An update on the autonomous self driving Uber Volvo XC-90 involved in the pedestrian fatality.
It is being reported that Uber disabled the Intel Mobileye collision avoidance sensor that is factory fitted in Volvo XC90.
Intel have ran the dashcam footage of the accident through the Mobileye system and said that even with the dark footage it would have detected the pedestrian a second before the incident.
Previous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjeR13u74Mg
Forum: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1068-autonomous-uber-incident-update/'>http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1068-autonomous-uber-incident-update/
EEVblog Main Web Site: http://www.eevblog.com
The 2nd EEVblog Channel: http://www.youtube.com/EEVblog2
Support the EEVblog through Patreon!
http://www.patreon.com/eevblog
Stuff I recommend:
https://kit.com/EEVblog/
Donate With Bitcoin & Other Crypto Currencies!
https://www.eevblog.com/crypto-currency/
T-Shirts: http://teespring.com/stores/eevblog
๐Ÿ’— Likecoin โ€“ Coins for Likes: https://likecoin.pro/ @eevblog/dil9/hcq3

Hi Just an update on the Uber self-driving autonomous car fatality that I did in a previous video. It's not looking good for Uber as you could have guessed that. all the stories coming out at the moment are that Uber disabled Volvo's SUV safety system before the fatality and well, this is actually not surprising because they have to install their own autonomous system. That's what They're testing their own one with their own what is it? seven cameras, the scanning laser lidar on top, the radar, and you know their own sensor suite of packages that they have to do this so they probably didn't want the cars exist in collision avoidance systems actually interfering with that.

So yeah, it's not surprising that they did that, but or what it sounds like deliberately didn't defeated the collision avoidance system which as we'll see probably could have detected this incident and automatically brake the car if it was a factory Volvo Xc90 that we're looking at here. and the reason that these stories are coming out is because the supplier active of these systems which uses the Intel mobile chipset which we'll take a look at has come out and they want to distance themselves from this saying that hey our system could have detected this and it wasn't used. They actually they must have disabled this and actually Intel themselves which manufacture the chipset here it is. They actually took the very poor quality dark dashcam footage so they took the second-hand s cam footage, fed it through their mobile eye chipset that's used in the factory xc90 which Uber is the car to be used for their autonomous driving cars and also the car used in this incident, and it was able to detect the pedestrian coming across with their walking their bicycle across a second before it happened.

So of course it would have processed that maybe in a like a tenth of a second, say 0.1 seconds. That probably would have had almost a second to decelerate. And of course, if that was the case, they they couldn't have probably prevented the accident. the car couldn't have stopped in time, it wouldn't have had the distance to do that from what is it, 43 miles an hour or something that the car was actually traveling at, But hey, it would have lessened the impact.

And and that's from just the second-hand really dark dashcam footage. as we'll see later on in this video. so they're saying look, our system would have performed much better if it was a factory. Volvo And it sounds like Uber have deliberately disabled that so that could get them into a lot of trouble.

Anyway, let's have a look at the Volvo Xc90, which is this is the 2017 brochure, but as we'll see, the technology's been around since like 2013 I Think and it's used in lots of cars. Volvo Aren't the only one that have at the Xc90. Lots of cars on the market, even your cheaper ones now have these collision avoidance detection systems not only Lane Guidance but detection avoidance as well. Here it is, it's looking out for you.
City Safety blah blah blah blah blah. City safety can identify other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and large animals in your path. it won't. It warns you of any hazards and if necessary, will brake automatically to help avoid and mitigate collision.

So there you go. It's built in to the car and even like older model cars, it's got exactly the same you know 2016 brochure and going back. and if we have a look at mobile I hear it's now an Intel company and I've actually done a teardown video of one that was used in a high owned I I'm not sure which Hyundai it is, but it uses the the older technology are the Q2 chipset and you can see the camera Here it's got is just a building camera with a very high data rate through to the chipset because this thing does like I think the new chipset. the Q3 does 0.25 trillion operations per second so it's really amazing.

I'll show you in a second what it can do so this has generally mounted up in the front of the car. I'm not sure of the exact details of the Xc90 used in the Uber here used by Uber here, but it would have had a similar camera and they must have disabled this module which could have detected and automatically braked for pedestrians and things like that. So anyway, it's very impressive what this technology can do, So we'll just roll some footage here and of Coretech Ssin tracking of all the pedestrians, cyclists, people walking across cars in front and it can do lanes. Of course this is daytime so obviously it's going to perform really well.

but you can see how advanced this is and this is not new and if we have a look here you can see that. the one that I tore down the Iq2 chipset that's actually from 2010 but the Q3 chipset dating from 2014 that's used in lots of cars on the market. Not only the Volvo it's got autonomous braking system for our pedestrian, even does animal detection and things like that holistic path planning Road Lane reconstruction and all sorts of collision avoidance. so it's not.

and if you actually go and look at, some of the videos are actually quite old here look four years ago. Volvo Collision avoidance systems demonstrating. here you go, there's mobile ice tough dating pedestrian collision warning systems dating back to 2012. This is not new technology and at night time as well you might think it's just daytime, but here is the mobile Eye chipset.

At night it can detect all these cars and can detect the lanes and everything else and this is really quite low light footage. I'm not sure what you know camera is if that's the actual camera used in the car or the weather not that's a secondary and they're just processing a bit. you know even at nighttime it's still very impressive and it's amazing what it can do in crowds here. Just check it out.

It's detecting all these people and crossings and all sorts it like it's Fanta It detects arrows on the road. It's like practically just built into this mobile eye chipset which are started out as just a Lane Guidance type warning thing. He's incredibly advanced now with its point 2 5 trillion operations per second and it cannot look and there's a zebra cross in and there's people and it can do. It can do most things that an autonomous car can do with just the camera.
It's really amazing and Volvo made the news back in 2015 in that their system couldn't actually detect kangaroos here in Australia hopping across the road and it's a huge problem here in Australia Seriously like especially at dawn or dusk when because kangaroos are typically nocturnal animals. they come out in the Twilight and it's a night and they hop across the road and you can't see them Anyway, their software wasn't designed to detect the hopping of the kangaroo. it actually confused them. So they actually came to Australia in their Xc90 and they actually look updated their software.

You can see it actually detects the kangaroos hopping across the road and they updated their software to actually you know and to get this anomaly just here for Australian condition. So there they're really on top of this stuff And that was back in 2015. So yeah. anyway Volvo haven't commented on this yet and probably for you know, sensitive legal reasons I guess.

But yeah Mobile I, Intel, Mobile Eye and active who supply the sensors have come out and said if you using the crap dash cam footage we could have detected that Now of course you saw the footage in the previous our video and warning I will actually show it again here. So it does show someone getting hit by this autonomous uber and but you saw that footage was really dark and it was almost. It appeared as though they come out of the shadows. but of course that has to do with the type of sensor used, its exposure conditions and and contrast and all sorts of you know other things.

So there are quite a few people who actually went out and went to the same location where this accident happened at night and actually shot footage of what it's actually like. but this youtuber here actually I shot this footage in 2015. It just happened to be the exact same location where it happened and this was shot with a stereoscopic camera at the top of the Sun roof of the car. So let's actually roll that you can see the bridge here.

this is the bridge that it's just past this bridge where it happened and you know see my video a previous video for look but you like can see here's the dark shadow that the pedestrian happened right about here. but you can see that there was still plenty of light there to actually see this so it shouldn't have been a big problem. And here's somebody who strike engine car TV actually went and shot footage what looks like on a mobile phone and with the actual footage and have warned in here it is and the cyclist will come out any second here and they sync that up and you can see that even with the crap sensor in what looks like presumably are like a mobile phone, it's really easily able to see that. So yeah, the footage provided by that dashcam from Uber is I don't know, isn't like it's some old technology I Don't know what's going on there but that is really very dark.
that footage. it really is quite remarkable. When you saw it it's like wow look look how dark that is. It's amazing.

whereas the actual visibility and these are time synced apparently huge difference. So yeah, not sure what's going on there and here's another one coming up to the bridge it looks like this is shot with a mobile phone as well, just hand held by the looks of it. let's have a look and you can see look in Ian's pedestrian so that here's the shadow happened right here. so like there seems to be no shortage of light there.

Yes there is a dark shadow that just happen to be in that spot, but geez, if a tiny sensor in a phone can detect that, Yeah, it's not looking great for Uber, is it? So there you have it. Just want to share the update on that and how lots of cars on the market have this system that probably could have detected this just with visual cameras, but the Uber has the scanning laser lidar on the top just spinning around. Update Rates: We've had comments on the previous V from people who've worked on those systems and they actually give the resolution of that lidar. And from memory I Think they said like three, two or three centimeters resolution or something like that.

Updating at least ten times the second. Don't quote me on that, but yeah, it should have been able to detect it. just the lidar alone, let alone the radar and let alone the seven cameras that they got on there don't know how many are pointed forward. probably at least a couple could have detected it as well or should have.

So yeah, it ain't looking good for Uber Anyway, leave your comments and thoughts down below and I'll link in my the tear down video of that type mobile eye sensor the older technology one at the end. Check it out. Okay, see you next time.

Avatar photo

By YTB

17 thoughts on “Eevblog #1068 – autonomous uber incident update”
  1. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Marty Ellis says:

    But Dave, they aren't going to post video of the MobileEye when it screws up. Just like most Youtubers edit their video – you aren't going to show where it screws up.

  2. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Andrew Burch says:

    Iโ€™m hoping this tragedy will be the end of driverless vehicles, I find the obsession in making everything autonomous disturbing and which will ultimately take away peopleโ€™s jobs. Technology could be put to better use such as medical science which would actually benefit people.

  3. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Andreas Nyman says:

    My older car, a Volvo V40 2013, which it's basically the same as the "new" V40 from 2012 had City Safety, it was supposed to bake for pedestrians if necessary, never had to try it out though. So it's really old technology!

  4. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars lnpilot says:

    Why the hell would Uber disable the built-in tech? I would have kept it as a safety back-up.

