[Racer X 69]

So far as I'm aware, hazard lights are only to be used when a vehicle is stationary, so the "driving slowly" use is not something likely to be programmed into any automated system.

Using the hazard flashers while limping along slowly in the right lane (left lane for those who drive on the left side of the road) or on the shoulder while moving a partially disabled vehicle off of a busy highway, or while towing a disabled vehicle is considered standard safe operating procedure. The flashing hazard lights warn other drivers that a hazard exists, and allows them to take appropriate action.

[Racer X 69]

Heavy trucks were fitted with a system called VORAD for a while. It didn't work sop well, and I'm not sure if it is still available.

A white paper:

Eaton VORAD Collision Warning System


I never operated heavy trucks with the system (I did operate a few that had the system but it was disabled, due to problems with it), but I knew drivers who did drive heavy trucks with the system. The consensus was that it failed to perform as expected. If another vehicle was passing on the right, the system would think there was a collision imminent, and cause the truck to swerve left and brake suddenly. This recorded an event that looked bad for the driver.

Also, if another vehicle suddenly cut in front of a VORAD equipped truck, the truck would suddenly brake, again recording an event that made the driver look like he was driving poorly.

There are many other instances where the system over reacted, and caused lots of spilled coffee in the cab of big trucks.

And many good drivers received warnings for poor driving, or lost their jobs because of the system.

[interested_observer]

A prelim report has already been issued.

Thanks! I didn't realize a preliminary report had been issued - the same day my mom had her emergency neurosurgery. I've been sorta of busy making decisions for her. She is now back at her home and walked unassisted today for the first time - progress!!!

The car recognised the person as a pedestrian 1.3 seconds before impact. At that time, the car was travelling at 39 miles per hour. That means that, had the automatic breaking not been disabled, the car may have braked as early as 22.6m before impact, but most certainly 17m before impact. But, the driver in the vehicle - who were supposed to have their eyes on the road - did not. The driver was either looking at the centre console or their phone, according to the in-car cameras. If the human driver had seen the person at 1.3 seconds prior to impact, their reaction time would likely have meant that they would not have braked in time anyway. So, it's likely that the outcome, if this was an ordinary car with a human driver looking at the road, would have been no different.

I went looking for the preliminary report to read - and there is also an excellent summary too.

• https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx

This has a couple of interesting items...

In its report the NTSB said Uber equipped the test vehicle with a developmental, self-driving system, consisting of forward- and side-facing cameras, radars, Light Detection and Ranging, navigation sensors and a computing and data storage unit integrated into the vehicle. The vehicle was factory equipped with several advanced driver assistance functions by the original manufacturer Volvo Cars, including a collision avoidance function with automatic emergency braking as well as functions for detecting driver alertness and road sign information. The Volvo functions are disabled only when the test vehicle is operated in computer control mode.

It appears that Uber disabled the Volvo mature collision avoidance function with automatic emergency braking for their own immature experimental still in development braking system. Since it was still in development, they relied on the driver to brake. You have to ask then why was the vehicle allowed on the road. The driver was monitoring - bored out of his skull just waiting to brake. That's not a good design either.

The report states data obtained from the self-driving system shows the system first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about six seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling 43 mph. As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path. At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that emergency braking was needed to mitigate a collision. According to Uber emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

You have to ask youself if this is a reasonable system design to be let loose on the public streets?

In the report the NTSB said the self-driving system data showed the vehicle operator engaged the steering wheel less than a second before impact and began braking less than a second after impact. The vehicle operator said in an NTSB interview that she had been monitoring the self-driving interface and that while her personal and business phones were in the vehicle neither were in use until after the crash.

I'm some what reading between the lines here - but rather than just smashing on the brake peddle, you need to engage the steering wheel (in order to control the vehicle) and then hit the brakes? That does not sound like a quick manual over-ride. Plus, the system was not alerting you to a situation that it knew about.

That leads me to ask - if Volvo's own system is in production and out in the public, would it have performed any better. In looking around I ran across this article that does an excellent job of asking pretty much the same questions I had - and goes on to pull some additional information.

• storybreak stars<\/title><path d="M5.146 9.01l-.19-3.623 3.057 1.985.693-1.197-3.213-1.67 3.213-1.638-.693-1.197-3.056 1.953L5.147 0H3.76l.158 3.623L.893 1.67.2 2.867l3.214 1.638L.2 6.175l.693 1.197 3.025-1.985L3.76 9.01m21.386 0l-.19-3.623 3.057 1.9

I really like the last few lines of the article...

“It really makes you scratch your head how can they be testing an advanced self-driving system that doesn’t have the capabilities of the Toyota Corolla,” he said.

