Uber Suspends Driverless Car Program After Pedestrian Is Struck and Killed

[DietDrThunder]

Uber reportedly reduced the number of sensors on its autonomous cars:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/28/uber-reduced-safety-sensors-on-its-autonomous-cars/

The article claims Uber cut down the number of Lidar sensors to 1 on its test cars, resulting in more blind spots. To me a self-driving car should not have any blind spots, let alone "more." Mentions that other companies use 5 or 6 in comparison.

WOW! Simply WOW!

 

[DietDrThunder]

Uber reaches settlement with family of autonomous vehicle victim:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ly-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092

I really feel for the family, but I don't know how I feel about this situation. If it were my wife or kid, knowing that I would get a settlement regardless of whether I took it to trial or not, I would like to think that I would take them to trial in open court in an attempt to expose anything else that Uber is being negligent on. I would have wanted this in the spotlight to expose the NTSB for lack of safety requirements and oversight, and highlight the lack of safety initiatives many in the industry are not putting in place. I would think that I would then give this money to a charity like MADD or something, as I don't feel like I could keep the settlement.

But then again, who knows. I may have just wanted this nightmare over with.

 

[Red Storm]

Yeah if it were my family member, I would want it to be over with as soon as possible.

 

[Kaido]

Uber reaches settlement with family of autonomous vehicle victim:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ly-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092

I really feel for the family, but I don't know how I feel about this situation. If it were my wife or kid, knowing that I would get a settlement regardless of whether I took it to trial or not, I would like to think that I would take them to trial in open court in an attempt to expose anything else that Uber is being negligent on. I would have wanted this in the spotlight to expose the NTSB for lack of safety requirements and oversight, and highlight the lack of safety initiatives many in the industry are not putting in place. I would think that I would then give this money to a charity like MADD or something, as I don't feel like I could keep the settlement.

But then again, who knows. I may have just wanted this nightmare over with.

I think it boils down to two things:

1. Uber operates their business in a really crappy manner

2. The accident appears to have been unavoidable (on the part of the car, the AI, and the driver)

 

[feralkid]

ffs, when a car is pulled over by a cop on the OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, even with a divider, people slow down! people are god damn idiots and it's rare that I step in a car without witnessing multiple shitheads before reaching my destination

Find out where they live and lob a few grenades into their homes.

 

[PeterScott]

Yeah if it were my family member, I would want it to be over with as soon as possible.

You also have to consider they may not want their relationship with the victim aired in public.

The victim was homeless. So she may have been estranged, and it is harder to show damage in a trial.

In cases with big payouts, it is usually someone young with a bright future, or the families caregiver, or economic provider.

Better to just take a couple million for your long estranged Aunt who lives on the street that you have no contact with.

 

[PeterScott]

I think it boils down to two things:

1. Uber operates their business in a really crappy manner

2. The accident appears to have been unavoidable (on the part of the car, the AI, and the driver)

1: Yes.
2: No.

LIDAR works the same day or night. Sot his would have been avoidable by competent software. She crossed several lanes of an essentially empty road. If your software can't handle that, it shouldn't be on the road.

 

[Zorba]

An argument that nobody is making.

Except, that it is. Every way that isn't for regulation, and pro getting it on the road as soon as possible, is making the argument that the pro's out way the con's. Generally the abuse statistics to make the Pros look much bigger than they truly are.

 

[Zorba]

Uber reportedly reduced the number of sensors on its autonomous cars:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/28/uber-reduced-safety-sensors-on-its-autonomous-cars/

The article claims Uber cut down the number of Lidar sensors to 1 on its test cars, resulting in more blind spots. To me a self-driving car should not have any blind spots, let alone "more." Mentions that other companies use 5 or 6 in comparison.

The fact that Uber is obviously cutting corners exactly shows why AV needs to be regulated, tested and certified and not just allowed on the road because the manufacturer says its okay. There will be many more companies willing to cut corners.

 

[Zorba]

Uber reaches settlement with family of autonomous vehicle victim:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ly-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092

I really feel for the family, but I don't know how I feel about this situation. If it were my wife or kid, knowing that I would get a settlement regardless of whether I took it to trial or not, I would like to think that I would take them to trial in open court in an attempt to expose anything else that Uber is being negligent on. I would have wanted this in the spotlight to expose the NTSB for lack of safety requirements and oversight, and highlight the lack of safety initiatives many in the industry are not putting in place. I would think that I would then give this money to a charity like MADD or something, as I don't feel like I could keep the settlement.

But then again, who knows. I may have just wanted this nightmare over with.

I agree with what you are saying, except the NTSB does not regulate or provide oversight for anything. They only investigate accidents and provide recommendation for improving the safety going forward. It is up to the regulators at the DOT to actually implement and oversee any recommendations from the NTSB.

 

[slayer202]

Except, that it is. Every way that isn't for regulation, and pro getting it on the road as soon as possible, is making the argument that the pro's out way the con's. Generally the abuse statistics to make the Pros look much bigger than they truly are.

ok have fun debating your strawman

 

[Kaido]

1: Yes.
2: No.

LIDAR works the same day or night. Sot his would have been avoidable by competent software. She crossed several lanes of an essentially empty road. If your software can't handle that, it shouldn't be on the road.

Is it an issue of the software should have avoided the accident in this particular instance, or that the lady jaywalked straight into a 40mph moving vehicle? Would it have been possible for the car to NOT have hit her? (assuming the software was working as designed)

 

[Zorba]

ok have fun debating your strawman

Do you support full FAA level type regulation of AVs? Yes or No? Do you believe a regulatory and legal framework should be in place before AV are released on the general public? Yes or No? If no, please provide some justification for this.

Considering how many people are railing on @Cepak in this thread because he wants proper regulation, development and testing, I hardly think I am making a straw man argument.

 

[Red Storm]

Is it an issue of the software should have avoided the accident in this particular instance, or that the lady jaywalked straight into a 40mph moving vehicle? Would it have been possible for the car to NOT have hit her? (assuming the software was working as designed)

Before I saw the video and only read about what happened, I thought the lady was walking on a median and then suddenly turned into the road right as the car was there, which I think would be an unavoidable scenario for any driver, automated or not. But the video shows a completely different scenario. The car should have been able to see that person, but it did not, and it could be of the corner cutting that Uber did with the senors (and who knows what else).

 

[Zorba]

Is it an issue of the software should have avoided the accident in this particular instance, or that the lady jaywalked straight into a 40mph moving vehicle? Would it have been possible for the car to NOT have hit her? (assuming the software was working as designed)

You know how many jay walkers and animals I have not hit in my car, even doing 40 (and much higher) at night? The terrible low-light performance of the video camera makes it look much more out of no where than it actually would've been to the human eye. The human eye would've had no issue seeing the person in the median and in the less bright areas of the headlight beam. Humans probably would've also been on alert due to being in an area with crosswalks. Of course a distracted human would've still hit her, but I don't think just assuming it was unavoidable is right.

 

[slayer202]

Do you support full FAA level type regulation of AVs? Yes or No? Do you believe a regulatory and legal framework should be in place before AV are released on the general public? Yes or No? If no, please provide some justification for this.

Considering how many people are railing on @Cepak in this thread because he wants proper regulation, development and testing, I hardly think I am making a straw man argument.

No, Yes

You are making a leap from "people are bad drivers (and technology should be able to be better in the future)" to "because people are bad drivers, who cares if autonomous vehicles are bad drivers and we shouldn't regulate and just send them out there" which is bullshit

 

[Zorba]

No, Yes

You are making a leap from "people are bad drivers (and technology should be able to be better in the future)" to "because people are bad drivers, who cares if autonomous vehicles are bad drivers and we shouldn't regulate and just send them out there" which is bullshit

Except people that are pushing for rapid production and are okay with open free range testing, are basically saying "Human driver are terrible and kill X people a year, autonomous will be/should be so much safer, get on the road ASAP. Further, I don't want traffic jams!"

I see a lot of companies testing equipment on the open road. A lot of companies implementing parts of it into their production cars today. And I see a lot of people cheering for it. I don't see many companies or people actually calling for real regulation.

BTW: You are now making the strawman because I never said that people said they were okay with AVs killing people, I said people are willing to take the risk associated with them due to a lack of regulation and certification, mostly because they just willing assuming they'll be fine. Then they compare a few hundred (semi-autonomous) test vehicles in controlled conditions to hundreds of millions human driven cars to make their point.

 

[rh71]

The ride-share, non-ownership generation of today would obviously want auto-driving capability out like yesterday. I hope it's clear that this kind of technology needs better oversight and governing, regardless of benefits. Who approved the reduction in the number of sensors used but Uber themselves? For-profit companies... Who wouldn't see this coming?

 

[slayer202]

Except people that are pushing for rapid production and are okay with open free range testing, are basically saying "Human driver are terrible and kill X people a year, autonomous will be/should be so much safer, get on the road ASAP. Further, I don't want traffic jams!"

I see a lot of companies testing equipment on the open road. A lot of companies implementing parts of it into their production cars today. And I see a lot of people cheering for it. I don't see many companies or people actually calling for real regulation.

BTW: You are now making the strawman because I never said that people said they were okay with AVs killing people, I said people are willing to take the risk associated with them due to a lack of regulation and certification, mostly because they just willing assuming they'll be fine. Then they compare a few hundred (semi-autonomous) test vehicles in controlled conditions to hundreds of millions human driven cars to make their point.

you're such a jackass. where did I say that you said someone about people being ok with "AVs" killing people? who here is pushing for rapid production? We said people are bad drivers, that's it. god damn

 

[Zorba]

you're such a jackass. where did I say that you said someone about people being ok with "AVs" killing people? who here is pushing for rapid production? We said people are bad drivers, that's it. god damn

Read the post I quoted, you summarized my argument as "who cares if AVs are bad drivers"

Maybe you should reread this thread if you don't think people are pushing for rapid deployment. Further, Tesla and others have pushed out many semi-autonomous systems without any regulation or certification. Not to mention the self driving buses in LAS and all the test cars without any real safety backup in AZ and CA. So I think the rapid production without a legal framework had already begun.

Tesla and the test cars hang their hats on humans bring ready to take over, but research has shown that isn't realistic. It is also different than a pilot taking over from a failed autopilot because things happen more rapidly in a car vs a plane under autopilot (in general), all commercial pilots have extensive training and experience, and there are multiple warning systems to let the pilot know he is needed.

So you've bent yourself around so much I don't even know what you actually want, since you claim all you ever said was people are bad at driving. Then you claim no body in this thread is pushing for rapid deployment. Yet we have a ton of people bashing the few people in this thread calling for a more calculated approach.

 

[slayer202]

dude, fuck off please. you are literally making shit up at this point.

 

[Kaido]

Before I saw the video and only read about what happened, I thought the lady was walking on a median and then suddenly turned into the road right as the car was there, which I think would be an unavoidable scenario for any driver, automated or not. But the video shows a completely different scenario. The car should have been able to see that person, but it did not, and it could be of the corner cutting that Uber did with the senors (and who knows what else).

You know how many jay walkers and animals I have not hit in my car, even doing 40 (and much higher) at night? The terrible low-light performance of the video camera makes it look much more out of no where than it actually would've been to the human eye. The human eye would've had no issue seeing the person in the median and in the less bright areas of the headlight beam. Humans probably would've also been on alert due to being in an area with crosswalks. Of course a distracted human would've still hit her, but I don't think just assuming it was unavoidable is right.

Uber has one of the shadiest company histories that I've ever seen published. I trust Musk & his camera-based approach about a million times more than I do Uber's approach, and even his system has killed people before.

 

[Ns1]

You know how many jay walkers and animals I have not hit in my car, even doing 40 (and much higher) at night?

Do you know how many drivers hit jay walkers and animals, even doing 40 (and much higher) in broad daylight?

 

[Zorba]

Do you know how many drivers hit jay walkers and animals, even doing 40 (and much higher) in broad daylight?

Of course, never said it wouldn't happen and a ton of those could be avoided if the driver's had been paying attention, others not so much. In this case I think a human paying attention could've avoided the accident. The idea behind autonomous cars is they will always be paying attention, the government should be making sure the reality matches the idea, at least when they go to production.

 

[Zorba]

dude, fuck off please. you are literally making shit up at this point.

Sorry, that you can't be bothered to read what you wrote or fail at understanding it. If you ever become mature enough to have a real conversation using words with more than four letters, let me know.