-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
The bush isn't blocking the view of the crosswalk. I was just commenting on the intersection design where a pedestrian crossing at the crosswalk could be behind the giant box. It would be a good test for FSD because it would be able to see the pedestrian approaching the intersection but then the view of the pedestrian would be blocked by the box. I was wondering if the path prediction would still assume the pedestrian was going to cross the crosswalk even when they were out of view.
Actually Chuck hit the brakes and disengaged FSD. When he said "it's stopping" think he was referring to the bus. He said he would try again with the sign all the way out and see if it will stop. Maybe in a later video.
Sigh. Really, that's what you saw?
Here's what I saw:
a) tries to pass a school bus with stop sign extending and starting to flash red. Draws a path around the bus
b) approaches within a dozen feet of the stopped bus, limiting its vision for any oncoming cars
c) tries to cross double yellow lines as a blind pass, directly between school crossing signs
d) pulls out, but does hesitate and turns wheel back
e) driver stops the pass, not the Tesla. It's unclear what would have happened if he'd let it continue
f) driver recognizes the Tesla is in a poor position and reverses to a safe distance
Please defend anything about c) here.
ps: to Chuck. at 1:03 he says "I'll see if I can get a better clip that perhaps shows the sign completely out, and test it again"
Please do not do this. Rather than play with children's lives, just set up a challenge on a closed street with some friends helping, homemade signs and lights. Thank you.
You are both absolutely correct...mea culpa...
I wish I could edit the original post, but it's too late.
Last edited:
mikes_fsd
Banned
Please grow up.
He is not unleashing some rabid dog on the kids.
He is testing features of FSD and has shown himself to be very capable of supervising his car in action.
Sorry I sounded exasperated earlier, we all make mistakes.
To answer a previous point. I admire the tech of Tesla and what they are trying to achieve. So long as it has appropriate safety oversight. I see those as occasionally opposing. I can admire one and fault the other.
If Elon only had a clear second-in-command that said 'Hey wait a minute here, let's reconsider this...". Or perhaps he does and this is what they agreed upon?
Rabid dog =/= Heavy vehicle crossing safety lines & ignoring crossing signs?
As long as he doesn't complete the pass...
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This seems like a stretch. The pedestrian was stepping off the curb, and his first two steps would have been outside the crosswalk, but also likely out of the path of collision (at least on the first step). On his third step he would have likely been in the crosswalk. He was crossing at a marked crosswalk, and cutting the corner. The technicality of him being "outside" the crosswalk briefly being called "jaywalking", when he is crossing on a walk signal and his intent is clearly to use the marked crosswalk (he's just cutting the corner), is very much a stretch. And it likely wouldn't hold up in court as jaywalking either.
The car should have seen him, and yielded. There's no excuse for this failure. To the point: There's no reason to think the car would have done much better if the view had been obscured for some other reason but the pedestrian had entered the crosswalk "legally" three feet to the left.
We can argue about the technicalities of jaywalking and give out disagrees all day, but we can all agree that the car should have stopped.
The picture is very clear. The car should have recognized this pedestrian, recognized that the pedestrian had right-of-way, and slammed on the brakes. Just like a human would, who identified the pedestrian in time. Except faster. Easy problem; the car was traveling 14mph and can stop in about 7-8 feet.
Last edited:
Aren't you assuming a lot there? Like you know where his next steps are going to be? He could have continued straight across or even gone to the right and never entered the cross-walk. (I see people do it all the time.)
And it seems like you agree:
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, not really assuming much. There's a cross walk. He'll likely enter it. You don't get off if you hit someone who is 6 inches outside the marked crosswalk line, anyway.
And it seems like you agree:
Sorry, Added the missing comma, though I think the meaning of the sentence was clear enough even with it missing.
Seems like a lot of black-and-white thinking here.
The general rule is you don't hit pedestrians or other objects that are on a trajectory to collide with your vehicle. Could be an animal, a child, a ball, a runaway shopping cart, etc.