“Clearly they were developing a self driving system,” he added, “it was not finished.”

Like you, I don;t believe the automated braking system should have been disabled. It may have given the pedestrian a better chance as the car may have slowed - even slightly - and that may have reduced the severity of the accident.

It does appear that the Volvo system would have reacted in a way to have mitigated the level of damage. Again, from the article above...

Uber’s self-driving test program began in Arizona in 2016 after plans to start in California fell through. At the time, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey proudly bragged about his state’s efforts to avoid the “bureaucracy and more regulation” concerning self-driving technology. Following the fatal crash, he signed an executive order halting self-driving road tests until investigations were complete.

When you flight test an experimental airplane, you go out to a test area that is closed to the public. Flight tests for final certification while running up flight hours for over all system maturity can be done in general flight areas, but that is when you have all of the systems fully developed, integrated and tested. This Uber vehicle was still in the experimental stage - it's still an early prototype. And to top it off - they have been driving around the area for almost 2 years now.

Yes, the lady was drug impaired (positive for methamphetamine and marijuana) making bad judgements. Having said that - you just don't go driving around the university district (bars and restaurants) and lots of stupid college folks out wandering around at night, with a "self driving vehicle still in development". It defies common sense.

[Bob 256]

With an autonomous vehicle, we're exchanging human error for machine error. No one claimed autonomous vehicles are perfect and they too have issues but commit far fewer errors than humans so potentially are safer. With humans the error thing is different with each driver, some being much better drivers than others so errors are all over the map. Autonomous vehicles have specific errors they're prone to and many times, those errors can be erased in revised code, so the more autonomous vehicles are used, the fewer errors they will tend to commit.

As mentioned, autonomous vehicles are slaves to their sensors so there will be limitations on where and when they can function, but as sensors improve, so too will capabilities of autonomous vehicles. They already have sensors that can "see" in total darkness (at least what we see as total darkness), so that's one up on human drivers right there.

Autonomous vehicles are in the proving stage right now just as motorized vehicles were when horse drawn carriages were the thing.......... Let's see where it all takes us (well some people won't be taken anywhere in an autonomous vehicle).

[MarkJerling]

Using the hazard flashers while limping along slowly in the right lane (left lane for those who drive on the left side of the road) or on the shoulder while moving a partially disabled vehicle off of a busy highway, or while towing a disabled vehicle is considered standard safe operating procedure. The flashing hazard lights warn other drivers that a hazard exists, and allows them to take appropriate action.

I'm aware of that use, but it's not legal in many places. Here, you're allow to use your hazard lights when you're doing something like changing a tyre on the side of the road or your vehicle has broken down and is being towed. Even then it's questionable, as using your hazard light means indicators can't work and therefore other drivers following may not be aware of your vehicle indicating to turn.

[PDL]

Why complicate it?

I am not making it complicated - it just is complicated. If it was not complicated it would be done already. The development of autonomous vehicles is hard and takes a long time. Plus we are in the very early stages of this technology and getting anything done is real work.

[dbs]

The Technology will be perfected but do you want to never drive again?
Autonomous vehicles mean just that..

Dave

[lesmore49]

The Technology will be perfected but do you want to never drive again?
Autonomous vehicles mean just that..

Dave

Yes quite right and I think that is a factor that gets lost in the autonomous discussion. I enjoy driving and I've been driving since I was 12 years old, first piloting my parents' newer '61 Chevy Nomad wagon around a deserted state park in Minnesota, with my dad riding shotgun and providing instruction.

I've had many different cars...big American sedans with big V8/V6's, small sporty European sedans with manual transmissions and high revving, twin SU carbed, 4 cylinder engines (that's for Thor ), motorcycles galore...racing dirt bikes, big engined street motorcycles, adventure motorcycles, etc...commercial trucks, etc, etc....in my 50 + years of driving. In fact when I was 19 I even had an American musclecar....a '67 Camaro coupe, RS model with 4 speed Muncie manual transmission and 327 (5.3 liter) V8.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, I don't think I ever met a automobile I didn't like...with the possible exception of the '85 Peugeot 205, 1 liter, 4 speed rental car, I drove for a month in the UK. But that is another story.

I'm one of those few...or maybe not so few.... who really enjoy driving and if I want to go autonomous in a car...I'll hail a cab.

I know many don't like driving and would probably be happier sitting in pleasant passenger train car, sipping their herbal tea and reading the latest recommendation from Oprah's book club ...as they travel from A to B.

But not me, I prefer to drive. It's not because I'm a Luddite...I just like doing things myself. In fact I often shoot away with my Pentax camera...on manual setting and with my Sekonic L-398 light meter.

