Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by naasking on Thursday May 24, 2018 @03:32PM
(#17147458)
You're missing the context of this thread. The software in the Uber car has a clear failure condition. That has nothing to do with whether it's possible to infer such vector collisions without jerky driving, which is the point I'm addressing.
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by dpark on Thursday May 24, 2018 @09:57PM
(#17150053)
The question was why the car doesn’t brake early. “Because scanning every few milliseconds” is not an answer. Scanning frequency is irrelevant to the fact that emergency braking is not a reasonable strategy in general.
Safe driving often does require slowing down in the face of insufficient information. If a human driver sees an inattentive pedestrian about to intersect traffic, they will slow down. “Drive until collision is unavoidable” is a failing strategy.
And anyway, jerky driving is a symptom of late braking, not early braking.
Re:Uber Self-Driving Car That Struck Pedestrian Wasn’t Set t...
by bonesss on Friday May 25, 2018 @03:12AM
(#17151318)
> And anyway, jerky driving is a symptom of late braking, not early braking.
I see it as more than just jerkyness, I see a massive safety issue in traffic. If your autonomous car is slamming on the brakes spontaneously there's a lot more opportunities for other drivers to plow into you from behind.
> But why didn't it brake from t minus 6 to t minus 1.3? Looks like it detected that the car's and object's paths were converging, so why didn't it brake during that interval?