on it.

An expensive proposition.

Most folks don't liken to 'close down' anything... we've got this 'freedom' thing going on here.

 

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

As they said after DARPA Grand Challenge 2004 robocars competition, when a Java-coded robocar Tommy smashed into a wall at 70 mph without braking: "Java doesn't slow".

Anyone who would use Java to write such mission critical software, is an idiot.

 

58 minutes ago, tater said:

It's called reality.

And that reality is; As I said before, the pedestrian has the right of way in all circumstances. That is the law.

 

 

I'm going to throw a new factor here into this discussion. We'll use Uber as a perfect example. The day is coming, when thugs will walk out into the roadway causing an Uber AI-driven car to stop, and then rob the inhabitants. What will Uber do?

[tater]

 

1 minute ago, LordFerret said:

This does not matter. Rule one driving across this nation last time I checked, was "pedestrians have the right of way".

Yes, she was "dead right."

If someone steps into traffic, and gets killed, they had the right of way. They win?

3 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

I'm going to throw a new factor here into this discussion. We'll use Uber as a perfect example. The day is coming, when thugs will walk out into the roadway causing an Uber AI-driven car to stop, and then rob the inhabitants. What will Uber do?

Yeah, this is a likely new thing. That or just screwing with self-driving cars for laughs. Like kids with a pretend rope across a street, pantomime.

 

4 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

And that reality is; As I said before, the pedestrian has the right of way in all circumstances. That is the law.

Again, dead right, emphasis on the dead part.

My kids know they have right of way, they also know that that is meaningless since in a car vs person fight, the person always loses. It's an aspirational goal, but it will NEVER be a certainty that cars will always stop for all pedestrians (unless self-driving cars manage it). We now have an n of 1 with self-driving cars, and many, many thousands of ped deaths to human drivers each year.

[LordFerret]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, she was "dead right."

If someone steps into traffic, and gets killed, they had the right of way. They win?

You keep putting this on the woman. This is on Uber. In the end, the family of this woman are going to be rich... very rich.

[YNM]

@tater Few questions :

1. What if the "moving object" was a massive rock instead of a tired middle-aged woman ?

2. You expected the driver to make mistakes. You don't expect the pedestrian to make mistakes. Both are human. What is that ?

3. Given the fact that the reaches of headlights can't even illuminate entirely the emergency braking distance for the speeds the vehicle travel, shouldn't that be illegal somehow ?

 

49 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

An expensive proposition.

Most folks don't liken to 'close down' anything... we've got this 'freedom' thing going on here.

Well, then remove the feature entirely, get some shrubbery.

Also, I don't ask for a thorough replacement in an instant. If that's not feasible, you can roll out over time.

 

The nation with the largest GDP in the world can't even afford to think the right way up. *shudders*

 

49 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

I'm going to throw a new factor here into this discussion. We'll use Uber as a perfect example. The day is coming, when thugs will walk out into the roadway causing an Uber AI-driven car to stop, and then rob the inhabitants. What will Uber do?

Keep the car locked out ? And start driving and call 911 (if not prompted already) once the window's broken.

Edited March 22, 2018 by YNM

[tater]

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

1. What if the "moving object" was a massive rock instead of a tried middle-aged women ?

It's called a fender bender. Happens all the time. Ditto a deer jumping in front of a car. Accidents happen.

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

2. You expected the driver to make mistakes. You don't expect the pedestrian to make mistakes. Both are human. What is that ?

I expect both to make mistakes. I expect the pedestrian to be more vigilant out of enlightened self interest.

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

3. Given the fact that the reaches of headlights can't even illuminate entirely the emergency braking distance for the speeds the vehicle travel, shouldn't that be illegal somehow ?

Do you actually drive a car?

Cars, like other tech, have engineering trade offs. Modern headlights tend to be aimed downwards slightly. The range is somewhat reduced, but the benefit is that you are not blinding other, oncoming drivers. We can increase the lighting distance, but this might cause other accidents due to blinded drivers. No solution will be perfect.

[LordFerret]

5 minutes ago, YNM said:

3. Given the fact that the reaches of headlights can't even illuminate entirely the emergency braking distance for the speeds the vehicle travel, shouldn't that be illegal somehow ?

Again... don't base your observation on this video. The camera is poor quality and is not a fair representation of what your eye would actually see were you there. But, for the record, there are laws defining headlight illumination range and angles.

[tater]

10 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

You keep putting this on the woman. This is on Uber. In the end, the family of this woman are going to be rich... very rich.

I'd rather have my kids be alive than to get a pay out, myself. As such, I always drum into them that they cannot trust even crosswalks (because they can't, no one can, not ever).

[YNM]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Do you actually drive a car?

Yes, and when I'm in an inadequately-illuminated "empty" road, I use the high beam light. Very common sense.

Edited March 22, 2018 by YNM

[LordFerret]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

The nation with the largest GDP in the world can't even afford to think the right way up. *shudders*

Hey... we're also the nation with the largest debt in the world, and can't afford anything... and I'll put the blame for that on an inordinate amount of 'social justice'.

