if it's an accident, a fatality in particular caused by a safety related component failure then it certainly will - sometimes it takes far longer than it ought to i agree but from what I can gather it's still improved from say approx 20 years ago.
Seriously? I dont see fully autonomous cars driving in snow, around the country roads with tractors, potholes, mud, gravel etc. Why? Because the tech is not ready. Simple enough. My Avensis has lane 'lane departure alert'. Got it switched off as the alert goes off randomly and/or roads do not have perfectly spaced white lines with the possible exception of motorways. Got this as well ; 'Pre-Collision System' uses a camera and laser to detect other vehicles in the road ahead. When the possibility of collision is detected the driver is alerted with audio and visual warnings and brake assistance is activated. If the driver fails to brake in time the brakes automatically engage to prevent or mitigate a collision.' Bloody pain in the back side. Get alerts to brake for parked cars at the side of the road. The camera starts to flash a dash board warning that it cannot see, this happens most mornings esp. in the winter about ten minutes after leaving home. Only solution is to 'cook it' (the sensor/camera is mounted behind the rear view mirror) by turning heater to high heat/fan to windscreen. Works again after about 2 minutes. By then I am toast. This despite the fact it is a clear day and clean windscreen. Both systems are completely random and unre liable. That is a statement of fact after 48000 miles.
I'm a Tech guy and I'm immoral and if you need further evidence look at fekking @AirCon , @Loz & @Chris immoral fekkers one and all
You may (or not) have noticed how bad some modern cars are in the snow when braking? Now I think ABS is brilliant, but the technology available necessarily better.
Not knowing how they drive, but I think know your meaning. Thing is, a good driver will beat the ABS every time, on snow and ice. Can technology or AI do that? Not at the moment. Like I say, people who rely on it are beta testing for the manufacturers, no mistake.
hmm exe, tetchy instead of tecky today? i aint a tecky if it where down to me we would still be shoveling coal in to boilers.
One of those was a lot more controlled than the other though. Could yank the handbrake and pull it sideways and probably stop quicker but not safer.
Some more info released indicates that the pedestrian walking with the bike was not recognised as a risk, so she was ignored.... A self-driving Uber may have spotted the pedestrian killed in the first fatal crash with a driverless car but ignored her anyway. The self-driving car which killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg in Phoenix, Arizona in March saw the pedestrian as a "false positive", causing its on-board system to decide to ignore her rather than swerve to avoid the crash, according to The Information. The car's sensors detected the pedestrian, but according to Uber's internal investigation into the crash, the self-driving car had been tuned to ignore obstacles it didn't deem a risk. Self-driving cars have been having problems with so-called "false positives" - avoiding small objects that human drivers would normally ignore or drive over. The car had been programmed to ignore more of these warnings, so that the car can drive over certain obstacles, such as a plastic bag floating in front of it, rather than seeing them as a risk and swerving to avoid them. However, the car's software was programmed in such a way that it ignored Herzberg crossing the road despite seeing her in with its sensors, causing the deadly crash. The safety driver, who was sat at the wheel but not driving, had been looking away from the road at the moment of the crash.
I think this was covered a few pages back where the car involved is one of volvo's latest xc90's which is full up the ying yang with warning and anti collision stuff, but either the individual or uber, turned volvo's goodies off to test their own autonomous system. At the time of the crash the elected driver was looking down into her lap, it could be suggested at her own laptop or smartphone but uber and nvidia are keeping schtum on a lot and that is why they have already settled with the family of the dead woman to make it go away quickly.
Reports were that the accident was unavoidable to a human driver. If the sensors saw what the human couldn’t (let’s ignore her looking down), then at least it had more potential to avoid the accident (were it not set to ignore).
Agreed but it was the volvo sensors that would have seen her and alerted the driver and not the uber ones. It would seem uber and nvidia, thier partner, need to make their sensors more like Volvo's
Yes the Uber system had the potential ability to brake and swerve to avoid the collision. Indeed the Volvo system suppliers have concluded that their system would have at least braked and reduced the speed of the collision if it was active. The Uber system is actually more sophisticated and the LIDAR would have enabled the car to avoid the collision. The program needs some updating (Nvidia’s platform) to reduce some of the false negatives. Fascinating stuff really that's going to have an impact on all of us; I can foresee a time when insuring a car that's fully automated will be excessively expensive. How will motorcycles fit in? Maybe we'll be the last free road users and it'll be really safe as all the automated cars see us approaching, know our speed and son't try to kill us!
The "programmer" doesn't have or create a view on reality. Programmers create logic which reacts to conditions and events. One such logic condition may include reacting to an event inline with local local law: Arizona law (ARS 28-793)[19] states that pedestrians crossing the street outside a crosswalk shall yield to cars.
Exactly. The logic needs to be black/white and at dome point (maybe this case, maybe not) ‘false positives’ have to be worked out. Then it’s edge cases and keep going. It still boils down to a simple programming algorithm (well, maybe not simple lol) but given the law quoted above is it ok to run over every jaywalker if the alternative is a ‘risky’ swerve?