  5. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars azhash says:

    there is quite powerfull streetlight right up the shadow zone in the "original", this video has been fiddled with or what?

  6. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars aqibi2000 says:

    Your content is SSSHHHIIITT

  7. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Mohammed Al-Alaw says:

    With this argument you presented in the business you had me puzzled also; since I am a developer of these system also the RADAR should have detected; plus many THX to you; you restorred my confidence back!

  8. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars DeadMarine1980 says:

    When it comes to Uber and Driverless cars it perplexes me. They have been saying out loud for years that they want to replace the drivers with "automated cars". I myself was an Uber Driver once, but lucky for me I found a "real job", and I couldn't be happier. But for the poor souls who are replaced by driverless cars, they'll actually get the last laugh.
    Because drivers actually make Uber Cheep. All the cost of the car; gas (petroleum for you people with funny accents) wear and tear, oil, maintenance all that cost is put on the driver. If they removed the driver they would have to pick up on those costs and in turn they would have to raise the rates, in turn making Uber not cheep. It would violate their whole model. They would have to turn to marketing and try to sell the idea that driverless cars are "safer" to justify the price hike. And in turn their customers will just go to Lyft to be driven by their human slaves.

  9. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Beren Scott says:

    This is exactly how you don't use technology. I am all for a car that drives itself, but for fuck sake, the driver stills needs to be present and ready to take over in case of an emergency. That's the problem here. A human could have seen that person crossing and slammed on the brakes. So, regardless of the technology, the driver still needs to drive the vehicle, and this is a legal problem for the driver as well. I mean, legally are they in the clear for essentially being asleep at the wheel? The technology needs to keep the driver, at least until there has been a decade or more of evidence proving the technology is flawless. They need to statistically measure the driving performance of this technology. In my opinion, and from what I have seen, this technology is going to cause more traffic issues, just because it simply can't make the same decisions a human can. For example, I can't change lanes until the lane next to me is clear, but in reality, I can force the driver next to me to let me in. So, self driving car, will simply just sit still in traffic waiting for someone to let them in, and won't have any balls for risk. Then we have other examples, an accident has occurred and the road is closed, or the lights are switched off and a police officer is directing traffic or something, the unknown is where these cars will fail on their ass. Rather then using this technology to make the driver a lazy sack of shit, why not use the technology to improve the driving experience? Like, plotting a series of lane changes so that you don't end up stuck behind a slow driver? Or, the car drives automatically, but you tell it which lane to be in, and where to make it's turns? The worst footage, was the self driving car giving the car in front an almost stupid level of distance. I mean, it's on a freeway, yes, you should give a lot of distance for those random times when cars on the freeway might slam on the brakes, which they literally never do. So, on a freeway you don't actually give the car in front a lot of distance, you tend to be closer then you should, so this car is literally going to end up with a tonne of people cutting it off, and then it will be constantly slowing down every time they do. Hell, if there were drvierless cars, I'd be that one prick on the road that deliberately cuts off the driverless car, just to fuck with it.

  10. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Aaron Niehaus says:

    Little known fact, there's actually an x on the tabs you can use to close them.

    I joke, love your content.

  11. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Derek Gray says:

    Does anyone know how self driving cars find out where to go. I don't mean in cities but in more rural areas. Satnav is hopeless out of town, mine shows my house at least 250 yards away where it is. I have a neighbour whose house is that far off the road, so if I want to go somewhere in the country how would this work.

  12. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Tony Smith says:

    Radar and LIDAR and the camera should have used infra red at night so all 3 should have seen the person. Also, I would think they would use FLIR thermal camera like most self driving competitions use too. So why are we shown COLOR video when it should be IR night vision or FLIR camera at night ? Why can't we see the street lights on the road when the road is well lit by the street lights ?
    None of this adds up unless the system failed or someone made it fail. Over 32 engineers left, so I can't see anyone being happy with the company. Maybe they left due to safety concerns !
    This doesn't add up !

  13. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars TheDuckofDoom! says:

    The honest question is "How many pedestrians killed per million passenger miles?", people jump out in front of vacuous human drivers too. But…
    I'm not a fan of self driving vehicles, simply because it surrenders far too much power to a set of governments that have a well proven disdain for the "commoners" and a record of wanton abuse of their technological tools. The ability to control or limit travel is a huge deal, with far more potential for negative impact on liberty and human rights than even mass surveillance or secret "courts". This kind of power is basically just handing the next would be Stalin the keys to a few hundred million ready made slaves.

  14. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Andy Palm says:

    interesting. a point is made. Sad

  15. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Cyrus Takem says:

    43 mph is ~69 km/h which is way too fast to go in a zone where there can be pedestrians

  16. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars The Firehawk says:

    the headlights seem pointed down a lot for normal driving conditions, that could explain at least in part why the pedestrian wasnt picked up

  17. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars WreckDiver99 says:

    From first hand experience with several of these collision avoidance systems…THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK. They are NOT 100%. We've test BMW, Volvo, Jaguar, Ford, GM, FCA, Cherry, and more…They DON'T always work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *