[HN Gopher] AI predicts accident hot-spots from satellite imager... ___________________________________________________________________ AI predicts accident hot-spots from satellite imagery and GPS data Author : Hard_Space Score : 157 points Date : 2021-10-13 10:15 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.unite.ai) (TXT) w3m dump (www.unite.ai) | toss1 wrote: | What I want to know is if it predicts bicycle accident hotspots | -- especially angled intersections where at ordinary speeds for | both vehicles, the angles are such that a cyclist can stay hidden | from the drivers' view behind their right "A" pillar until the | last second when it is too late. Accidents there are just a | matter of odds, as whenever the timing is right, even good | drivers will likely not see the cyclist until too late. | _nalply wrote: | This happens in roundabouts where I live. The cyclist comes | from the left in a curve and my car is also turning. With a | specific timing and alignment of the movements the cyclist | stays exactly behind the A pillar the whole time. Especially | insidious is that by turning my car my view is sweeping over | the roundabout but the cyclist still stays hidden. | | I learned to swing my upper body sideways to have a look behind | the pillar. As a cyclist I learned to look for the face of the | driver and to stop if I don't see the eyes. | | Because I both hit a cyclist and got hit as a cyclist by a car. | nikkinana wrote: | Now how about border hopper hot spots? | traceroute66 wrote: | > satellite imagery of the area adds information about lane | disposition, and the number of lanes, as well as the existence of | a hard shoulder and the presence of pedestrians | | Hmmm.... | | A bit like autonomous driving, sounds like the sort of thing that | probably works beautifully well in places like the US and | elsewhere with wide roads and predictable grid patterns. | | I imagine this sort of thing would mark large swathes of | Europe,Africa, Japan, India and all sorts of other places as | "accident hot-spots" though. | lixtra wrote: | > This is a step toward general AI, because our model can predict | crash maps in uncharted territories." | | I hope they are misquoted here. | MauranKilom wrote: | The word "general" does indeed not appear in this sense in the | paper. | MauranKilom wrote: | The fact that you can make out every single _historical_ crash | location in their prediction shows that this model is horribly | overfit. (Edit: The paper does mention this general problem.) | | Also, the rest of the prediction appears to just be the density | of the road segmentation. Look at the parking lot (?) top left of | the purple box (or all the road-rich neighborhoods in the right | half): | | https://ml8ygptwlcsq.i.optimole.com/fMKjlhs-dkVIYmPS/w:700/h... | | Plenty high estimated risk, zero actual collisions. | | You could get the same predictive quality with a simple gaussian | blur of the "historical accidents" plots (road segmentation | included), it seems. | notafraudster wrote: | It's an interesting problem. | | If I am an accident oracle -- say I know with certainty where, | say, 50% of accidents will occur (the other 50% are truly | stochastic with no structural component at all) -- and the city | believes me, then surely when I tell them an accident will occur | at Intersection X, they will take measures that prevent accidents | at Intersection X. | | But this also means any measure of my ability to predict | accidents is confounded, because the equilibrium behaviour would | be that I never predict an accident and plenty of other accidents | occur. Moreover, because of all the other confounders, it's | actually unclear whether we should expect accidents to go down or | up or stay the same or what, and to the extent year to year | variability was already quite high the problem will be even | larger, so even high level numbers before and after hiring my | services aren't easily interpretable. | | Which is fine, you just need to convince decision makers of this | particular inferential fallacy and then hopefully they keep | listening even though the KPI is wrong. Except what if the type | of accidents change and I'm no longer an accident oracle? Then | the mitigation efforts are wasted, and also the money they pay | me. | | One solution would be to basically engage in some kind of RCT | where some of my predictions are held out for assessing my model | while others are acted on and where the strength of the prior | about my effect decays. Good luck telling voters and lawyers that | justification, though. | | Fun stuff. | simion314 wrote: | The real solution is not only to predict but to explain why the | accidents happen, there are always some reasons why some | places/location have more accidents then normal. | theshadowknows wrote: | Right? Say if you know there will be a 2% chance to have a 1% | increase over the yearly average at LocationX on | Thursday...what can you do? Add police and first responders? | Reroute traffic? Tell people to stay home? I feel like nothing | that can be done will be able to _solve_ the problem but just | _move it somewhere else_ | mjmahone17 wrote: | That's a bit defeatist. | | The Dutch took the approach of treating car crashes similarly | to how the FAA treats plane crashes: do a deep analysis of | what occurred, what the root structural issues were (for | instance, is it difficult for a car turning left to see | oncoming