3 minutes ago, tater said:

I always drum into them that they cannot trust even crosswalks (because they can't, no one can, not ever).

You also need to drum into them that they cannot ever trust blogs either!

[tater]

9 minutes ago, YNM said:

2. You expected the driver to make mistakes. You don't expect the pedestrian to make mistakes. Both are human. What is that ?

I'm going to reiterate this. Assume a perfectly designed pedestrian crossing area. It even has a stop light. A non-zero % pf cars will run the light, and a non-zero % pf pedestrians will cross against the light for whatever reason. The pedestrians always lose this engagement, should it happen.

 

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Yes, and when I'm in an inadequately-illuminated road, I use the high beam light. Very common sense.

Yeah, and you drop to low beams when any oncoming cars are approaching (else you are... someone I would call names while driving ). This generally requires dropping to low beams when approaching a curve (not knowing who you might blind on the other side of the curve).

 

[YNM]

4 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Again... don't base your observation on this video. The camera is poor quality and is not a fair representation of what your eye would actually see were you there.

And the AIs are not equipped with human-grade eyes, with logarithmic response. Last I checked there are no such thing.

Just now, tater said:

This generally requires dropping to low beams when approaching a curve (not knowing who you might blind on the other side of the curve).

On such case I'm not reluctant to use intermittent flashers (of high beam) and horns.

2 minutes ago, tater said:

The pedestrians always lose this engagement, should it happen.

Great ! Robbery should just be let off because they mostly win anyway.

[LordFerret]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

else you are... someone I would call names while driving

What that you?!?

[tater]

Horns are almost never used in the US outside of cities like NYC, in my experience.

[YNM]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

It's called a fender bender.

Would you require an AI to stop for one ?

[tater]

1 minute ago, LordFerret said:

What that you?!?

My kids have to learn the appropriate use of forum inappropriate language someplace

Just now, YNM said:

Would you require an AI to stop for one ?

Depends.

When I learned to drive, my dad chided me for braking for a squirrel. I'd safely avoid any hazard I could, others might be more dangerous to avoid than hit.

I'd think that self-driving cars would likewise use all available data to try and avoid what they could.

[LordFerret]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Would you require an AI to stop for one ?

That's an excellent point!

Scenario: You're in an Uber AI driven car. In the opposing lane (or even right in front of you), a horrendous accident occurs... bodies and parts flying everywhere. Will the Uber car stop so that you can run over and lend aid? No. The Uber will continue on (which will save you from becoming identified as a witness, forcing you to appear at the jury trial).

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

I'd think that self-driving cars would likewise use all available data to try and avoid what they could.

Now we are going somewhere.

Programmers around the world, please listen to this man.

8 minutes ago, tater said:

Horns are almost never used in the US outside of cities like NYC, in my experience.

God knows when people down here would finally use their eyes. Approaching a blind junction, you really need to unleash some horns and flashers. I sometimes wonder what if I can install a really obnoxius white noise generator to my car so finally everyone can know precisely where it is and do something about it.

17 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Hey... we're also the nation with the largest debt in the world, and can't afford anything...

By that standard, someone else should be bankrupt first.

14 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Scenario: You're in an Uber AI driven car. In the opposing lane (or even right in front of you), a horrendous accident occurs... bodies and parts flying everywhere. Will the Uber car stop so that you can run over and lend aid? No. The Uber will continue on (which will save you from becoming identified as a witness, forcing you to appear at the jury trial).

Given what Uber has done to laws as a corporation...

*shudder*

*rattles badly*

[YNM]

49 minutes ago, tater said:

I always drum into them that they cannot trust even crosswalks

Oh, how sad.

 

[tater]

Another reality check. Jaywalking is illegal in AZ, and Tempe:

Quote

Sec. 19-151. Crossing a roadway.
(a) No pedestrian shall cross the roadway within the central business district other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(b) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway outside of the central business district at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(c) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway where signs or traffic control signals prohibit such crossing.

(added quotation for clarity on the actual legal code, above)

I found another site that said that a majority of ped fatalities were mid block crossings (jaywalking). In the US, a substantial % of fatalities are impaired pedestrians (drunk). The number was 40-60% (!). They also attribute 80-90% of ped traffic deaths to the fault of the ped (US and UK stats).

 

Different car teams have different ideas about sensors. I know google cars are covered with different detectors, active and passive. Tesla relies on optical. Unsure about Uber. Even if cameras could be super human (assuming good low light cameras), other systems seem sensible. 

Since the majority of ped deaths are the fault of the pedestrian, self driving vehicles can ultimately reduce deaths, since all the human factors are already baked in to the stats (~6k a year in the US).

Better crosswalks don’t matter much, since a majority of fatal accidents are peds outside walks, or ignoring signals at crosswalks (jaywalking).

Also, the majority of injuries are daylight, but fatalities are majority at night.

Crosswalks like the one in that video I don’t see often, usually in the US walks without traffic signals are on streets with very slow speed limits in congested areas where cars are at a walking pace.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by tater