[HN Gopher] Two auto-braking systems can't see people in reflect...
___________________________________________________________________
Two auto-braking systems can't see people in reflective garb:
report
Author : Kye
Score : 41 points
Date : 2025-01-14 20:35 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (usa.streetsblog.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (usa.streetsblog.org)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I'm fascinated with weird cameras and noticed that the #1
| requirement of automotive cameras is the ability to deal with
| extreme variations in brightness both between frames and within a
| frame.
|
| For one thing I'd be worried that retroreflective tape could be
| crazy bright in the dark and could blow out the cameras.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The processing pipeline is just as important as the camera
| hardware here. It's difficult to build an appropriate system by
| gluing together off the shelf software and many people writing
| automotive requirements aren't even aware of the failure modes.
| When it goes to the tier ones, they'll just throw things
| together until it meets the requirements and nothing more.
|
| I've caught (and fixed) this issue before at my own employers.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| The instantaneous "HDR" capability of biological eyes is really
| quite amazing. About 5 orders of magnitude for human eyes,
| about 2-3 for most cameras.
|
| By the way, there's a really cool in its simplicity medium term
| adaptation mechanism in eyes as well, they measure light
| intensity by photo-decay of a chemical substance that is
| produced slowly. If there is much light, the substance decays a
| short time after production. If there is little light, it
| accumulates for about half a minute, massively increasing
| sensitivity. The quantum efficiency (the inverse of how many
| photons it takes to produce a signal) of a dark-adapted eye is
| about 0.3: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172#MOESM482
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| > with a reflective strips in a configuration similar to those
| worn by roadway workers (though their safety gear is generally
| bright orange or yellow rather than black).
|
| But similar enough to turnout gear worn by many North American
| fire departments.
| bentcorner wrote:
| The Honda and Mazda both use a single camera to visually detect
| pedestrians while the Subaru uses two cameras - perhaps this is
| the difference?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| My Subaru also has radar. It's noticed things ahead of my in
| whiteout conditions that my eyes couldn't yet discern.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Honda Sensing also includes a radar.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If I'm reading the table correctly, there was only one vehicle
| for which reflective strips were worse than normal clothing (the
| Mazda), for the Honda reflective strips didn't always help but
| don't seem to have hurt (judging by the body text they did on the
| order of 12 tests, so 9% vs 0% is 1/12 vs 0/12).
| pfedak wrote:
| you're reading the table correctly but it's been reproduced
| incorrectly and had its title removed from the original source
| https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/high-visibility-clothing-ma...
|
| i'm not clear from that how many trials were run for each test
| condition, but the percentage is average speed reduction, not a
| chance for binary hit/not hit. edit: the paper pdf says up to
| three trials each.
| Aloisius wrote:
| From the IIHS article, it appears that reflective strips were
| worse for all three vehicles.
|
| The average speed reduction for black or white clothing was
| higher than reflective strips with low beams for the Honda at
| 10 and 20 lux; the Mazda at 10, 20 and 30 lux; and the Subaru
| at 10 lux.
|
| (all cases), than either black or white clothing
| thorncorona wrote:
| If you want the unsummarized source and not the chatgpt
| summarized version:
|
| https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/high-visibility-clothing-ma...
| pfedak wrote:
| the chart in the streetsblog article puts some values in the
| wrong boxes, too. pathetic
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| If the goal is to be safer than a human driver then it will
| require better than human sensors, such as lidar. Camera only
| approaches will not stand the test of time.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > If the goal is to be safer than a human driver then it will
| require better than human sensors, such as lidar.
|
| Having the same sensors as a human but being more attentive
| would be a step up. That said, I think camera-only is not good
| enough for now.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup.
|
| The concept that biological systems have made 3D vision,
| navigation, and object avoidance work without LIDAR is
| certainly attractive.
|
| But there is a _LOT_ more to it than just a photosensor and a
| bunch of calculations. The sensors themselves have many
| properties unmatched by cameras, including wider dynamic range,
| processing in the retina and optic nerve itself, and more, and
| the intelligence attached to every biological eye also is built
| upon a body that moves in 3D space, so has a LOT of alternate
| sensory input to fuse into an internal 3D model and processing
| space. We are nowhere near being able to replicate that.
|
| The more appropriate analogy would be the wheel or powered
| fixed wing aircraft. Yes, we're finally _starting_ to be able
| to build walking robots and wing-flapping aircraft, and those
| may ultimately be the best solution for many things. But, in
| the meantime, the 'artificial' solution of wheels and fixed
| airfoils gets us much further.
|
| Ultimately, camera-only vision systems will likely be the best
| solution, but until then, integrating LIDAR will get us much
| further.
| Veserv wrote:
| Very likely a case of tuning to the standard safety tests.
|
| The gold standard for standardized AEB testing is in the Euro
| NCAP. You can see the testing protocol [1] explicitly specifies
| [2] a fixed size human adult with black hair, black shirt, blue
| pants with a precise visible, infrared, and radar cross-section.
| I lack sufficient knowledge to comment on whether those
| characteristics are representative, but I will assume that they
| are.
|
| While precise test characteristics are valuable for test
| reproduction and comparative analysis, it makes it very easy for
| manufacturers to overfit and make their systems seem safer than
| they actually are in generalized circumstances whether
| accidentally or intentionally.
|
| [1] https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/58226/euro-ncap-aeb-vru-
| test-...
|
| [2]
| https://www.acea.auto/files/Articulated_Pedestrian_Target_Sp...
| ck2 wrote:
| There's no penalty if they get it wrong and kill someone.
|
| No exec that killed the spending on better/more sensors for more
| profit will be punished, certainly not jail.
|
| No coder or their manager that missed any bug will be punished or
| go to jail.
|
| So why would they even worry about it? One less thing.
| thesz wrote:
| Why are there no European, American and/or Chinese vehicles to
| compare to?
|
| https://www.carpro.com/blog/almost-all-new-vehicles-have-aut...
|
| Why only those three?
| numpad0 wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-14 23:00 UTC)