Anyway, I think we can all agree there was a perception problem here. Even if you made the argument that the car recognized that the pedestrian had halted, which is why the car continued, the orientation and direction of travel of the pedestrian definitely required the car to yield. What if the pedestrian's gait had been such that his foot had landed on the curb edge rather than the gutter? That results in a firm requirement to yield, per the law, at least as I understand it. It's a difference of 6-12 inches. You must yield to pedestrians who intend to enter the crosswalk on a walk signal, right? EDIT: (It's actually not clear, but there is clearly some path prediction requirement for a driver.) EDIT: (Removed info about pedestrians/yielding in Oregon since it doesn't appear to be true even though that's what my dad always told me...he's very much a defensive driver
...the exact parameters where stopping is required are quite informative and now I'll be able to correct him)
Last edited:
Doesn't mater if he was in the crosswalk, 3' away (as he was) or crossing the street 100' down the road. Running over a pedestrian is unacceptable for the car to do unless it can be proven to be unavoidable. Self driving cars are under a microscope.
The person that was killed by the Uber autonomous car was J-walking but it still knocked Uber out of the self driving race and the driver was arrested and charged with negligent homicide.
Last edited:
There very clearly is a sidewalk straight across...
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is even worse than I thought originally, because the car actually knew about this pedestrian FAR in advance and simply conjured him out of existence! This is a trivial perception problem - once you have identified the pedestrian and what they look like, it's trivial to pick him out of any picture and plot his path. Since he was in the parking lot (identified) and visible between the posts of the sign, as @scottf200 pointed out (not identified - conjured out of existence - where on earth did the car think he had gone??? - it HAS to know the pedestrian still exists and make guesses about where he is, based on trajectory, just like a human would!).
An alert good human driver, who would have definitely seen this pedestrian about 5 seconds before making the turn, and made predictive inferences about them being on a collision course at the intersection (guy was in a strip mall parking lot, apparently carrying a drink, and based on his attire and his trajectory in the parking lot, was probably not going to be getting into a car in the parking lot), would have taken appropriate action and would have already slowed down and been looking to ascertain intent before beginning to turn! This is all easy stuff to do.
I don't see why the Tesla is not doing exactly the same thing here. The Tesla did not need to see the pedestrian at every point in time to continue to place him on the screen and make reasonable path predictions. Just plot out that pedestrian's path and know that he's in the vicinity of the crosswalk. That should be plenty of info for the car to proceed with caution until it ascertains the new actual position, intent, and trajectory of the predicted object. This is the theoretical value of FSD - it can do this for every object it sees (and it can, in theory, see and track more than a human)! But if it's not doing it as well as a human does, even for the objects that are clearly on a collision course, the ones that really matter, there is a lot of work still to be done.
As already pointed out, this is an easy identification to make, since the car already knows what to look for and already knows there is a pedestrian there - and will detect the movement! For some reason it fails, and I have no idea why:
An alert good human driver, who would have definitely seen this pedestrian about 5 seconds before making the turn, and made predictive inferences about them being on a collision course at the intersection (guy was in a strip mall parking lot, apparently carrying a drink, and based on his attire and his trajectory in the parking lot, was probably not going to be getting into a car in the parking lot), would have taken appropriate action and would have already slowed down and been looking to ascertain intent before beginning to turn! This is all easy stuff to do.
I don't see why the Tesla is not doing exactly the same thing here. The Tesla did not need to see the pedestrian at every point in time to continue to place him on the screen and make reasonable path predictions. Just plot out that pedestrian's path and know that he's in the vicinity of the crosswalk. That should be plenty of info for the car to proceed with caution until it ascertains the new actual position, intent, and trajectory of the predicted object. This is the theoretical value of FSD - it can do this for every object it sees (and it can, in theory, see and track more than a human)! But if it's not doing it as well as a human does, even for the objects that are clearly on a collision course, the ones that really matter, there is a lot of work still to be done.
As already pointed out, this is an easy identification to make, since the car already knows what to look for and already knows there is a pedestrian there - and will detect the movement! For some reason it fails, and I have no idea why:
Last edited:
Man... we need a release of FSD to the public soon. If for no reason other than to give us something more substantive to debate than the legalities and responsibilities of jay walking.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Correct, the driver intervened. Unfortunately it's too late for me to correct the text.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This particular issue actually has nothing to do with jaywalking. It's a perception, memory, and path prediction issue, as you can see. And likely a driving policy issue too. It doesn't matter if the pedestrian is (technically) jaywalking or not.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Its not a jay walking issue per se - but if someone is "standing" away from the crosswalk - the guess would be that he doesn't want to cross. He is just going to stand there (waiting for something).
Anyway, to me the biggest issue is the pedestrian crossing "go" light was on. In those situations, the car should go to the junction and stop - and then proceed if nobody is at the crossing. That is the correct "defence driving" thing to do - esp. in that junction with so many obstructions. Infact, I'd say that should be the driving policy.
Similar threads
