Uber Self-Driving Car Crash May Be Due to LIDAR Blind Spot

obviously with uber safety is not important, testing a purposefully down-scaled system just to see how little they can get away with, and having it drive around the state partially blind is just reckless, careless, and with total disregard with the realities of the road.

Its sad that you see a problem with morality when it comes to human life and think people need to die for doing things that people do in every day life.
It illustrates a sickness in this country where people want people punished harshly for making mistakes. killing them, placing them in prison, finacially harming them, dont matter as long as the person is harmed in some way. it makes those people happy to watch other suffers.

whats even more alarming now is that they are eagerly wanting people to suffer at the hands of broken machines now for not following to the letter the laws that govern society. thus for essentially making all of us machines and to those that do not comply .. eliminate them .

scary precedence is being created by people these days with the society they idealize. i truly fear for the future.
 
Who said that safety isn't important? Of course they need to take it as seriously as possible, but that doesn't absolve jay walkers of personal responsibility.

Get off your moral high horse. This grown ass adult just won the Darwin awards and for good reason. If I crossed the street in such a recklessly oblivious manner I'd expect to die.

Own stock in Uber?

She was a Homeless person of questionable mental capacity. I'll just stay on my horse, thanks. I don't want Uber's cheap ass shit on the roads.
 
Seems like a bullshit article to me. The sensor used by Uber has a downward fov of ~ 25 degrees. It's fixed at approximately 2.5m height. So the blind spot ends 2.1m from the sensor if we assume the pedestrian is 150cm tall. 2.1 m from the sensor that's the middle of the hood of the car. Anything that would be detected there has already been hit by the car.
 
The thing that gets me about all this is why was Uber doing this in the first place? If they want self-driving cars than wait for the car companies to make them don't do it yourself...or do they plan on making their own cars too?
Its all about the money and to be the first company to get the tech up and running on the road so they can corner the market. They want driverless cars so they don't have to pay human drivers and literally pocket everything as profit. (minus upkeep of the fleet of course).
 
In related news, Uber has adopted other cost-savings options, such as the balloon animal airbags, fruit-by-the-foot seatbelts, and tin foil crumple zones. Also, look for the new slogan, "Get there... probably."
 
All your points are correct, but they are meaningless to your final questions.

1. No one is defending Uber. The more I learn about Uber's setup, the more I think that Uber is fucktardedness frosted with ineptitude.

2. Uber aside, no one has proven that autonomous cars are worse than human drivers. You're worried about the companies that are building driverless cars, but the regulators are clearing the way forward as fast as the developers are designing. The NHTSA and the DOT are not slowing down.

3. The 'point' should be obvious - driverless cars free us from the need to drive the car. People do stupid shit in cars. Mary is putting on her makeup on the way to work, Jimmy is texting his girlfriend, Fat Angus just pulled out of the drive-through at McDonald's and has his vision obscured by a large order of fries, and Uncle Bob is drunk and wants to get home.

Guns kill people, but cars kill just as many people, and they injure 70 times more. You're bitching about the accident rate of AI driven cars, but what makes you think the accident rate for human driven cars is so good? We SUCK at driving cars.


This part needs to be reiterated:
We SUCK at driving cars.

The reality is, this is one fatality. "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

Approximately 33,000 people died in traffic accidents last year. All of these people were in cars being controlled by humans.

Humans are fucking terrible as drivers.

No system will ever be 100% perfect. It can't be. There are too many situations that exist. Expecting the system to be perfect is foolish. It doesn't have to be perfect to be a hell of a lot better than the stupid, distracted, self-involved meatbags that have been driving cars for the last 100 years. We have had 100 years to prove how good we are at driving cars. AND WE FUCKING SUCK.
 
This part needs to be reiterated:


The reality is, this is one fatality. "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

Approximately 33,000 people died in traffic accidents last year. All of these people were in cars being controlled by humans.

Humans are fucking terrible as drivers.

No system will ever be 100% perfect. It can't be. There are too many situations that exist. Expecting the system to be perfect is foolish. It doesn't have to be perfect to be a hell of a lot better than the stupid, distracted, self-involved meatbags that have been driving cars for the last 100 years. We have had 100 years to prove how good we are at driving cars. AND WE FUCKING SUCK.

The tech is supposed to be MORE safe than humans not on par.....if its on par whats the point?
All signs are pointing to a crappy corner cutting company ham stringed its tech and placed it on the road. Everyone in their right mind knows that car should have seen an object walking directly in front of the car.
This situation is one that SHOULD have NOT happened. Everything else is water under the bridge.
 
Its all about the money and to be the first company to get the tech up and running on the road so they can corner the market. They want driverless cars so they don't have to pay human drivers and literally pocket everything as profit. (minus upkeep of the fleet of course).
Yeah that's what I was trying to imply...greed over-riding common sense...Uber has never impressed me as a company. They've just proved very well why some things should be left to the experts. Now they're giving an excuse to all the Luddites to hate the new technology even more...I don't think the Luddites will win, but stranger things have happened.
 
I like that the topic of vehicular Collison with pedestrians is suddenly being taken seriously. There's so many deaths due to vehicular Collison in the USA alone. But now that it's automated we can't have any. I can get behind that.

Did you know that 2017 was the safest year for flights? Zero deaths.

We need that for land vehicles too.
 
The tech is supposed to be MORE safe than humans not on par.....if its on par whats the point?
All signs are pointing to a crappy corner cutting company ham stringed its tech and placed it on the road. Everyone in their right mind knows that car should have seen an object walking directly in front of the car.
This situation is one that SHOULD have NOT happened. Everything else is water under the bridge.
So one accident vs. thousands means they're suddenly on par now? And one accident that is according to active traffic rules wasn't even caused by the self driving car.

Time to stop blaming self driving technology and start blaming uber. This is just used as an excuse to halt development of the technology. Instead of aiming for more oversight.

We know that the technology is valid, and it was fully capable of detecting and avoiding such a collision years ago. Clearly the only one to blame is uber and their half assed solutions.

When you find a flaw in one specific car, you don't call off every other car from the road and say "hey let's forget cars, one of them clearly failed once, we must abandon the technology completely"
 
I like that the topic of vehicular Collison with pedestrians is suddenly being taken seriously. There's so many deaths due to vehicular Collison in the USA alone. But now that it's automated we can't have any. I can get behind that.

Did you know that 2017 was the safest year for flights? Zero deaths.

We need that for land vehicles too.
Except for that is only looking at commercial flights.....
 
So one accident vs. thousands means they're on par?

Then stop blaming self driving technology and start blaming uber. This is just used as an excuse to halt development of the technology. Instead of aiming for more oversight.

We know that the technology is valid, and it was fully capable of detecting and avoiding such a collision years ago. Clearly the only one to blame is uber and their half assed solutions.

When you find a flaw in one specific car, you don't call off every other car from the road and say "hey let's forget cars, one of them clearly failed once, we must abandon the technology completely"
WTF are you talking about? I am blaming Uber........WTF?! Where I say all technology for self driving is bad and needs to end?
Stop trying to read into shit.
 
Why is a subwoofer company making LiDAR sensors? :whistle:

Because they joined the DARPA self-driving car challenge in the early years when nobody knew what they we doing, and noticed the LIDAR sensors all entrants used were painfully primitive.

Sometimes side interests can lead to surprise innovations. The other people in these self-driving car contests all had more experience with the software side than the sensors side.

The company also built a boat that self-stabilizes.
 
Is that supposed to make it less impressive though?
Its quite impressive don't get me wrong, but its only a subsection of flight travel. Its like saying public transit was not involved in any car accidents this year.....which would be impressive as well but still not the whole picture.
 
Last edited:
Own stock in Uber?

