An Olympics Sponsors' Self-Driving Bus Hit a Paralympic Athelete (theguardian.com) 96
"Toyota has apologised for the 'overconfidence' of a self-driving bus," reports the Guardian — after the slow-moving bus hit a Paralympic judo expert. Toyota added that it would temporarily suspend the service, with Toyota's president saying the event "shows that autonomous vehicles are not yet realistic for normal roads."
The Japanese athlete, Aramitsu Kitazono, will be unable to compete in his 81kg category this weekend after being left with cuts and bruises following the impact with the "e-Palette" vehicle...
As part of its sponsorship of Tokyo 2020, Toyota has been showcasing its autonomous vehicles via a shuttle service, which has been running around the clock in the athletes' village. On Thursday, however, one of the buses pulled away from a T-junction and drove through a pedestrian crossing while Kitazono, a visually impaired athlete, was walking across.
Tokyo police said that vehicle operators had told them they "were aware that a person was there but thought [the person] would [realize that a bus was coming] and stop crossing the [street]", according to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.
CNN cites reports that the vehicle was under manual control at the time of the accident, adding that the vehicle "was barely moving, but it still managed to collide with a visually-impaired athlete at the Paralympic Games, raising potential concerns about the limitations of autonomous driving technology."
As part of its sponsorship of Tokyo 2020, Toyota has been showcasing its autonomous vehicles via a shuttle service, which has been running around the clock in the athletes' village. On Thursday, however, one of the buses pulled away from a T-junction and drove through a pedestrian crossing while Kitazono, a visually impaired athlete, was walking across.
Tokyo police said that vehicle operators had told them they "were aware that a person was there but thought [the person] would [realize that a bus was coming] and stop crossing the [street]", according to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.
CNN cites reports that the vehicle was under manual control at the time of the accident, adding that the vehicle "was barely moving, but it still managed to collide with a visually-impaired athlete at the Paralympic Games, raising potential concerns about the limitations of autonomous driving technology."
Stop Lying (Score:3, Informative)
The headline is false. The media and anti-Tesla people are propagating this non-story. Of course this happened with a Toyota, but the real target is Tesla which is famous for autonomous features. While it is true that it has an autonomous mode, the vehicle was being manually operated. Second the person who was hit was blind, that may matter so it should be mentioned. I've seen this story on CNN without it even being mentioned that it was operating under manual mode until near the end of the article after a whole bunch of "experts" (all with vested interests or jealousies) touting the dangers of autonomous vehicles. Even the CEO of Toyota doesn't want autonomous vehicles gaining traction, because Toyota is so far behind others on that.
Re:Stop Lying (Score:4, Funny)
Then again, "Aramitsu Kitazono" could just be the Japanese equivalent of Sarah Connor and the car did it on purpose...
Re: Stop Lying (Score:2)
Re: Stop Lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Stop Lying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Was it seriously being operated manually when the driver went through a pedestrian crossing knowing that a blind pedestrian was there, but expecting them to stop crossing the road? Or is this just face saving by Toyota because the manual operator managed to make it to the controls just before impact?
Re:Stop Lying (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed:
Stupid operator deliberately didn't stop the bus at the crossing. This raises the question - are remote operators too detached from the on the ground reality and how do companies correct for this? Also, there could be an issue with operators not getting visual information anywhere near as good as what a driver would get, a driver would likely have know that the person will continue to cross because of body language, it looks like the operator didn't have a good enough picture feed to get that same level of information quality.
I'm the UK if you hit someone on a crossing and your response is oh I thought they would stop, well that simply isn't a valid defense.
Re: Stop Lying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The me it seems plausible the the operator should be allowed to hit the brakes, overriding the autonomous system.
However letting the operator suppress braking from the autonomous system?
Pros and cons here? (To start off with causing read end collision, that's mostly on the other vehicle driver's tailgating and not on the sudden braking. Hence not an actual con.)
But beyond those questions, I don't have the facts of the matter to under
Re: (Score:1)
I think that in all levels of autonomy, except maybe level 5, the autonomous system should never override the decision of the controlling human driver. I don't know what level these busses claim to be, but being that there is an operator to monitor and take over, probably level 2. With level 2 the driver is expected to be paying attention to everything and be prepared to take over at any time. With that, the driver is letting the autonomous system operate the vehicle, but any decision the driver makes sh
Re: (Score:3)
Except collision avoidance is deployed on production cars today. Even ABS is overriding the controlling human driver to an extent.
Re: Stop Lying (Score:1)
Even ABS is overriding the controlling human driver to an extent.
That's a reasonable supposition, if you don't actually know what ABS does.
