Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Shutting Down Self-Driving Operations In Arizona After Fatal Crash (azcentral.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the end-of-the-road dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Arizona Republic: Uber is shutting down its self-driving car tests in Arizona, where one of the cars was involved in a fatal crash with a pedestrian in March, the company said Wednesday. The company notified about 300 Arizona workers in the self-driving program that they were being terminated just before 9 a.m. Wednesday. The shutdown should take several weeks. Test drivers for the autonomous cars have not worked since the accident in Tempe, but Uber said they continued to be paid. The company's self-driving trucks have also been shelved since the accident. