There's absolutely zero way to figure out if the woman would have been hit by a human driver, yet testing with an autonomously driven car can not, will not, at least with current technology, be able to make decisions based upon thought, conscience and emotions. .
Except there is 100% of a way to determine if the car could have stopped with a human. It didn't. There was a person in the car the car did not stop. Just because it isn't a person driving does NOT change the damn laws of physics. What does conscience have to do with anything here? It was a robot, and if it was a person they ALSO would have chose to stop.
Your premise here is 100% false.
However, I DO agree with you that there is too much computer fuckery in cars these days in regards to their operation. That is why I went backwards in car tech.
MadPick wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Not without warning.
Idiots walk /run out from behind cars all the time. Can't see them until they're in the road, too late.
I totally agree. But that’s also true for a pedestrian who suddenly bolts out into a crosswalk.
Bottom line, it’s about the behavior of the pedestrian plus the reaction time of the driver/car ... not about whether it happens in a crosswalk or not.
And that LIDAR and computer are going to be 100x faster than a person.
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Agreed, and it has nothing to do with the car hitting the person. The media was the one making this a thing, though there are liability things in other states regarding being in or out of a crosswalk.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:47 am
TechnoWeenie
Site Supporter
Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18454
Real Name: Johnny 5
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Not without warning.
Idiots walk /run out from behind cars all the time. Can't see them until they're in the road, too late.
I totally agree. But that’s also true for a pedestrian who suddenly bolts out into a crosswalk.
Bottom line, it’s about the behavior of the pedestrian plus the reaction time of the driver/car ... not about whether it happens in a crosswalk or not.
Even in WA, pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles on the road...except in crosswalks....and even then, the ped can't jump in front of your car....
Quote:
RCW 46.61.235 Crosswalks. (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. (2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.
Quote:
RCW 46.61.240 Crossing at other than crosswalks. (1) Every 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 upon the roadway. (2) Where curb ramps exist at or adjacent to intersections or at marked crosswalks in other locations, disabled persons may enter the roadway from the curb ramps and cross the roadway within or as closely as practicable to the crosswalk. All other pedestrian rights and duties as defined elsewhere in this chapter remain applicable. (3) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (4) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (5) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements. (6) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits such crossing.
_________________ NO DISASSEMBLE!
Thomas Paine wrote:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:52 am
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Not without warning.
Idiots walk /run out from behind cars all the time. Can't see them until they're in the road, too late.
I totally agree. But that’s also true for a pedestrian who suddenly bolts out into a crosswalk.
Bottom line, it’s about the behavior of the pedestrian plus the reaction time of the driver/car ... not about whether it happens in a crosswalk or not.
Even in WA, pedestrians must yield the right of way to vehicles on the road...except in crosswalks....and even then, the ped can't jump in front of your car....
Quote:
RCW 46.61.235 Crosswalks. (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. (2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.
Quote:
RCW 46.61.240 Crossing at other than crosswalks. (1) Every 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 upon the roadway. (2) Where curb ramps exist at or adjacent to intersections or at marked crosswalks in other locations, disabled persons may enter the roadway from the curb ramps and cross the roadway within or as closely as practicable to the crosswalk. All other pedestrian rights and duties as defined elsewhere in this chapter remain applicable. (3) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (4) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (5) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements. (6) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits such crossing.
Exactly. As I said these laws are about LIABILITY. This just indemnifies the driver for someones mistake/dumbassery, as long as they did not do with with malice or ill intent.
So, honestly the crosswalk has zero to do with the autonomous vehicle as it is programed to stop REGARDLESS of where they are crossing. I will 100% state that the computer driven car would be more likely to stop in time than a human driver in a situation like we are discussing.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
There's absolutely zero way to figure out if the woman would have been hit by a human driver, yet testing with an autonomously driven car can not, will not, at least with current technology, be able to make decisions based upon thought, conscience and emotions. .
Except there is 100% of a way to determine if the car could have stopped with a human. It didn't. There was a person in the car the car did not stop. Just because it isn't a person driving does NOT change the damn laws of physics. What does conscience have to do with anything here? It was a robot, and if it was a person they ALSO would have chose to stop.
Your premise here is 100% false.
However, I DO agree with you that there is too much computer fuckery in cars these days in regards to their operation. That is why I went backwards in car tech.
MadPick wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Not without warning.
Idiots walk /run out from behind cars all the time. Can't see them until they're in the road, too late.
I totally agree. But that’s also true for a pedestrian who suddenly bolts out into a crosswalk.
Bottom line, it’s about the behavior of the pedestrian plus the reaction time of the driver/car ... not about whether it happens in a crosswalk or not.
And that LIDAR and computer are going to be 100x faster than a person.
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Agreed, and it has nothing to do with the car hitting the person. The media was the one making this a thing, though there are liability things in other states regarding being in or out of a crosswalk.
A computer can't judge a person walking out of a store front, straight towards the road. A computer can't judge the risks of children playing ball on a side walk and prepare for the worse. A computer cannot judge a probability based on good judgement. Defend all you want, a computer cannot, and probably never will, have the ability to use emotions, conscience and reasoning. It merely reacts to inputs. Whether a person could react to the pedestrian cannot be determined, where the human brain and all it's wonders come into play, wheare as the computer is reacting to supplied data of the moment. Yes, a computer is needed to fly a stealth plane and do all sorts of other shit, and you can have a hundred sensors sending all the data you could ever want, you still don't have a sensor for common sense.
Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:20 am
Sinus211
Site Moderator
Location: Marysville Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 Posts: 13503
Real Name: Mike
A computer can't judge a person walking out of a store front, straight towards the road. A computer can't judge the risks of children playing ball on a side walk and prepare for the worse. A computer cannot judge a probability based on good judgement. Defend all you want, a computer cannot, and probably never will, have the ability to use emotions, conscience and reasoning. It merely reacts to inputs. Whether a person could react to the pedestrian cannot be determined, where the human brain and all it's wonders come into play, wheare as the computer is reacting to supplied data of the moment. Yes, a computer is needed to fly a stealth plane and do all sorts of other shit, and you can have a hundred sensors sending all the data you could ever want, you still don't have a sensor for common sense.
There's absolutely zero way to figure out if the woman would have been hit by a human driver, yet testing with an autonomously driven car can not, will not, at least with current technology, be able to make decisions based upon thought, conscience and emotions. .
Except there is 100% of a way to determine if the car could have stopped with a human. It didn't. There was a person in the car the car did not stop. Just because it isn't a person driving does NOT change the damn laws of physics. What does conscience have to do with anything here? It was a robot, and if it was a person they ALSO would have chose to stop.
Your premise here is 100% false.
However, I DO agree with you that there is too much computer fuckery in cars these days in regards to their operation. That is why I went backwards in car tech.
MadPick wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Not without warning.
Idiots walk /run out from behind cars all the time. Can't see them until they're in the road, too late.
I totally agree. But that’s also true for a pedestrian who suddenly bolts out into a crosswalk.
Bottom line, it’s about the behavior of the pedestrian plus the reaction time of the driver/car ... not about whether it happens in a crosswalk or not.
And that LIDAR and computer are going to be 100x faster than a person.
MadPick wrote:
I’ll also say that I don’t think the crosswalk issue is relevant. The car needs to be smart enough to avoid hitting people (and other things) regardless of whether they’re in a crosswalk or not.
Agreed, and it has nothing to do with the car hitting the person. The media was the one making this a thing, though there are liability things in other states regarding being in or out of a crosswalk.
A computer can't judge a person walking out of a store front, straight towards the road. A computer can't judge the risks of children playing ball on a side walk and prepare for the worse. A computer cannot judge a probability based on good judgement. Defend all you want, a computer cannot, and probably never will, have the ability to use emotions, conscience and reasoning. It merely reacts to inputs. Whether a person could react to the pedestrian cannot be determined, where the human brain and all it's wonders come into play, wheare as the computer is reacting to supplied data of the moment. Yes, a computer is needed to fly a stealth plane and do all sorts of other shit, and you can have a hundred sensors sending all the data you could ever want, you still don't have a sensor for common sense.
K, then why didn't the backup driver stop the car if humans are so infalible and better at judgment?
You are entirely right that a computer sucks at intuition. However, what it is great at is problem solving. Picking up shit coming up in front of it, a computer does much better than a person. Intuition has zero to do with this case, and could not have changed anything.
Fear Mongering is dumb.
sinus211 wrote:
STED9R wrote:
A computer can't judge a person walking out of a store front, straight towards the road. A computer can't judge the risks of children playing ball on a side walk and prepare for the worse. A computer cannot judge a probability based on good judgement. Defend all you want, a computer cannot, and probably never will, have the ability to use emotions, conscience and reasoning. It merely reacts to inputs. Whether a person could react to the pedestrian cannot be determined, where the human brain and all it's wonders come into play, wheare as the computer is reacting to supplied data of the moment. Yes, a computer is needed to fly a stealth plane and do all sorts of other shit, and you can have a hundred sensors sending all the data you could ever want, you still don't have a sensor for common sense.
Yes! Exactly. People have intuition.
That has what to do with the price of tea in China? (This accident.)
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:49 am
Bronco
Location: Lake Stevens Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 Posts: 80
A computer can't judge a person walking out of a store front, straight towards the road. A computer can't judge the risks of children playing ball on a side walk and prepare for the worse. A computer cannot judge a probability based on good judgement. Defend all you want, a computer cannot, and probably never will, have the ability to use emotions, conscience and reasoning. It merely reacts to inputs. Whether a person could react to the pedestrian cannot be determined, where the human brain and all it's wonders come into play, wheare as the computer is reacting to supplied data of the moment. Yes, a computer is needed to fly a stealth plane and do all sorts of other shit, and you can have a hundred sensors sending all the data you could ever want, you still don't have a sensor for common sense.
Yes! Exactly. People have intuition.
I agree with this as well. If a person was that close to the road the passing car should have been watching body language for signs of them moving into the traffic lane. Should motorists have to do this? No, but if you want half a chance not hitting homeless people you need to. These days I always cover my brake while passing them, and at the first flinch I start applying. Yes, I profile..
Yep...humans have intuition - a huge factor in avoiding accidents. I don't think you can program driverless cars to have that same intuition. I'm not saying the driverless cars are a bad idea altogether; I'm just saying that they'll be limited in their ability to foresee potential accidents and take precautionary measures to avoid them.
Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:32 am
JohnMBrowning
Location: Bothell Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 Posts: 4874
The problem is that technology is only at the point where it is capable of 'not causing' an accident - it is nowhere near evolved enough to 'prevent' accidents which is what the expectations are for self driving vehicles. Its going to take alot more than boolean logic and decision trees to do that.... some sort of AI... There are far too many variables and unpredictable events for any programming to account for --- there needs to be fuzzy logic incorporated. There is no way yet for programming/AI to mimic the ability of the brain to process all the environmental/situational inputs that happen when shit starts going bad - and to choose the best solution/least damage/no loss of life reaction to a situation for the conditions at the moment -- it can only choose from the 'predetermined scenario response'. Sometimes there is no 'good' solution, only a choice of the 'least hurtful/damaging' to the driver or others --- that going to be a difficult choice to make in programming.
Quick story --- I was cruising up the street doing ~40 - coming up to a cross street that had a stop sign - none for me.... saw a car kicking ass up to the stop sign... I realized that he wasn't going to stop - he was going to blow right thru.... instinctively I nailed the brakes, but realized he was going to t-bone me if I locked them up.... for some reason, I decided the best response was the nail the gas and try to blow past him. It was close, I almost made it past him - he clipped my rear bumper. That move saved me from a full side impact t-boning that would have totaled my car and possibly injured me --- only a cracked rear bumper covering. There is no way any programming would have chosen that response.
_________________ Plan B is actually repeating Plan A.... it just involves much more alcohol.
Of the ten voices I hear in my head, only three keep telling me NOT to shoot.... Do I go with the majority or common sense?
Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:15 am
WaJim
In Memoriam
Location: Tacoma Wa Joined: Tue Oct 8, 2013 Posts: 16607
Real Name: George Bailey
Been testing and developing software for nearly twenty years. Have yet to see a bug-free product. As long as people are developing software, there will be bugs due to outright mistakes or often just limitations in software design that are unable to deal with requirements/circumstances unforeseen by the code developer.
No way on God's green earth I would trust my safety to any self-driving car with the software developed by any unseen/unaccountable software engineers.
_________________ There are dead horses yet to be slain.... - NWGunner
Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:52 pm
MadPick
Site Admin
Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52039
Real Name: Steve
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum