Waymo CEO Expresses Confidence Its Cars Wouldn't Have Killed Elaine Herzberg (washingtonpost.com)

theodp writes: Nearly a week after an autonomous Uber SUV claimed the first life in testing of self-driving vehicles, The Washington Post reports that Waymo CEO John Krafcik says he is confident its cars would have performed differently under the circumstances (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), since they are intensively programmed to avoid such calamities. "I can say with some confidence that in situations like that one with pedestrians -- in this case a pedestrian with a bicycle -- we have a lot of confidence that our technology would be robust and would be able to handle situations like that," Krafcik said Saturday when asked if a Waymo car would have reacted differently than the self-driving Uber.

In explaining its since-settled lawsuit against Uber last year, Google charged that Uber was "using key parts of Waymo's self-driving technology," and added it was "seeking an injunction to stop the misappropriation of our designs." In announcing the settlement of the lawsuit last month, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi noted, "we are taking steps with Waymo to ensure our LIDAR and software represents just our good work." A Google spokesperson added, "We have reached an agreement with Uber that we believe will protect Waymo's intellectual property now and into the future. We are committed to working with Uber to make sure that each company develops its own technology. This includes an agreement to ensure that any Waymo confidential information is not being incorporated in Uber Advanced Technologies Group hardware and software." All of which might prompt some to ask: was Elaine Herzberg collateral damage in Google and Uber's IP war? "I want to be really respectful of Elaine [Herzberg], the woman who lost her life and her family," Krafcik continued. "I also want to recognize the fact that there are many different investigations going on now regarding what happened in Tempe on Sunday." His assessment, he said, was "based on our knowledge of what we've seen so far with the accident and our own knowledge of the robustness that we've designed into our systems."

Comments

Soo..

[Anonymous Coward]

Waymo killed Elaine by forcing Uber to take out the parts that worked..

Re:Soo..

[inking]

Waymo didn’t force anyone to operate the vehicle on a public road. This one is on Uber. Couldn’t have happened to a better company. They have been avoiding safety regulations for years and now it got someone killed.

What amazing me

[rsilvergun]

is how good the damage control from Uber was. They got videos out fast with pitch black cameras that made it look like she came out of nowhere. Several days later videos popped up from locals showing the stretch of road was actually well lit. Even now I'm having a trough time finding those videos. There are stories now saying Uber's cars are behind Waymo, but I'm only just now seeing stories that say Uber should have avoided the crash. The first several /. posts about this story were riddled with comments from folks saying the crash was unavoidable and the pedestrian was completely at fault.

I think Some of this is the media at large siding with corporations to our detriment. The big outlets (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) have long since stopped covering the story on their front page websites, even as a single link. There's a little bit of left wing press, but I heard about those videos showing how well lit the road was from a post on Ars Technical that was on my feed.

Based on this I'm guessing that most people who don't read /. are going to end up assuming this was just an unavoidable accident caused by a crazy old homeless woman (a fact that was emphasized in many stories I read). I can't help but think we're being manipulated to think these cars are safer than they really are.

Re:What amazing me

[Anonymous Coward]

This is less about Uber's damage control and more about how moronic and whipped the US public is. It doesn't matter how dark the road was, even with no lights at all, the car should have been able to see her using those other sensors. These AI cars are supposed to be better at driving than we are because they can monitor what's going on in a 360 degrees around the car and aren't subject to the same light limitations that we are.

I do wonder a bit if the dashboard cam wasn't deliberately set for day and left like that for this reason. Although, it's more likely that Uber is just that incompetent and this turned out to be a lucky break.

None of these cars should be allowed to test on the road until they can, at bare minimum, demonstrate that they can see people in the roadway and apply the brakes. If any of the other systems fail,it's unlikely to result in a fatality, but failing to brake for things in your path is pretty bad.

Re:What amazing me

[fluffernutter]

That's what I don't get. It would be so simple to certify for these kinds of things before allowing on public roads. Everyone acts like it would be such an impediment. I have to demonstrate I can see without glasses for my license, otherwise I have to drive with glasses. Why does a self-driving car not have to make a basic demonstration of visual/sensor skills before being put on the road? Since self-driving largely relies on the superiority of its sensors for its safety, there should be much higher expectations for sensor testing than a human could actually perform.

Re:What amazing me

[quantaman]

is how good the damage control from Uber was. They got videos out fast with pitch black cameras that made it look like she came out of nowhere. Several days later videos popped up from locals showing the stretch of road was actually well lit. Even now I'm having a trough time finding those videos. There are stories now saying Uber's cars are behind Waymo, but I'm only just now seeing stories that say Uber should have avoided the crash. The first several /. posts about this story were riddled with comments from folks saying the crash was unavoidable and the pedestrian was completely at fault.

I'm not sure it was that good. The point of damage control is to find the least damning narrative and make that the one that sticks. Here Uber's first narrative was:

"Not our fault! The pedestrian came from the next lane and appeared out of nowhere! Totally unavoidable!!"

The moment they put out the crappy video a bunch of us could tell Uber was lying. Now their corporate credibility has taken another hit and they don't control the narrative anymore.

Now imagine Uber's narrative was more like:

"While the pedestrian was legally at fault our vehicle should have avoided the accident, and barring that, the safety driver should have been more attentive and avoided the situation. We are suspending all tests until we have determined the nature of the failure and taken steps to make sure it won't be repeated."

The beauty of that narrative is it's consistent with an accident that's almost impossible to avoid, it just sounds like Uber is being really accepting of blame. And then when it comes out they really should have avoided the accident... well the statement is still true, so it doesn't really trigger another news cycle or destroy their credibility.

I think Some of this is the media at large siding with corporations to our detriment. The big outlets (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) have long since stopped covering the story on their front page websites, even as a single link. There's a little bit of left wing press, but I heard about those videos showing how well lit the road was from a post on Ars Technical that was on my feed.

It's more to do with the news cycle, news outlets only do investigative reporting when their viewers really care, otherwise they just do events. Self-driving Uber killing a pedestrian is an event, and they covered with the sources that were available, Uber and the PD, and they both backed Uber's narrative. Now for the investigative portion only the technical press really cares (Ars Technical, Slashdot). But if that investigation turns into another event, ie the Police making another announcement or a lawsuit on behalf of the victim, well that's an event again and Uber's BS gets called out by the mainstream headlines.

Re:Monday-morning quarterbacking and spin control

[drinkypoo]

NO MORE DEATHS AT THE HANDS OF SELF DRIVING CARS! GET THEM OFF THE ROADS!

You don't actually give a good goddamn about deaths due to cars, or you'd be agitating to get rid of cars period. We do have alternatives, like PRT. Self-driving cars will kill people, but human-driven cars kill people.

Re:Monday-morning quarterbacking and spin control

[thegarbz]

Maybe that is something we should tackle first

Maybe there is more than one department / corporation in the world and we should tackle multiple problems at the same time.