I guess I derive pleasure from doing things...... the hard way.

I would bet....if I was a betting man that there are many like me.

[Rondec]

Thanks! I didn't realize a preliminary report had been issued - the same day my mom had her emergency neurosurgery. I've been sorta of busy making decisions for her. She is now back at her home and walked unassisted today for the first time - progress!!!


I went looking for the preliminary report to read - and there is also an excellent summary too.

• https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx

This has a couple of interesting items...

It appears that Uber disabled the Volvo mature collision avoidance function with automatic emergency braking for their own immature experimental still in development braking system. Since it was still in development, they relied on the driver to brake. You have to ask then why was the vehicle allowed on the road. The driver was monitoring - bored out of his skull just waiting to brake. That's not a good design either.

You have to ask youself if this is a reasonable system design to be let loose on the public streets?

I'm some what reading between the lines here - but rather than just smashing on the brake peddle, you need to engage the steering wheel (in order to control the vehicle) and then hit the brakes? That does not sound like a quick manual over-ride. Plus, the system was not alerting you to a situation that it knew about.

That leads me to ask - if Volvo's own system is in production and out in the public, would it have performed any better. In looking around I ran across this article that does an excellent job of asking pretty much the same questions I had - and goes on to pull some additional information.

• storybreak stars<\/title><path d="M5.146 9.01l-.19-3.623 3.057 1.985.693-1.197-3.213-1.67 3.213-1.638-.693-1.197-3.056 1.953L5.147 0H3.76l.158 3.623L.893 1.67.2 2.867l3.214 1.638L.2 6.175l.693 1.197 3.025-1.985L3.76 9.01m21.386 0l-.19-3.623 3.057 1.9

I really like the last few lines of the article...



It does appear that the Volvo system would have reacted in a way to have mitigated the level of damage. Again, from the article above...

When you flight test an experimental airplane, you go out to a test area that is closed to the public. Flight tests for final certification while running up flight hours for over all system maturity can be done in general flight areas, but that is when you have all of the systems fully developed, integrated and tested. This Uber vehicle was still in the experimental stage - it's still an early prototype. And to top it off - they have been driving around the area for almost 2 years now.

Yes, the lady was drug impaired (positive for methamphetamine and marijuana) making bad judgements. Having said that - you just don't go driving around the university district (bars and restaurants) and lots of stupid college folks out wandering around at night, with a "self driving vehicle still in development". It defies common sense.

I think the question isn't whether having autonomous vehicles will prevent all accidents (clearly they won't), but whether it is possible they could reduce accidents. I think they probably could reduce accidents pretty significantly. A lot would depend on how much humans are allowed to over ride the vehicle control. Can a human go above the speed limit and if so, by how much? Can a human attempt a dangerous merge into another lane of traffic? My guess is that the best situation (once these systems are fully developed) is not to allow much human intervention in the vehicle operation. A two headed control system is much more likely to break down.

[Racer X 69]

. . . . small sporty European sedans with manual transmissions and high revving, twin SU carbed, 4 cylinder engines (that's for Thor

Hey!

What about Racer?

[Racer X 69]

Yes quite right and I think that is a factor that gets lost in the autonomous discussion. I enjoy driving and I've been driving since I was 12 years old, first piloting my parents' newer '61 Chevy Nomad wagon around a deserted state park in Minnesota, with my dad riding shotgun and providing instruction.

I've had many different cars...big American sedans with big V8/V6's, small sporty European sedans with manual transmissions and high revving, twin SU carbed, 4 cylinder engines (that's for Thor ), motorcycles galore...racing dirt bikes, big engined street motorcycles, adventure motorcycles, etc...commercial trucks, etc, etc....in my 50 + years of driving. In fact when I was 19 I even had an American musclecar....a '67 Camaro coupe, RS model with 4 speed Muncie manual transmission and 327 (5.3 liter) V8.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, I don't think I ever met a automobile I didn't like...with the possible exception of the '85 Peugeot 205, 1 liter, 4 speed rental car, I drove for a month in the UK. But that is another story.

I'm one of those few...or maybe not so few.... who really enjoy driving and if I want to go autonomous in a car...I'll hail a cab.

I know many don't like driving and would probably be happier sitting in pleasant passenger train car, sipping their herbal tea and reading the latest recommendation from Oprah's book club ...as they travel from A to B.

But not me, I prefer to drive. It's not because I'm a Luddite...I just like doing things myself. In fact I often shoot away with my Pentax camera...on manual setting and with my Sekonic L-398 light meter.

I guess I derive pleasure from doing things...... the hard way.