traffic?) and then change the environment to improve | the structural issues. | | Knowing where incident hot spots are likely to be should help | you redesign the areas most likely to cause issues. | | There's a reason the Netherlands has around 1/3 as many | traffic fatalities per capita as the US: in the US, it seems | like we throw up our hands at problems like road crashes, | whereas with problems like plane safety we take an | incremental and root-cause analysis approach to improve | safety over time. | marcosdumay wrote: | If the city does something to reduce the risk of some of the | pointed areas, does your oracle reclassify it as lower risk? | | If you make an oracle that simply points that some necessary | geometries accumulate the risks, don't be surprised when every | authority not only ignores you, but also becomes very annoyed | if you insist on it. | tbihl wrote: | _collision_ hot spots. It 's hard to call them accidents when we | deliberately build infrastructure that so reliably causes | collisions. | pfisherman wrote: | I read the underlying research publication, and linked editorial | has overhyped the results beyond all reason. | | The main takeaway from this work is that better data equals | better models. The data fusion approach taken by the authors is | the most interesting thing about it. The comparisons to baselines | is the weakest part of the article. The effort to sell this as a | highly significant result is just sad, but is mostly a reflection | of the state of academic publishing. | h4kor wrote: | AI learns to detect major intersections in satellite images | batch12 wrote: | While not related, I have always thought it would be interesting | to plot police hot spots from Waze data.. | burlesona wrote: | It's interesting that they are doing this, but it's not | particularly novel. The vast majority of accidents happen on | roads that meet certain criteria: | | - Speed Limit > 30mph and < 60 mph | | - lots of driveways and left turns | | - moderately heavy traffic at some times of day but not constant | gridlock | | Just picture the commercial drag strip and the collector roads | that wind between huge garden apartment complexes or gated | subdivision. | | Accidents are especially likely where two such streets cross. | | Why? | | These are the futon of transportation. They're designed first for | high speed and volume of traffic, but also high direct access to | the surrounding businesses. These objectives are horribly in | conflict and not safe to combine. People want to drive FAST on | these, and they do, but they are frustrated by the stop and go | nature and there is a constant stream of "surprises" when other | drivers take a chance on a turn through a tight gap or run a | light that just turned red because they're sick of waiting. One | moment of distraction for either party and BAM, a crash. | | Good streets for local access are small and slow moving (high | volume can be accommodated by a parallel network of such streets, | ie "a grid" but it doesn't have to be perfect squares). Good | roads for high speed are wide, clear, and simple, with lots of | extra room to cushion mistakes (medians, shoulders, etc.) | | All this model has really done is learned to recognize new | "stroads" that don't have a crash history yet, but will soon. | flashfaffe2 wrote: | So is AI really needed here? | hetspookjee wrote: | Well I think it might actually democratise some of the business | logic you mention. Sure it makes sense from an experts view, | yet these designs are still made plentiful. So what if you | embed this approach in your development plan to have it develop | around it. Eg implement it as a cost function in the overall | implementation. I think that's pretty sweet, and it can also | validate the statement you made in one fell swoop because it is | a model. | adrianN wrote: | So called Stroads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM | goodpoint wrote: | Stroads are really terrible. It's amazing how they can be | legal in US. | avs733 wrote: | Because the engineering design doesn't just prioritize cars | it fundamentally presumes cars. If the result is something | unsafe: | | 1) they will use individual responsibility arguments on | drivers to blame them | | 2) blame pedestrians or cyclists or whoever for failing to | defer to cars | | It's not a legality problem it's a philosophy one. | goodpoint wrote: | > It's not a legality problem it's a philosophy one. | | This is not a dichotomy. The legal aspect comes from the | "philosophical" one that comes for lobby money. | avs733 wrote: | I agree, but I think for the purposes of this | conversation it fits...laws emerge from the philosophy. | simply making an effort to change the laws won't change | the philosophy, it will just be an anachronism standing | against the dominant philosophy. | landryraccoon wrote: | This doesn't fully explain the phenomenon because stroads | are terrible for drivers. | | They cause congestion and are much slower than actual | roads, while still being unfriendly to pedestrians and | bikers. They're bad for drivers and bad for pedestrians. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | They're cheap and they get land owners who want access to | shut up. "there, you have your road, now stop telling us | how to spend your tax dollars" | landryraccoon wrote: | It's even worse. They're not cheap at all. They're cheap | to build but expensive to maintain. | | https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/2/5/the-true- | cost-o... | bane wrote: | What's really terrible about stroads is the phenomenon of | the later "bypass" roads that are built long after the | stroad/city center turns into a an absolute clusterfuck and | aren't usable for the kind of high-speed transit they're | designed for. The bypass roads usually take the form of a | parkway or some other roadtype with limited | entrances/exits. | | But then later, because the bypass road is usually built on | cheap land outside of the city center, all that property | gets bought up and developed as well, and the property | owners will demand ingress/egress to their properties. | Since the environment is nicer than the snarled up city | center, people will start to favor businesses and housing | in this area. Over the next 10-20 years the bypass will | simply turn into another stroad. To make matters worse, the | bypass and the original road will often have the same road | numbers, differentiated by either "business" or "bypass", | making navigation confusing. | | Where I live I often see multi-million dollar homes being | built right next to high-speed roads, and instead of a | feeder street system taking cars to a more limited number | of ingress/egress points, they simply dump the driveways | out into the 60mph traffic. Total insanity. | | It really does all come down to poor planning, and a lack | of desire to make street planned city center grids with | mixed-zone housing and municipal managed central parking | areas. Instead each business sits in an island in a sea of | their own giant parking lots, which often sit mostly unused | which makes urban centralization impossible. | syshum wrote: | Then if you live long enough you get to see the bypass | get a bypass of its own and the entire process starts | over again... | sbierwagen wrote: | The "International Fire Code" (A US regulation used nowhere | else outside of North America) mandates roads 20 to 26 feet | wide for fire equipment access: https://twitter.com/graykim | brough/status/1404824443600490501 | | One can assume from this requirement that fighting fires is | impossible in Europe, and residential buildings are | constantly burning to the ground with firefighters standing | around, helpless to intervene. | pixl97 wrote: | Aren't US homes wood framed and EU homes more likely to | be made from solid brick/rock? | CalRobert wrote: | depends on where you are in the EU I think, UK and | Ireland still use piles of blocks but no shortage of wood | houses in Europe. There's a whole industry of building | woodframe houses in the Baltics and shipping them around | Europe, incidentally. | mgbennet wrote: | Brick houses still burn; interior walls, floors, | ceilings, and furnishings are still made from wood or | other flammable materials. There have been plenty of | castles that caught fire, despite their stone walls. | lordnacho wrote: | Wow this video perfectly captures what I thought about | visiting the US. At the time I couldn't describe what was | making me critical of the way it was built, but this is so | well described. | | In Europe a street as wide as that would be a main | thoroughfare. I seemed to see them all over in the US, like | every road in a grid would be super wide, but also have | shops. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Futons work pretty well unless you need a 10/10ths bed or a | 10/10ths couch. These roads are the same. They're fine until | you load them with enough traffic to make all the intersections | dangerous but not enough to slow them down. | airza wrote: | They're really not; even outside of their horrendous safety | record they are also responsible for the death of pedestrian | traffic in the US and canada | nerdponx wrote: | To be clear, high-end futons are actually really nice. | Stroads have horrible safety records, futons do not. | However there is always a trip and fall hazard around | furniture. Please exercise caution when maneuvering | indoors. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | What's your point? Every road with mixed traffic is going | to be responsible for the death of pedestrians. If | pedestrians were on highways they would get killed there | too. | | These roads aren't ideal but they're everywhere because | they're cheap. Unless you can wave a magic wand and make | municipalities rich enough to carpet bomb everything with | traffic lights, dedicated turn lanes and sidewalks there | are going to be tradeoffs. | cinntaile wrote: | I think he meant people don't walk anymore because the | roads are fundamentally made for cars. | Symbiote wrote: | I highly recommend the linked video (posted just above). | It is not a natural law that pedestrians die on | streets/roads, but it is a result of this typical North | American road design. | ghaff wrote: | And carpet bombing traffic lights everywhere isn't really | an answer even aside from cost. When some new retail went | in near me, a bunch of traffic lights were added. To be | clear, the adjacent interstate exchange was a really | lousy intersection at busy times of the day. But the mass | of street lights now make a straight shot through the | intersections about a 5-10 minute process to go maybe a | quarter mile. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >But the mass of street lights now make a straight shot | through the intersections about a 5-10 minute process to | go maybe a quarter mile. | | I'm sure all sorts of wonderful pedestrian friendly moves | get pulled by people trying to get ahead in that game. | ghaff wrote: | There are essentially no pedestrians there (and no | explicit pedestrian crossing). It's basically the | boundary between a mostly rural exurb and a small city's | sprawl. What it does have is one of those stupid zipper | merges immediately after a traffic light which encourages | aggressive drivers to jump the merge queue on a regular | basis even if it means effectively running someone off | the road. | what_is_orcas wrote: | I talked about this a little bit yesterday, but I live in an | area with a lot of traffic fatalities and it seems to me to be, | at least in part, an economic issue. | | I live in one of the poorest neighborhoods on the outskirts of | my US city. There are a few major roads headed toward the more | affluent neighborhoods and downtown. What I see when I run | along/across or drive along those roads is mostly through- | traffic. There aren't a lot of "shops" in my neighborhood, but | one or two strip-malls and a few gas-stations and fast-food | "restaurants". | | Anecdata: In my experience, the areas with less through-traffic | (and thus high-danger traffic) are areas with destinations, | whether they're shops for goods and/or services or restaurants | (that don't involve cars). The reason I think it's economic is | because it's not just about the customers/consumers visiting | these areas, but the workers. I'd bet that a not-insignificant | number of workers in my neighborhood drive to another | neighborhood for work, but the inverse is probably not true | (that a lot of folks from other neighborhoods drive here for | work). | | I think part of the solution is to make communities smaller and | more friendly to their inhabitants. There should be | opportunities for work in these poorer neighborhoods, and that | means the services to support them. | | It doesn't matter what number is on the speed limit sign on | these major roads, people will drive 50 anyway (I have been | passed in the turn lane several times because I drive the speed | limit on a 2-lane (one each direction) + turn-lane road). | prawn wrote: | On your last point, a friend who works in urban planning | talks about the idea of designing roads to encourage a | certain speed rather than relying on speed limits. Narrower | streets or intrusions for greenery, etc will tend to lower | the speed of traffic. | mc32 wrote: | I remember reading somewhere some transit authority was trying | to improve traffic flow into either the Lincoln tunnel or | Holland tunnel. | | The result of the simulation was both interesting but also | unrealistic. | | In order to improve intake from the feeder streets the | simulation recommended something no normal drivers would do in | rush hour: IIRC it wanted drivers to obediently and predictably | do alternate lane merges as well as some intricate braided flow | pattern. It was great if you were working with logical | components but utterly impractical in reality. I don't think | any semblance of that system was ever implemented as it was | obvious it would fail worse than the current bad design. | ashtonkem wrote: | Zipper merges! It's my understanding that that's a norm in | some countries, but that's a social issue and not an | infrastructure one. | dylan604 wrote: | Most of society seems to have a problem with the notion of | allowing someone else first ultimately means faster for | everyone vs the asshats that actively speed up to | block/deny someone from being able to merge ahead of them. | To me, these are the same people that complain about a | single longer queue rather than individual queues for each | register. | tharkun__ wrote: | Zipper is best and I completely agree that "society as a | whole" just doesn't understand it and are outright | hostile towards the correct behaviour. | | Whenever traffic is slow, I make a point of always | driving up exactly towards the merge and just sliding | into the flow of traffic. Many many times, someone will | be pissed at that, either on the way there because my | lane is free, sometimes for a very very long stretch and | they try to cut me off because I'm 'bypassing' the line | or even at the merge, where I just let someone through | but then it's my turn but they cut me off. | | What do these people think? The 2 lane highway is | supposed to become a 1 lane highway just because there's | a merge ahead (say because of an accident)? How far back | is it supposed to become 1 lane? 100 meters? 500 meters? | 10 kilometers? I've seen some crazy long lineups with | nobody on the second lane for multiple kilometers. The | line could easily have been half as long if everyone just | stayed on their lane until the merge point and zippered. | | I remember seeing an experiment on TV (Germany) like 20 | years ago, where they had a large truck adhere to the | zipper rule, merging exactly where they're supposed to | and filming it (doing it over and over) and there were | many many cases of the truck having to brake hard as | people tried to 'slip by'. This was a 'soft zipper' i.e. | lots of space to the front with just lines marked out | where the truck could come to a standstill/slow down and | go on, so it was a safe experiment. | | Which ultimately is one of those cases that demonstrate | that some ideas are good and 'correct' but "not | implementable with humans." | mc32 wrote: | Yes but more than just zipper merges. There was street | realignment which also included a braided flow (crossing | lanes because not only would they need to funnel traffic | from so of canal to the tunnel but also allow them to get | off on a local street before the point of no return to the | tunnel and same for the 'uptown' side) anyway it was an | over complicated solution that only worked in simulation | and not with real cars and trucks so none of it was | implemented. | ghaff wrote: | I'm less familiar with downtown but the whole area around | where the Lincoln Tunnel access is in Midtown is a | snarled mess. You have the Port Authority, aka one of the | world's worst bus terminals, and more generally just a | bunch of intersections that are such a mess that you need | cops directing traffic because otherwise you just get | gridlock between cars trying to make turns and | pedestrians trying to get across streets. | InitialBP wrote: | These have been implemented in a lot of places extensively, | such as Germany. There are also some implementations in the | US. One such that I drove on often is when I-70 eastbound | runs into the beltway at Baltimore, MD. | | The only problem with zipper merging (much like roundabouts) | is a lack of education around how they work and WHY they | work. Adjust the education we give new drivers and over time | our roads will become more efficient. | mjevans wrote: | CGP Gray's simple solution to traffic and good visuals. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE | | The real simple solution to traffic is no more monkeys | driving cars. Also, implicitly, fully isolate cars from | human powered forms of transportation. | mc32 wrote: | There is a slight flaw there. It fails to account for | vehicle malfunctions (blown tires, running out of power, | component failure, roadway debris, etc.) so even with | computerized coordination you need to keep a speed | determined safe distance from vehicles in front of them. | (with reference to the accordion effect of stop and go.) | creato wrote: | People are taught to use turn signals, and are reminded | "keep right except to pass" every 2 miles. Unless there are | a lot of blatantly illiterate people driving around, they | just don't care about the conventions of the road, and I | doubt education is going to change that. | jvanderbot wrote: | It would be impossible for a non-expert to recognize these | roads without hand-holding training. There are few quantitative | criteria ("lots of"), and many that are only understood | relative to a persons experience ("Just picture ... "). Yet, | they are well-defined and the problem is well understood. | | Perfect application of AI/ML. The reasoning behind AI/ML does | not need to be mysterious for it to be an appropriate solution. | "All it has done is <Something I understand> " is not a valid | criticism of the solution. | | "All it has done is add these values and subtract these values" | would not be a valid criticism of a banking application, for | example. | brundolf wrote: | I once heard AI described as (paraphrasing), "Imagine you | have an army of seven-year-olds that you can instruct to do a | simple task for 24 hours a day" | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >These are the futon of transportation. | | Not getting the futon analogy? | boyd wrote: | Futons are neither good couches nor good beds. | masklinn wrote: | What? Futons are not at all couches and great beds (for | some people anyway, but I like'em). Do americans mean | something weird by futons? | Jill_the_Pill wrote: | Yes, there was a fad for making mattresses that sort of | fold into a weak, uncomfortable couch. That combo is | called a futon here. Now they have frames that give them | some supportive structure, but the earlier ones looked | like this: https://thehousingforum.com/single-futon/ | masklinn wrote: | Ah so it's a kind of sofa / pullout bed, with a | continuous folding mattress instead of the older "split" | style | ghaff wrote: | Which is not generally true if you have good (i.e. more | expensive) futons. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | And likewise if you throw a dedicated turn lane and some | sidewalks at these roads they do a pretty ok job. | ghaff wrote: | Unprotected lefts have been widely recognized as one of | the tasks that are especially difficult for autonomous | driving to handle--which, of course, means that they can | be relatively tricky for people too. And, yes, well- | defined places to walk and cross streets help pedestrians | --at least if they use those defined places which they | often don't in cities. | AlotOfReading wrote: | Absolutely not. If you're ever in Calgary, take a walk | along Macleod trail near the Chinook centre. The | sidewalks are filled with face-height street signage in | the walkway, the sidewalks randomly venture between | vehicle lanes, they'll sometimes just end, there are | pedestrian road crossings without markings or signage, | etc. It's one of the most unpleasant built environments | I've ever encountered, up there with polluted Soviet | mining cities. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | I'm sure someone somewhere has managed to do it wrong but | where I live it's done decently well and there's a fair | number of main roads that meet the description I gave and | are fine as a pedestrian, not perfect but fine. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-13 23:01 UTC)