I bet I could cause a significant fraction of human vision systems to get in a crash with a well placed sticker. I'd replace "<- One Way" with "Detour ->".
Human driving is full of redundancies, and there is a clear hierarchy of information. People will not rush into a road full of cars going on the other way, it doesn't matter what the signs say.
If your automated driving system doesn't have those same features, it's not ready for use.
Humans are surprisingly good at driving under normal conditions.
In my experience, I've not been in an accident with a teen, nor someone elderly, though I know people that have (both causing and being involved). Neither have I been in an accident with someone that I could tell was impaired by drugs or alcohol. I don't know for sure any of them involved a phone for that matter. Weather was only a factor in one accident (pouring rain, low visibility).
I have nothing to suggest that any of my accidents were caused by anything other than inattentiveness, even the one time weather played a minor role. I also see a lot of dangerous behavior every time I drive: people running lights and stop signs, completely ignoring yield signs (seriously, they must be invisible to everyone else), failing to yield right of way, failing to signal turns and lane changes (my favorite is turning the signal on after moving into the turn lane), lots of phone usage (for everything except making a call, from maps to texting to watching videos!).
Do you just drive a lot or do you brake too late / too hard? Because an accident rate that high is rather unusual.
You mean live in a place where drivers tailgate?
As I stated in my post, most of them are due to people being inattentive and not following the basics like keeping a reasonable distance checking blind spots. Others I suspect phone use, but can't prove it.
That's way too many to take your word for it. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Well, maybe not... but you sure as shit should suspect a fire.
I wonder how well self driving algorithms would compare if tested in such a "hostile" environment? Perhaps we shouldn't allow them on more "friendly" roads until they can consistently surpass human performance under such adverse conditions.
You might want to watch the one-way roads in big cities. It happens a lot more often than you assume.
It also is (usually) self-correcting: oncoming traffic will honk, stop, or move around. The offender will (usually) realize their mistake and try to correct.
Sometimes, though, that's not enough. Searching "killed in wrong way one way" on DDG (or assumably Google) yields many (!) news stories.
So, yeah. People react. Which brings up the question: How well do self-driving AIs respond to a wrong-way driver? How well do self-driving AIs recover when they are the wrong-way driver, and they suddenly have enough data to realize that?
It's so frequent in fact that the barflies at one local place (that has a beer garden from which you can see a one way road) turned it into a drinking game - wrong way car == take a shot.
And people would not drive into a river passing through multiple barriers, just because their GPS says so.
https://theweek.com/articles/464674/8-drivers-who-blindly-fo...
https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/bizarre/driver-in...
This common sense of danger is what IAs must have before we can trust them on the streets.
For instance in the Uber fatal crash: the IA correctly labelled the cyclist as a cyclist several times then revised its judgment, then definetely labelled it as a cyclist but “oops too late”. A human would be like “wait, I think I saw a cyclist, slow down and figure out what this really was”. Obviously with the current computer vision technology you cannot do that, otherwise your car would be afraid of everything and refuse to even start, because there's way too much mislabelling happening at some point or another.
This explains why there are only 5.25 million car accidents a year in the US.
I don't know how many automated vehicle Uber has, but with one killed already the ratio is a few orders of magnitude worse for their automated vehicle than for the average driver in the US. (probably even way worse than the average drunk driver actually)
Humans have well-developed models of how things should be, can detect when things seem wrong, and come up with ways to address the apparent anomaly (including taking steps to investigate and evaluate the situation.)
Humans do not always use these capabilities well, but they have them, while similar capabilities are at best rudimentary and fragile in current AI. The premise of this article is that these capabilities will not come easy.
But... around here at least, signs have stickers or graffiti on them often enough. Like adding the name of a politician under a stop sign: "Stop [Harper]". An appropriately made adversarial example won't stick out visually the same way that a wholesale sign swap will.
An orange diamond "detour" sign isn't easily confused for a smaller rectangle "one way" sign.
Additionally, there should always be two large "do not enter" plus two large red "wrong way" signs that are visible to a driver from in the intersection before turning.
Something as simple as tape or other coverings on an existing sign should never result in any confusion as to right-of-way for a driver paying attention.
If I write crappy paint program and all I can claim is, "It's no worse than the time/effort of drawing by hand," what exactly have I achieved in your opinion?
And if the posts on HN wrt blockchain and ML constantly feature these "no-worse-than-what-we-are-replacing" arguments while posts about, say, paint programs don't, what does that say about the buzz around blockchain and ML?
Edit: clarification