[StrictDabbler]

This is a technical use of the word "collides".

The Cruise car failed to yield, continued at a green light, and was struck by the fire truck. So presumably it did not detect the truck.

It is sad that automated cars are being asked to detect emergency vehicles at all.

A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable. It should have been one of the first steps in the development of any of this technology.

Unfortunately it requires careful coordination between many different entities so it hasn't happened.

Edit: Rarely have I had a comment so misinterpreted. I am not excusing Cruise in any way. This is a major design failure for the entire industry.

For clarity, automated cars should be required to have a rock-solid radio-based system that is aware of the position of any nearby emergency vehicle.

All emergency vehicles should have a transponder to signal their location to automated cars.

There's no reason to be relying on visual detection of flashing lights for a fire truck. A fire truck costs most of a million dollars and a transponder is not an expensive requirement.

There should be a standard for radio frequency announcement before automated cars are rolled out and there is not.

[jjulius]

>This is a technical use of the word "collides".

>... and was struck by the fire truck.

That's literally two things colliding, this isn't a "Well, OK, 'teeeeechnically', sure," situation at all.

>It is sad that automated cars are being asked to detect emergency vehicles at all.

>A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable.

Flashing lights mean different things depending on the light, the vehicle, and the situation - a construction vehicle with orange flashing lights is different from a police cruiser hauling ass up behind you, for instance. Drivers are responsible for discerning these differences, what makes automated cars different?

[jncfhnb]

Idk. If you say “two objects collided” that to me implies a mutual head on collision.

You wouldn’t say an object at rest collided with something else.

[jjulius]

>Idk. If you say "two objects collided" that to me implies a mutual head on collision.

The commonly used phrase for such a scenario is "head-on collision", while "collision" just means objects coming together with a solid impact - could be one object moving, could be both.

>You wouldn't say anything object at rest collided with something else.

No, but you'd say that the car collided with the tree rather than the tree and the car collided. In this specific instance, both cars were moving, and they collided with each other.

[jncfhnb]

I still disagree. Moving is not sufficient. If both are moving in the same direction and one hits you in the back, you would not say they collided with each other.

we define collisions by whether the velocity facing side of the object hits the object.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> If both are moving in the same direction and one hits you in the back, you would not say they collided with each other

you are talking about a "Rear-end collision", correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-end_collision

[jncfhnb]

Yes. You would not say the lead car collided with the other in a rear end collision unless it was reversing.

> Typical scenarios for rear-ends are a sudden deceleration by the first car (for example, to avoid someone crossing the street) so that the driver behind it does not have time to brake and collides with it.

[prmoustache]

> . So presumably it did not detect the truck.

Additionnally, the truck driver did not detect that the cruise car was failing to yeld.

Having the lights on and priority over traffic light doesn't mean emergency drivers have and can run the traffic lights without due care.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Additionnally, the truck driver did not detect that the cruise car was failing to yeld.

It is amazing how much of driving involves understanding how other drivers will move. Which means, to an extent, predicting their state of mind and assuming that it is rational.

When a driver does not follow these assumptions (e.g. a drunk driver swerving. e.g. an vehicle failing to yield to a blatantly obvious fire truck), bad things will happen. And it is typically the fault of that unpredictable driver.

This is not the system that one would design from the ground up for automated vehicles to use. But if such vehicle are on the existing roads, it is the system that they must use.

[echelon]

> It is sad that automated cars are being asked to detect emergency vehicles at all.

No it's not. Emergency vehicles have priority. Every other driver is licensed to use the road system if they defer to the right of way of emergency vehicles. That is a privilege that can be revoked.

> A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable.

And costly. Instead of putting the cost burden on public institutions and emergency services, perhaps this should be incumbent upon the driverless car corporations. Additionally, these systems will fail and the driverless cars will need to detect these vehicles though additional means.

> It should have been one of the first steps in the development of any of this technology.

This is a hard problem. There are so many things that require solving.

> Unfortunately it requires careful coordination between many different entities so it hasn't happened.

And money. Lots of money.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> It is sad that automated cars are being asked to detect emergency vehicles at all.

I hope that this is a joke. "must detect and yield to emergency vehicles the way to an emergency scene" is a known, basic driving task that human drivers do. These vehicles are intentionally loud, bright and easy to detect. Are you saying that automated vehicles cannot be expected to do known, basic driving tasks on easy-to-detect obstacles?

[Mordisquitos]

> A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable.

That may be technically achievable, but the very nature of emergency vehicle responses makes relying on such a system impractical and even undesirable.

First responder vehicles already have an audible and visible signal for other road users to be aware that something is on the road which must have absolute priority, may break some or all of the rules, may move in unexpected ways, and may need to actively negotiate with other road users to ensure it can get past. Emergency responders should not need to rely on technologically fallible automated positioning systems just to ensure others don't get in their way.

It is self-driving cars who must adapt to the unpredictability of emergencies and unforseen events that may happen on the road, and not emergency vehicles who must become predictable and consistent in their responses to adapt to the limitations of self-driving cars.

[delfinom]

>A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable. It should have been one of the first steps in the development of any of this technology.

Doesn't take much audio processing to detect blaring sirens.

[prmoustache]

If the sirens are at your back, you don't want that robocar to stop and hamper the traffic but to choose a side on the road/street to either park or continue its course until there is room to be passed by the emergency vehicule.

Blaring sirens can be easy to detect, doesn't mean the reaction should always be the same.

[1] preferably same as other vehicules which are possibly blocking traffic for emergency vehicles.

[mcpackieh]

Sirens are designed to have an easily discernible doppler effect; a siren coming at you sounds different from a siren going away, which sounds different than a siren keeping pace with you. And furthermore, a siren behind you sounds different from a siren in front of you.

Human drivers generally manage all of this fine. If computers can't, then they aren't ready to drive.

[hot_gril]

> Blaring sirens can be easy to detect, doesn't mean the reaction should always be the same.

It's ML, so I imagine a decision like this isn't hardcoded to begin with.

[TulliusCicero]

Directionality should also be easy to detect. Should just need a handful of mics around the car and some basic audio processing.

[prmoustache]

What I meant is that detection is one thing, taking good decisions is another.

[skullone]

May not cover this scenario, but lots of emergency vehicles don't use sirens at night. The thought is, the bright flashing lights is plenty - and if the road isn't busy, why wake all the neighborhoods up on a routine service call.

[gzer0]

Curious, your thoughts on those that are deaf and driving?

[loeg]

The deaf use devices with a microphone that translates sirens into a visual signal. It is not burdensome to ask self-driving cars to have microphones.

[relyks]

It is not sad. Detecting emergency vehicles should be part of the operating protocol. It's an essential feature for AVs... Tech companies are asking us, everyday consumers, to trust our lives with these machines

[TulliusCicero]

No that's silly, sorry.

How do you see that actually panning out? Convince every fire and police department to retrofit every vehicle in their fleet before you have SDC's in the area? What if you want to launch to consumers in general, do you need to convince every police and fire department in the whole country?

Humans can detect emergency vehicles coming by the sound of the sirens. It's definitely possible for machines to do the same.

[Leszek]

A system that tells you the location of (actively flashing) police cars sounds somewhat abusable.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

perhaps some signal that is only viewable locally, not globally.

The equivalent of the siren and lights on an emergency vehicle.

Wait...

Oh.

[mcpackieh]

> A system that signals the location of any actively flashing vehicles to all nearby automated cars is technically achievable.

That system exists. That system is the flashing lights! What do you think they're for, decoration? They exist to signal!