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldnt collision detection override the operator? The operator shouldnt be allowed to drive the bus into another bus, wall, or any other obstruction.
Tesla seems to think not. As long as the accelerator pedal is depressed by the human driving, it will NOT apply any automatic braking. It will beep loudly and flash messages that you are about to hit something, usually with plenty of time for the driver to react. But, if the driver keeps their foot on the accelerator the car will not attempt stop.
I don't know what level of autonomy these buses claim to have, but Tesla is only level 2. With level 2, the driver is expected to be paying full attention and
Re: (Score:2)
Japan may have very different expectations regarding driver-pedestrian interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have some experience with this in Tokyo, although I can't speak for other regions of Japan. When you're crossing the road at a marked pedestrian crossing, you can act like you have absolute right of way, and just assume the cars will stop. If you're crossing at traffic lights, as long as you stepped onto the road while the pedestrian light was green, you can take as long as you like to finish crossing and the drivers will wait for you. This was a Japanese athlete, so if he was crossing the road a
Re: (Score:3)
"The headline is false."
Seems to me it's a technically true click bait style headline.
"one of the buses pulled away from a T-junction and drove through a pedestrian crossing"
The driver must have been on autopilot and not paying attention.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Update: Two operators on a self-driving bus. Bus stops for pedestrian. One driver hits "start". Bus hits pedestrian.
"Two bus operators — on board to supervise the autonomous driving — said they noticed the athlete, but thought he would stop walking as the bus was approaching, according to Japan’s Asahi daily. The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road." https://news.kulwantvision.co [kulwantvision.com]
Re:Stop Lying (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, let's not forget the story last month.
The deaf-blind paralympic athletes were not allowed to bring a single personal care assistant.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/b... [cbsnews.com]
So what did they think was going to happen? Maybe the real dialogue should be disability rights in Japan, or the lack thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
I read your article, but you clearly didn't.
Re: Stop Lying (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoid much?
Re: (Score:1)
I agree bad headline, but when literally every car manufacturer is working on self-driving vehicles, how is this specifically anti-Tesla?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the headline "An Olympics Sponsors' Self-Driving Bus Hit a Paralympic Athelete" is just a lie. It includes Self-Driving for the purpose of click baiting as many as possible, even though the Self-Driving bit is not part of the story.
IMO this shit doesn't deserve to be on slashdot, but most of all it doesn't deserve to be anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the headline "An Olympics Sponsors' Self-Driving Bus Hit a Paralympic Athelete" is just a lie. It includes Self-Driving for the purpose of click baiting as many as possible, even though the Self-Driving bit is not part of the story.
IMO this shit doesn't deserve to be on slashdot, but most of all it doesn't deserve to be anywhere.
Your right this story doesn't belong anywhere, but the fact that it does means it is important that it is on slashdot (although with a better headline) so that when people discuss this bullshit we know it is because the car was in manual.
Re: Stop Lying (Score:2)
Driver with Psychopathic Tendencies (Score:2)
Second the person who was hit was blind, that may matter so it should be mentioned.
Clearly it does not because, as the summary says, the driver saw the person there and just assumed they would get out of the way which is not at all how you are supposed to drive. Indeed, if the vehicle was under manual control at the time, this means that the driver saw the person there and then deliberately ran into them after seeing them.
Even if the vehicle had been operating autonomously presumably all the driver had to do was put his foot on the brake. Clearly, whether or not there was an issue wit
Re: (Score:2)
Makes one wonder whether the driver was paid to cause that accident.
Re: IT WAS MANUALLY OPERATED! (Score:3)
Autonomous vehicles are not a race
Re: (Score:1)
Like it or not, the term "racism" includes discrimination against things other than race.
But it was indeed used stupidly above.
Re: (Score:3)
the term "racism" includes discrimination against things other than race.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Re: IT WAS MANUALLY OPERATED! (Score:1)
Like it or not, the term "racism" includes discrimination against things other than race.
In much the same way that other words "include" things they aren't meant to when used incorrectly.
Re: IT WAS MANUALLY OPERATED! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet. There are some rivers that are people though, so it's only a matter of time.
False flag (Score:5, Informative)
Yup, I decided to read the article for once .. and wow .. it is a total fabrication. They never mention even once the truth that the car was not in autonomous mode. That negates all the anti-autonomous BS .. that's not going to stop the anti-autonomous luddites from propagating this story .. a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.
Reference: https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com]
Re:False flag (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even worse than that: it was actually in self-driving mode, during which it noticed the athlete and stopped for him. The human operators on the vehicle knew he was there but pressed the override button anyway because they assumed he'd notice and avoid crossing.
https://www.france24.com/en/li... [france24.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I really wonder what was in the mind of that driver. "I'll just drive into this person."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: False flag (Score:3)
Amateur hour (Score:2)
From the article:
Tokyo police said that vehicle operators had told them they “were aware that a person was there but thought [the person] would [realize that a bus was coming] and stop crossing the [street]”, according to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.
What a shitshow.
But it really depends on the car. Teslas make laughable mistakes but are about on par with humans (who also make laughable mistakes, just google stupid drivers [google.com]). Waymos are already safer [youtube.com]. This Toyota stunt is amateur-hour material.
Re: Amateur hour (Score:3)
It wouldn't have mattered if it was a Toyota or Tesla or 1984 Datsun. It wasn't autonomous. Someone was driving it manually and screwed up. I love how Toyota's president threw autonomous driving under the *ahem* bus anyway.
The real question is what would it have done if it was actually in autonomous mode? Would it have avoided the accident?
Re: Amateur hour (Score:1)
It wouldn't have mattered if it was a...1984 Datsun.
No Datsuns in Japan. ;)
Re: Amateur hour (Score:2)
Ha! Very good point, bad example.
Re: (Score:2)
The vehicle was under MANUAL control. The story clearly says so.
Re:Needs a little more work then (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What would autonomous mode have done? (Score:3)
I bet even Toyota's autonomous mode doesn't assume someone in a crosswalk will get out of the way before the car hits them.
Looks like it would have avoided the accident if it were in autonomous mode...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What would autonomous mode have done? (Score:2)
He clearly isn't actually interested in testing the anti-collision mode; he's more interested in testing the anti-collision override. Neighborhood kid is just smarter than he thinks. :D
sue for millions! (Score:2)
sue for millions!
Not really rocket science (Score:4, Interesting)
> the vehicle "was barely moving, but it still managed to collide with a visually-impaired athlete at the Paralympic Games, raising potential concerns about the limitations of autonomous driving technology."
Look. There is no universe in which a person *cannot* be hit by a self-driving car. There will always be ways someone can jump in front of it, confuse it, be in the wrong place/wrong time. If you want a self-driving car on "normal roads" you will hit people, whether it's a robot or a person driving the thing. The fact that it was under manual control is proof enough.
We have been building safety systems for machines for decades. Not a single one is foolproof. In any industry, in any application.
There is literally only a single situation in which an autonomous vehicle cannot impact a pedestrian: when there is a *physical barrier between them*. That's it. There needs to literally be a physical separation between person and machine or they will eventually collide.
So if you want your autonomous car, please: stop dicking around. Build a transit corridor that is completely isolated from both people and other vehicles, put it on a "rail", and let it safely navigate its own course. This is easier to program, easier to control, has less variables, and is more reliable, than trying to build a robot replacement for a human driver.
Re: (Score:1)
You are right. But if Tesla FSD (which is currently, according to NHTSA 9x safer than human drivers, on average) isn't safe enough for you, then human drivers should be banned TODAY. And I live in a rural area where it's hard enough to find *paved* roads; the idea of the level of infrastructure required for your separate cars from pedestrians is laughable.
When Teslas get to be 20x or 50x or 100x safer than human drivers and insurance companies begin changing their rates based on that, you will see human f
Re: (Score:2)
The vehicle was under manual control....
Sponsor apostrophe s. FFS. (Score:1)
Editors, LEARN ENGLISH.
Re: (Score:2)
Editors, LEARN ENGLISH.
There was never a golden age in which the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe in English were clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most educated people.
-- The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language.
Now please stop SCREAMING!!!
Re: (Score:1)
The correct placement of apostrophe's is clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most educated people.
MAYBE YOU'RE NOT ONE.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct placement of apostrophe's is clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most educated people.
Firstly, no it isn't, and the Oxford Companion to the English Language, is the most compact, authoritative, and up-to-date source of information about the English language anywhere.
MAYBE YOU'RE NOT ONE.
Secondly, screaming like a deranged & angry chimp adds nothing to your argument.
Re: Sponsor apostrophe s. FFS. (Score:1)
Firstly
And... that's not even a fucking word.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly
And... that's not even a fucking word.
Yes it is: https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
But don't feel bad, here, have a consolation trophy: https://f89fcpi4xh3b0mbj2e2nhq... [netdna-ssl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There was, however, a golden age when most editors were aware of the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe, as well as the other kinds, and generally followed them.
Re: (Score:2)
There was never a golden age in which the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe in English were clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most educated people.
-- The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language.
There was, however, a golden age when most editors were aware of the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe, as well as the other kinds, and generally followed them.
Hmmmm ... who should I trust, the most respected guide to the English language??? ... or ... you??? ... Dum, di, dum, dum, dum -> https://www.oxfordreference.co... [oxfordreference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to put boldface around "editors" but I decided it wasn't necessary.
Guess I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to put boldface around "editors" but I decided it wasn't necessary.
Guess I was wrong.
I wasn't going to boldface anything but now that you mention it: I'm still going to go with 'The Oxford Guide' and not you. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to accomplish here, maybe you didn't read the thread, maybe you don't know what the 'The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language' is or maybe you fancy yourself as a hilarious joke cracking, super sarcastic, comedy genius, either way you are serially face planting and failing miserably as a comedian. ... Dum, di, dum, dum, dum.
Re: Sponsor apostrophe s. FFS. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what you "go with;" you're still an ignorant dipshit.
I know it is fashionable among the ignorant to think their opinion trump scholarship but you are arguing in favour of your 'opinion' which directly contradicts an internationally accepted authority on the English language and the only thing you can come up with to make your case is calling me a ' ignorant dipshit'?? Is that really the best you can do?
No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (Score:2)
Self-dricing bus hits paralympic athlete!
"Blah blah blah
Blabbidy blah blah
Burpity book bah
Boo Boo Bear Buh Bye
[20 more lines deleted]
Humans were in control when the incident happened.
Exactly what I fear when I go for runs. (Score:2)
I'm deaf and in a suburban area lacking sidewalks. It's always in the back of my head that some idiot will do the same to me.
It just takes one moron to not slow down and honk expecting me to get out of their way.
Oh and Shimbun means newspaper in Japanese so saying "Asahi Shimbun newspaper" sounds kinda funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm deaf and in a suburban area lacking sidewalks. It's always in the back of my head that some idiot will do the same to me.
It just takes one moron to not slow down and honk expecting me to get out of their way.
Oh and Shimbun means newspaper in Japanese so saying "Asahi Shimbun newspaper" sounds kinda funny.
Linguistic tautologies are nothing new, 'Mekong River' for example basically means 'river river river'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm deaf and in a suburban area lacking sidewalks. ...if you're walking, you should be walking against traffic and able to see oncoming vehicles. If you're on a bicycle, you are supposed to be going with traffic rather than against, but for an almost negligible amount of extra mass, you can add LED flashers.
When crossing the street, you really ought to be looking in any and all direction that could be a source of vehicular traffic intersecting your route, often enough to update your awareness of any ve
Manual Control? (Score:2)
So what does any of this have to do with autonomous vehicle safety? How does this "raise potential concerns about the limitations of autonomous driving technology"?
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is directly lying and even giving the facts why they are lying. It seems to still work. Even here, some people seem to have missed that little detail.
Autonomy is hard (Score:1)
Humans are arguably more advanced than the tech in self-driving vehicles. About the only thing you can say for sure is that computers are going to have far better reaction time to "stimulus" than a human would. Pretty much everything else biology is far superior to technology. Until the sensors are on par with biological ones, there are going to be problems. Even so, humans don't always get it right.
Re: (Score:1)
the vehicle was under manual control
Re: Autonomy is hard (Score:1)
Until the sensors are on par with biological ones, there are going to be problems.
All other things being equal, an analog system will always be faster than digital.
the vehicle was under manual control (Score:1)
nothing to add.
pedestrian crossing ... (Score:2)
I don't know what the law is in Japan, but in the UK when a person is on any part of a pedestrian crossing vehicles must stop.
Nope: Toyota-specific problem. (Score:2)
CNN cites reports that the vehicle was under manual control at the time of the accident, adding that the vehicle "was barely moving, but it still managed to collide with a visually-impaired athlete
See..
Toyota's president saying the event "shows that autonomous vehicles are not yet realistic for normal roads."
Lol Toyota are not at the forefront of self-driving. At most this shows failures of Toyota's people and systems, and a Total and utter failure of their operators - nothing else.
vehicle operators h
Re: (Score:1)
Seems that the autonomous mode was detected and stopped. The idiot driver overrode it and hit him.
Thanks for all the clarifications (Score:2)
Looks like human operator error, for sure, and a totally bogus article.
I'm still waiting for someone to blame the blind guy though.
Or his dog.
What is this stupidity? (Score:2)
"Was under manual control" and "raising potential concerns about the limitations of autonomous driving technology" do not go together even one bit. This was a driver fucking up, not a machine. Hence this has zero impact on autonomous driving.
I do not know who wrote it, but the lying in the press seems to now have moved into plain sight and even giving you the facts why it is a lie. Apparently it still works or it would not be done this way. Makes one really wonder how utterly dumb the average reader must be
Self-Contradict Much? (Score:1)