I would bet....if I was a betting man that there are many like me.

We are twin sons from different mothers.

[onlineflyer]

We are twin sons from different mothers.

Make that triplets.

Anyone here ever own an Elva? Or even hear of an Elva? I did.

[LensBeginner]

The Technology will be perfected but do you want to never drive again?
Autonomous vehicles mean just that..

Dave

To drive is fun, in abstract.
You know, those beautiful, empty country roads you see in the commercials, with leaves rustling after the car silently passes.
Or those winding mountain roads like that famous one in Romania.

Then you start your very real car, and spend the next hour jammed in city traffic, with mopeds that try to get run over by you by passing you then swerving in front of your hood and braking hard in order not to hit the car in front, or trying to figure out the intentions of people scrambling at the very last moment for a right turn from two lanes on your left.
And when you finally get to said country road, it is really deserted as in the commercial save for the old man with the decrepit Fiat Panda, who drives at 30km/h, but whom you never manage to overtake, because in the straights he suddenly accelerates ("hey, it's easier here!"), and always drives in the middle of the road anyway...

Oh and lest we forget... the geniuses with SUV and sedans who only drive in the fast lane on motorways, going 160 km/h and signaling you to GTFO of they way with their headlights...

Autonomous ASAP for me.

[ThorSanchez]

Yes quite right and I think that is a factor that gets lost in the autonomous discussion. I enjoy driving and I've been driving since I was 12 years old, first piloting my parents' newer '61 Chevy Nomad wagon around a deserted state park in Minnesota, with my dad riding shotgun and providing instruction.

I've had many different cars...big American sedans with big V8/V6's, small sporty European sedans with manual transmissions and high revving, twin SU carbed, 4 cylinder engines (that's for Thor ), motorcycles galore...racing dirt bikes, big engined street motorcycles, adventure motorcycles, etc...commercial trucks, etc, etc....in my 50 + years of driving. In fact when I was 19 I even had an American musclecar....a '67 Camaro coupe, RS model with 4 speed Muncie manual transmission and 327 (5.3 liter) V8.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, I don't think I ever met a automobile I didn't like...with the possible exception of the '85 Peugeot 205, 1 liter, 4 speed rental car, I drove for a month in the UK. But that is another story.

I'm one of those few...or maybe not so few.... who really enjoy driving and if I want to go autonomous in a car...I'll hail a cab.

I know many don't like driving and would probably be happier sitting in pleasant passenger train car, sipping their herbal tea and reading the latest recommendation from Oprah's book club ...as they travel from A to B.

But not me, I prefer to drive. It's not because I'm a Luddite...I just like doing things myself. In fact I often shoot away with my Pentax camera...on manual setting and with my Sekonic L-398 light meter.

I guess I derive pleasure from doing things...... the hard way.

I would bet....if I was a betting man that there are many like me.

I don't know why there's this strong undercurrent in any discussion like this that eventually the government is going to take away our human-driven cars and we'll all be wearing white jumpsuits as we wander aimlessly into our grey transportation pods.

Obviously there are a substantial number of people who will want to drive their own cars. These people presumably vote. It seems unreasonable that a large number of people wanting to do things that are currently legal will in the next decade or so have that right (and the use of $billions worth of their property) ripped from them involuntarily.

I'm going on record as saying that if in 2055 you want to drive your unmodified 1963 Split Window Corvette you'll have no troubles. Besides the difficulty in finding gasoline, and the high insurance premiums that will go along with unaided human driving. At worst self-driving will be like driving a Tesla Model S today. Expensive enough to be out of the reach of many, inconvienent in some ways, but still very do-able if you really want to.

[onlineflyer]

To drive is fun, in abstract.
You know, those beautiful, empty country roads you see in the commercials, with leaves rustling after the car silently passes.
Or those winding mountain roads like that famous one in Romania.

Then you start your very real car, and spend the next hour jammed in city traffic, with mopeds that try to get run over by you by passing you then swerving in front of your hood and braking hard in order not to hit the car in front, or trying to figure out the intentions of people scrambling at the very last moment for a right turn from two lanes on your left.
And when you finally get to said country road, it is really deserted as in the commercial save for the old man with the decrepit Fiat Panda, who drives at 30km/h, but whom you never manage to overtake, because in the straights he suddenly accelerates ("hey, it's easier here!"), and always drives in the middle of the road anyway...

Oh and lest we forget... the geniuses with SUV and sedans who only drive in the fast lane on motorways, going 160 km/h and signaling you to GTFO of they way with their headlights...

Autonomous ASAP for me.

Autonomous vehicles mixed with scooters will be a hoot to watch. lol