Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) anybody wanna guess the fall out from this? My prediction (which I fully expect to be wrong): - Pedestrian's family files suit against Uber, which uber isn't going to win and is going to cost them a large fortune. - States are going to re-evaluate their autonomous car policies and start writing laws with regard to testing that require both two operators and provability that the tech is road ready. Uber may lose it's ability to test autonomous tech on the roads. - Uber is going to say a lot of shitty things in the press about how they are being oppressed by the government a year from now because apparently the entire company is run by fratboi douches. let's not forget this is their fault. Edit: looks like I missed this: https://jalopnik.com/why-uber-could-be-held-criminally-liable-in-fatal-crash-1823901514 also, anybody want to make some hay about how the uber car was speeding? preliminary reports indicate the car was going between 38 and 40mph in a 35mph zone. https://jalopnik.com/video-shows-pedestrian-in-fatal-uber-crash-stepped-in-f-1823922228 BTW, in case anybody (specifically libertarian fanboi's wo can't understand why there is so much government regulation) is wondering where government regulation comes from - this right here is the origin. This is what is meant when people say laws are written in blood. The free market can't correct for this because the product being tested isn't on the market yet. Edited March 23, 2018 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 If a concept or idea is part of deliberate or accidental violence, then it needs to be changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 anybody wanna guess the fall out from this? My prediction (which I fully expect to be wrong): - Pedestrian's family files suit against Uber, which uber isn't going to win and is going to cost them a large fortune. - States are going to re-evaluate their autonomous car policies and start writing laws with regard to testing that require both two operators and provability that the tech is road ready. Uber may lose it's ability to test autonomous tech on the roads. - Uber is going to say a lot of shitty things in the press about how they are being oppressed by the government a year from now because apparently the entire company is run by fratboi douches. let's not forget this is their fault.One doors-off helicopter crash and FAA bans doors-off flights. One pedestrian killed after several years of testing by multiple companies and you (and others) are calling for the banning of the vehicles from public roads without federal approval. Years of school shootings by mentally ill people with powerful rifles and it's all about personal responsibility, freedom, spoons make people fat and we don't ban them, etc... Just an observation. In honesty, nothing really needs to happen or be changed. At worst, they could adopt the CA regs in other states. Or they could take portions of it, since CA has lots of requirements. The result of this accident will cause all the players to self-regulate. Wait for the NTSB report to come out, as that will influence a lot. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 One doors-off helicopter crash and FAA bans doors-off flights. where? I've done doors off tours in Hawaii and Oregon recently. In honesty, nothing really needs to happen or be changed. At worst, they could adopt the CA regs in other states. Or they could take portions of it, since CA has lots of requirements. The result of this accident will cause all the players to self-regulate. Wait for the NTSB report to come out, as that will influence a lot. agree...but it wouldn't hurt for people like this lady to fucking wake up and pay attention and be a bit more responsible when entering a road way. again, sad story, but to me her stupidity lead to her death. jay walking at night in a non crossing area and not even fucking looking up to see if there were headlights coming at her. squirrels are smarter than her as at least they run the fuck out of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 also, anybody want to make some hay about how the uber car was speeding? preliminary reports indicate the car was going between 38 and 40mph in a 35mph zone. Go to Google street view. There's a 45 MPH speed limit sign about 100 yards before the impact. So unless they recently changed the speed limit they were actually driving slower. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 where? I've done doors off tours in Hawaii and Oregon recently. agree...but it wouldn't hurt for people like this lady to fucking wake up and pay attention and be a bit more responsible when entering a road way. again, sad story, but to me her stupidity lead to her death. jay walking at night in a non crossing area and not even fucking looking up to see if there were headlights coming at her. squirrels are smarter than her as at least they run the fuck out of the way. After the crash in NY a few weeks ago the FAA banned the flights nation wide, pending new training and regulations. Yes, she put herself in harm's way. Yes there was no crosswalk there. But, the system should have seen her and reacted. The driver should have seen her and reacted. The city paved a walkway across the median, which encourages crossing in this area. There is no single factor at fault here, but I'm sure all will be in the NTSB report. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 After the crash in NY a few weeks ago the FAA banned the flights nation wide, pending new training and regulations. gotcha. Yes, she put herself in harm's way. Yes there was no crosswalk there. But, the system should have seen her and reacted. The driver should have seen her and reacted. The city paved a walkway across the median, which encourages crossing in this area. There is no single factor at fault here, but agree that there's more than one factor but it just bugs the shit out of me that the entire issue and things like this start with stupid people. I am curious though as to how the system on these vehicles work. I haven't read up on them much nor even know what's out there on their workings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I am curious though as to how the system on these vehicles work. I haven't read up on them much nor even know what's out there on their workings. There is quite a bit of info out there. YouTube, TED talks, articles, etc. Not all habe as much detail, but even Google/Waymo has some good talks. I know I have a bit more knowledge than most, but the truth is put there. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 One pedestrian killed after several years of testing by multiple companies and you (and others) are calling for the banning of the vehicles from public roads without federal approval. Let's rephrase this a little shall we? how about: one bad actor who intentionally acted below common sense and developing industry standards because it saved them money shows that the industry can't be trusted to act competently without standardization. It also highlights how the existing laws are inadequate to address these particular wrongs. You can't treat pedestrians as part of your R&D without their consent or at the very least without taking every reasonable precaution to prevent a bad outcome. Me an others are calling for MORE OVERSIGHT and BETTER SAFETY STANDARDS (NOT A BAN) because we tried it with minimal government interference and this happened. There is always going to be that one dipshit that ruins it for everyone, and in this case UBER stood up and said "I'll be that dipshit that cuts corners and jeopardizes this thing we have, because money and fuck the government". this wouldn't be as much of an issue if the Uber Autonomous car wasn't speeding, Uber's testing standards were the worst in the industry, and as we are now finding out uber's tech may have been not ready for prime time anyway. Just an observation. Go to Google street view. There's a 45 MPH speed limit sign about 100 yards before the impact. So unless they recently changed the speed limit they were actually driving slower. that street view isn't very recent. there are some saying it can be over a year old (although most put it at July 2017). Still, the police are the ones saying it is a 35mph zone so it could very well be a recent change - which then begs the question: how does the autonomous car model handle updates to the road regulations? If they are operating with information that is at least 6mos old that is causing them to break the law and there is no capability for the machine to read road signs in real time, then is the system really ready for on the road testing? Think about all the temporary signs that get placed in places like construction zones and such - if the machine can't read them then how do you stop it from plowing through a 35mph construction zone at 60mph? After the crash in NY a few weeks ago the FAA banned the flights nation wide, pending new training and regulations. And once the regulations are in place and the training done, it will probably come back. The whole of the skydiving industry relies on the door open flight (and there are helicopters that get used for jumps - though less often), and the FAA is not about to put those people out of business without a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 You can't treat pedestrians as part of your R&D without their consent or at the very least without taking every reasonable precaution to prevent a bad outcome. I guess kids with learners permits shouldn't be allowed on public roads either. The difference here is the safety driver can take the wheel, hit the gas/brakes, while that kids parent can only yell and scream. Me an others are calling for MORE OVERSIGHT and BETTER SAFETY STANDARDS (NOT A BAN) because we tried it with minimal government interference and this happened. Several states have strict laws around testing AV's. Other states had the option to opt into those regulations or develop their own. In AZ's case, they invited these companies to test in their state based on the lack of regulation. When Uber was caught running red lights in San Francisco and CA ordered them to stop and called their actions illegal AZ told them to pack up their cars and drive over. this wouldn't be as much of an issue if the Uber Autonomous car wasn't speeding, Uber's testing standards were the worst in the industry, and as we are now finding out uber's tech may have been not ready for prime time anyway. Speeding? Are you calling 38 in a 35 a cause of this accident (if it's really 35)? First, I realize speed limits can change, but the street view image is from July 2017, so it's not that old. Also, going the direction of the accident there are several 45 MPH signs on that stretch. Going the opposite direction there is a 35 MPH sign in the approx location of the accident. Second, if 3 mph over the speed limit is ruled as a factor, do you think all human drivers should be ticketed for the same thing? The outcome of this detail has huge implications for all automated driving systems in the future. which then begs the question: how does the autonomous car model handle updates to the road regulations? If they are operating with information that is at least 6mos old that is causing them to break the law and there is no capability for the machine to read road signs in real time, then is the system really ready for on the road testing? Think about all the temporary signs that get placed in places like construction zones and such - if the machine can't read them then how do you stop it from plowing through a 35mph construction zone at 60mph? They can read road signs, so if the sign doesn't match the map they have that input. These companies aren't operating on Google Maps, they create their own high resolution map of every area they operate in. If something changes they know it after a few cars drive through (or at least they could.) There is much discussion about how municipalities can alert companies of changes/construction. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I guess kids with learners permits should be allowed on public roads either. The difference here is the safety driver can take the wheel, hit the gas/brakes, while that kids parent can only yell and scream. Kids with learner's permits are required to take driver's ed in most states prior to getting a license. Also driver's ed is part of almost all high school education programs (as elective). When I went through driver's ed our car had dual controls, and actually some states require driver's ed cars to have them these days. I don't know of a single state that allows a kid with a learner's permit to operate a motor vehicle without another person present, and likely that person will exercise good judgement and pick a less challenging route for that kid to drive. Several states have strict laws around testing AV's. Other states had the option to opt into those regulations or develop their own. In AZ's case, they invited these companies to test in their state based on the lack of regulation. When Uber was caught running red lights in San Francisco and CA ordered them to stop and called their actions illegal AZ told them to pack up their cars and drive over. And now Az will have to fall in line with CA. And actually, if that was known and a motivating decision in attracting Uber to AZ, then don't you think the state is culpable in this as well, and not just for the pedestrian hostile nature and confusion of that intersection? And honestly, Uber should have looked at this state, with it's relatively high accident rate, and made a judgement call as to whether it was the appropriate environment for them instead of trying to dodge being caught for faulty tech in another state. But I think I have made my opinion clear on Uber's ability to make good choices (it's like they are physically incapable of it as a corporate culture). Speeding? Are you calling 38 in a 35 a cause of this accident (if it's really 35)? First, I realize speed limits can change, but the street view image is from July 2017, so it's not that old. Also, going the direction of the accident there are several 45 MPH signs on that stretch. Going the opposite direction there is a 35 MPH sign in the approx location of the accident. sounds like a poorly signed 35mph zone to me. Second, if 3 mph over the speed limit is ruled as a factor, do you think all human drivers should be ticketed for the same thing? The outcome of this detail has huge implications for all automated driving systems in the future. All human drivers are capable of being ticketed of the thing, but due to known technology limitations (i.e. most cars speedometers being flawed) and a general understanding of human error it is the discretion of the officer issuing the summons to make that call. But in the case of the machine? no this is one area I expect the machine to be 100% accurate on, no exceptions. That is the point of autonomous technology - to eliminate the human error factor. Once autonomous tech becomes common place I expect the speed limits to increase because we have standardized the driver, if it can't hold a speed within 1/2 a mph then keep working on it till it can (preferably not on public streets). They can read road signs, so if the sign doesn't match the map they have that input. These companies aren't operating on Google Maps, they create their own high resolution map of every area they operate in. If something changes they know it after a few cars drive through (or at least they could.) There is much discussion about how municipalities can alert companies of changes/construction. good to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Kids with learner's permits are required to take driver's ed in most states prior to getting a license. Also driver's ed is part of almost all high school education programs (as elective). When I went through driver's ed our car had dual controls, and actually some states require driver's ed cars to have them these days. It's been a long time since you were in high school. Me too, but even when I was there drivers ed was not being taught. You have to pay for classes for an independent company. Yes, drivers ed cars have redundant brake controls, but kids with learners permits are not limited to these vehicles, they can drive a 'normal' car with a parent present. Also, if they wait until 18 to get a license they can bypass much of that. Bottom line: there are 15 year olds on the roads with pedestrians that did not 'opt in' to their education and there are no redundant controls in place. Even when there are redundant controls they are not as extensive as what an AV safety driver has at their disposal. And now Az will have to fall in line with CA. And actually, if that was known and a motivating decision in attracting Uber to AZ, then don't you think the state is culpable in this as well, and not just for the pedestrian hostile nature and confusion of that intersection? I'm trying to leave my opinion out of this, just sticking to facts. The fact is, AZ was very public in inviting them. You can find the tweets and quotes from their governor. CA has a long list of rules to be followed, but those don't have to be completely copied. One of the reasons companies may avoid CA is due to the amount of information they have to report publicly. The reports they file give away a lot of information to their competitors. And honestly, Uber should have looked at this state, with it's relatively high accident rate, and made a judgement call as to whether it was the appropriate environment for them instead of trying to dodge being caught for faulty tech in another state. But I think I have made my opinion clear on Uber's ability to make good choices (it's like they are physically incapable of it as a corporate culture). You could also look at it like a company that is developing this tech. These vehicles have done many miles on test tracks, in simulation, and in 'benign' conditions. Chris Urmson said a few years ago that 2 grad students could build an autonomous car in 6 months and have an 80 or 90% solution. It's thise last few % points that take years and require the vehicle to find challenging situations. You don't win the self-driving car race by driving millions of miles on the highways in Iowa. You win by driving in places where the car has to make more difficult decisions. sounds like a poorly signed 35mph zone to me. Or a poorly signed 45 MPH zone... no this is one area I expect the machine to be 100% accurate on, no exceptions. That is the point of autonomous technology - to eliminate the human error factor. Once autonomous tech becomes common place I expect the speed limits to increase because we have standardized the driver, if it can't hold a speed within 1/2 a mph then keep working on it till it can (preferably not on public streets). You don't want to ride in a car that tries to maintain speed to 1/2 a MPH. Even your cruise control is capable of this, but you would be a very unhappy passenger. Also, it will be many, many years before the road is full of only AV's. There will be a long period of time where they will be mixed with 'normal' cars and will have to behave like a human would. There are several studies that show that driving the speed limit is more dangerous than moving the flow of traffic. Even Google cars would speed (as one of the studies was theirs). This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many laws that we do not follow to a T when driving, and if you did you wouldn't be able to get around safely. good to know. For instance, the BMW 7 Series has this feature today. The camera sees a speed limit sign, detects it, and sends the information to the cloud, updating the NAV map. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/?amp=1 23 to 24 seconds in the first video they linked to you can see the 45 MPH speed limit sign. This video was taken then night after the accident. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 27, 2018 Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 https://jalopnik.com/arizonas-governor-orders-uber-to-suspend-self-driving-c-1824097133 So this ends Uber's testing, I guess. For the moment at least. It will be interesting to see what they do now. It's been a long time since you were in high school. Me too, but even when I was there drivers ed was not being taught. You have to pay for classes for an independent company. I took driver's ed in 1993 on Long Island, NY. When I went, the classroom class was taught by one of our public school teachers. The driving portion was by an independent school the school board contracted with. they provided several dual control cars plus instructors. Nice people all of them. It was $35 paid to the school to cover both the classroom and driving. Every city is different because of state laws, school boards, budgets, etc.... Yes, drivers ed cars have redundant brake controls, but kids with learners permits are not limited to these vehicles, they can drive a 'normal' car with a parent present. Also, if they wait until 18 to get a license they can bypass much of that. Bottom line: there are 15 year olds on the roads with pedestrians that did not 'opt in' to their education and there are no redundant controls in place. Even when there are redundant controls they are not as extensive as what an AV safety driver has at their disposal. The role of the parent is to operate in the most prudent manner possible for their student/child. If they don't the law holds them accountable which is usually handled by the insurance they purchased. But remember, these are individual people and not corporations doing R&D so products liability laws don't apply. Usually, those parents make smart decisions that address at least the minimum standard of care taken if not more. Uber, is not an individual so again products liability laws apply and pedestrians didn't opt in for R&D testing of a product. The standard Uber is held to is much higher, usually strict liability and the standard of care is much higher - utmost safety to the end user (which includes every pedestrian on the road in this case). Faulty equipment is expected with R&D hence the higher standard, not so with drivers education. This is where the law gets a little gray - should teaching a machine to drive be treated like teaching a human to drive or like developing a product? That is the legal question that hopefully get answered at the end of this mess. Or maybe there needs to be a new body of regulation for this gray area, that isn't either and stricter than driving laws, but not as strict as products liability. If you ask me, I think the higher standard or products liability is perfectly reasonable because it provides the greatest amount of protection to the public at large and not the corporation making a driving machine. I'm trying to leave my opinion out of this, just sticking to facts. The fact is, AZ was very public in inviting them. You can find the tweets and quotes from their governor. CA has a long list of rules to be followed, but those don't have to be completely copied. One of the reasons companies may avoid CA is due to the amount of information they have to report publicly. The reports they file give away a lot of information to their competitors. And AZ may have to answer for that conduct. Which is probably why we are seeing the change with them taking place immediately before and after this accident. The disclosure rules for CA sound difficult but that's part of what patent protection is for, and also there are ways to deal with disclosing to CA without disclosing to the public at large. I think what companies want to avoid in avoiding disclosure to CA is reporting accident data that may hold them liable - something that products liability law might make a non issue. You could also look at it like a company that is developing this tech. These vehicles have done many miles on test tracks, in simulation, and in 'benign' conditions. Chris Urmson said a few years ago that 2 grad students could build an autonomous car in 6 months and have an 80 or 90% solution. It's thise last few % points that take years and require the vehicle to find challenging situations. You don't win the self-driving car race by driving millions of miles on the highways in Iowa. You win by driving in places where the car has to make more difficult decisions. I get that the only place to really suss out the tech is in the real world, but nothing is consistent at this moment in terms of standards or requirements to know if something is ready for that 10% solution testing. And maybe this pushes the envelope closer to that. You don't want to ride in a car that tries to maintain speed to 1/2 a MPH. Even your cruise control is capable of this, but you would be a very unhappy passenger. why? Also, it will be many, many years before the road is full of only AV's. There will be a long period of time where they will be mixed with 'normal' cars and will have to behave like a human would. There are several studies that show that driving the speed limit is more dangerous than moving the flow of traffic. Even Google cars would speed (as one of the studies was theirs). This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many laws that we do not follow to a T when driving, and if you did you wouldn't be able to get around safely. Well implementation is always the hardest part. But still, the machines have to do it better than humans - as good as isn't going to cut it and we aren't even to as good as yet. Maybe as these things implement the laws governing speeding and traffic will change to adapt to it, or it could be the roadblock to meaningful tech. For instance, the BMW 7 Series has this feature today. The camera sees a speed limit sign, detects it, and sends the information to the cloud, updating the NAV map. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk I suddenly feel a lot better about driving old junk that doesn't tattle on me to the OEMs about my surroundings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 The role of the parent is to operate in the most prudent manner possible for their student/child. If they don't the law holds them accountable which is usually handled by the insurance they purchased. But remember, these are individual people and not corporations doing R&D so products liability laws don't apply. Usually, those parents make smart decisions that address at least the minimum standard of care taken if not more. Uber, is not an individual so again products liability laws apply and pedestrians didn't opt in for R&D testing of a product. The standard Uber is held to is much higher, usually strict liability and the standard of care is much higher - utmost safety to the end user (which includes every pedestrian on the road in this case). Faulty equipment is expected with R&D hence the higher standard, not so with drivers education. Companies testing AV's should have the appropriate insurance to cover their liability. For example, CA law has a minimum standard for insurance coverage when testing in their state and I've been told it's a pretty standard amount. I would also say that the standard of care that a safety driver is supposed to uphold is higher than what a parent is even capable of when teaching a child. It's clear that the safety driver was not upholding their responsibility in this case. Also consider that a 15 year old is going to start roaming public roads with little to no previous instruction, while a majority of AV companies thoroughly test the vehicle on private proving grounds before ever releasing the vehicle to public roads. The safety driver is there in case of "faulty equipment," but I would also be careful around talk of allowing or banning R&D products on the roads because they pose a public health risk. Where does it stop? All auto manufacturers drive their unreleased vehicles on public roads with non-production software, unapproved emissions, untested hardware, etc. This is accepted practice because the people behind the wheel are specially trained (depending on the testing) and employees of the company. It's also impossible to release any vehicle to production without driving on public roads, and an AV is no different. The disclosure rules for CA sound difficult but that's part of what patent protection is for, and also there are ways to deal with disclosing to CA without disclosing to the public at large. I think what companies want to avoid in avoiding disclosure to CA is reporting accident data that may hold them liable - something that products liability law might make a non issue. No. Accident data is going to get reported no matter what. Every player in this space knows that every accident will end up in a very public investigation. CA law requires companies to file a record of every vehicle that has been registered as an AV test vehicle, how many miles they have driven in an autonomous mode, and how many safety-related disengagements were made by the driver. This is all public info. The disengagements per mile metric is something people are using to judge the maturity of a given system. Plus, you know how active your competitors are by how many total miles they traveled. (For instance in 2017 Tesla claimed 0 miles) I get that the only place to really suss out the tech is in the real world, but nothing is consistent at this moment in terms of standards or requirements to know if something is ready for that 10% solution testing. And maybe this pushes the envelope closer to that. NHTSA/the federal government purposefully does not regulate technology that is in development. There are SAE guidelines and state laws, as well as NHTSA "recommendations" that were released last year. why? Gas, brake, gas, brake, gas, brake.... Fuel economy is horrid when you do this too. Well implementation is always the hardest part. But still, the machines have to do it better than humans - as good as isn't going to cut it and we aren't even to as good as yet. You are agreeing with the entire industry here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledhead36 Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 I trust my self driving car more than 2/3 of the drivers out there....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 31, 2018 Report Share Posted March 31, 2018 I trust my self driving car more than 2/3 of the drivers out there.......The problem is, people actually believe that a Tesla is a self-driving car... https://amp.cnn.com/money/2018/03/31/technology/tesla-model-x-crash-autopilot/index.html http://www.thedrive.com/news/19802/tesla-driver-allegedly-reported-autopilot-issues-to-dealer-several-times-prior-to-fatal-crash Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 8, 2018 Report Share Posted May 8, 2018 https://jalopnik.com/uber-self-driving-car-detected-pedestrian-killed-in-cra-1825834016 Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber’s software has the ability to ignore “false positives,” or objects in its path that wouldn’t actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road. In this case, Uber executives believe the company’s system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects. But the tuning went too far, and the car didn’t react fast enough, one of these people said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 and the beat goes on.... https://jalopnik.com/ubers-autonomous-car-had-six-seconds-to-prevent-fatal-c-1826290552 The self-driving car owned by Uber that fatally struck a woman in March detected her in the road about six seconds before the crash, according to a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board, which also acknowledged delayed responses from the vehicle’s automatic emergency braking system..... ....The report comes a day after Uber announced it was laying off 300 employees as part of an effort to shutter its autonomous driving program in Arizona. Police in the city of Tempe, Arizona, also said Wednesday that its investigation into the incident is complete, and now the report is being turned over to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. Under recently implemented Arizona regulations, Uber could be held criminally liable for the crash. I have to say, the more I read about it, the more I kinda feel Uber really screwed the pooch in this one, but tell me why I am wrong.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 Uber fucked up bad. From another article: According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. Which makes sense until you get to the next point: The system is not designed to alert the operator. Ok, so that's short sighted. But the driver should be watching the road, right? "The operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review," Dear god. The shortsightedness is mind boggling. It can't get worse. Right? The vehicle was a modified Volvo XC90 SUV. That vehicle comes with emergency braking capabilities, but Uber automatically disabled these capabilities while its software was active. Pack up shop guys. I don't want you behind the wheel of a normal car at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 interesting, but not completely unexpected, twist: https://gizmodo.com/uber-driver-in-fatal-tempe-crash-may-have-been-watching-1827039127 The crash of an Uber self-driving car that killed an Arizona woman in March was “entirely avoidable,” according to police reports released by the Tempe Police Department. Cellphone data obtained by police suggests that the Uber operator was also streaming an episode of reality show The Voice at the time of the fatal incident. So Let's see: Uber disabled emergency braking relying on the operator, then it cut the number of operators in the car because :dumb:, then the operator who was being relied on to drive was watching TV because as all those tesla videos show - watching a semi-autonomous car driving is just a step more boring than watching paint dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 11, 2018 Report Share Posted December 11, 2018 https://gizmodo.com/uber-employee-warned-self-driving-cars-are-routinely-in-1831019048 “The cars are routinely in accidents resulting in damage,” Miller wrote in the email published by the Information: “This is usually the result of poor behavior of the operator or the AV technology. A car was damaged nearly every other day in February. We shouldn’t be hitting things every 15,000 miles. Repeated infractions for poor driving rarely results in termination. Several of the drivers appear to not have been properly vetted or trained.” Less than a week after Miller reportedly sent that email, on the night of March 18, an Uber vehicle operating autonomously with a human driver behind the wheel struck and killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing a street with her bicycle. Ruh-Ro Raggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Let's rephrase this a little shall we? how about: one bad actor who intentionally acted below common sense and developing industry standards because it saved them money shows that the industry can't be trusted to act competently without standardization. It also highlights how the existing laws are inadequate to address these particular wrongs. You can't treat pedestrians as part of your R&D without their consent or at the very least without taking every reasonable precaution to prevent a bad outcome. Me an others are calling for MORE OVERSIGHT and BETTER SAFETY STANDARDS (NOT A BAN) because we tried it with minimal government interference and this happened. There is always going to be that one dipshit that ruins it for everyone, and in this case UBER stood up and said "I'll be that dipshit that cuts corners and jeopardizes this thing we have, because money and fuck the government". this wouldn't be as much of an issue if the Uber Autonomous car wasn't speeding, Uber's testing standards were the worst in the industry, and as we are now finding out uber's tech may have been not ready for prime time anyway. Just an observation. that street view isn't very recent. there are some saying it can be over a year old (although most put it at July 2017). Still, the police are the ones saying it is a 35mph zone so it could very well be a recent change - which then begs the question: how does the autonomous car model handle updates to the road regulations? If they are operating with information that is at least 6mos old that is causing them to break the law and there is no capability for the machine to read road signs in real time, then is the system really ready for on the road testing? Think about all the temporary signs that get placed in places like construction zones and such - if the machine can't read them then how do you stop it from plowing through a 35mph construction zone at 60mph? And once the regulations are in place and the training done, it will probably come back. The whole of the skydiving industry relies on the door open flight (and there are helicopters that get used for jumps - though less often), and the FAA is not about to put those people out of business without a fight. My Government is the best,blah blah blah, I told you so, blah blah blah, I’m Geeto, blah blah blah, I’ve done it all, know it all, you people are stupid. My government is the best,you’re stupid, do as I say not as I do, blah blah, I have plenty of time to type my sermons on a car forum, blah blah blah. Oh by the way, I have done most everything on this planet,blah blah blah, I also moved to Ohio to tell you people how stupid you actually are if you don’t agree with me. My GTO ( if there is one) is sitting in by parents garage because it’s actually my Dad’s. Oh my way is the best and only way, because if it’s not my way it’s stupid. I told you that was going to happen because you people are stupid, and I get all my worldly knowledge from hours on the Internet Just an observation Is there a liberal political forum that one can go to to discuss cars and racing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Is there a liberal political forum that one can go to to discuss cars and racing? The conversations around cars end up like this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 My Government is the best,blah blah blah, I told you so, blah blah blah, I’m Geeto, blah blah blah, I’ve done it all, know it all, you people are stupid. My government is the best,you’re stupid, do as I say not as I do, blah blah, I have plenty of time to type my sermons on a car forum, blah blah blah. Oh by the way, I have done most everything on this planet,blah blah blah, I also moved to Ohio to tell you people how stupid you actually are if you don’t agree with me. My GTO ( if there is one) is sitting in by parents garage because it’s actually my Dad’s. Oh my way is the best and only way, because if it’s not my way it’s stupid. I told you that was going to happen because you people are stupid, and I get all my worldly knowledge from hours on the Internet Just an observation Is there a liberal political forum that one can go to to discuss cars and racing? http://i.imgur.com/QM0hIXZ.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.