She was a Homeless person of questionable mental capacity. I'll just stay on my horse, thanks. I don't want Uber's cheap ass shit on the roads.

Yep, you got me. I own plenty of stock in this non public company and I'm hoping to sway public opinion on [H] so I can sway that non existent public share price.

I see the family is already cashing in on this too. Yes, the family that let this person of questionable mental capacity be homeless. Must be some stand up folks.
 
It's a very major classification of flight. There are a LOT of flights and people involved. Considering how many vehicular deaths there are in the USA alone, and that driving on ground is far less complex than flying a plane, I would say it's nothing to scoff at. Cars don't even have black boxes! (they really should)

Its quite impressive don't get me wrong, but its only a subsection of flight travel. Its like saying public transit was not involved in any car accidents this year.....which would be impressive as well but still not the whole picture.
 
if you adjust your expectations from a company that
1.cheapens out from background checks for it's drivers,
2.considers itself above the law

EVERYTHING makes sense.
 
UBER's end goal is to make their own AV cars in order to use them in their rideshare biz. Their fear is that their entire biz will be killed by GM CRUISE or Waymo once they have working cars.

and because by making such promises, can they continue to get investors to pump cash

if they dropped AV, UBER would be dead soon considering their finances.
 
So they blame the tech....when it was installed to bare minimum and safety software was switched off.....hmmm

Seems like the driver should have been made aware?

I would say 20/30/50.
20% pedestrian walking blindly into the street.

30% idiot driver not driving and paying attention.

50% uber for using a Volvo equipped with 360* blind spot technology with the software disabled for collision avoidence.

I hate it when someone cuts cost on life saving engineering and it cost lives

peeps are very good at blaming others/objects for their failure...
 
Its quite impressive don't get me wrong, but its only a subsection of flight travel. Its like saying public transit was not involved in any car accidents this year.....which would be impressive as well but still not the whole picture.

Calling commercial flight a subsection of flight overall is a bit of a misrepresentation, don't you think? That's like calling all iOS and Android users a subset of mobile OS users because a handful of people still have their Blackberry phones.
 
1 good sensor vs. 5 or 6 sensors is not inherently bad. the more sensors, the more chance for failure. Now if it created a blindspot that the familly of sensors did not have, then that's different. But in general if people knew what the cost of these automomous cars are shaping up to be, they'd be more forgiving of people attempting to cut costs, although it needs to be done safely, because right now they are not going to be adopted by private individuals anytime in our lifetimes of the cost doesn't come down.
 
Calling commercial flight a subsection of flight overall is a bit of a misrepresentation, don't you think? That's like calling all iOS and Android users a subset of mobile OS users because a handful of people still have their Blackberry phones.
But if you don't include those its still not the whole picture however you look at it......
 
1 good sensor vs. 5 or 6 sensors is not inherently bad. the more sensors, the more chance for failure. Now if it created a blindspot that the familly of sensors did not have, then that's different. But in general if people knew what the cost of these automomous cars are shaping up to be, they'd be more forgiving of people attempting to cut costs, although it needs to be done safely, because right now they are not going to be adopted by private individuals anytime in our lifetimes of the cost doesn't come down.

More sensors means more chance for failure? True, but... A single sensor will have effectively the same failure rate and when the single sensor goes out or malfunctions with no backup like the multiple sensor route? Multiple sensors generally means at least partial redundancy due to overlap of sensor coverage.
 
More sensors means more chance for failure? True, but... A single sensor will have effectively the same failure rate and when the single sensor goes out or malfunctions with no backup like the multiple sensor route? Multiple sensors generally means at least partial redundancy due to overlap of sensor coverage.

Pretty much this.
 
Well, these cases make me don't want to drive these cars at least for now. There are so many things that should be reviewed in these autonomous cars before publicly released to customers, like legal aspects when such accidents happen. Who's to blame? Who will take responsibilities? I have just read an article at https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accident-injury-lawyers-attorneys/ about this. I think law maker and car companies should really think about this.
 
Back
Top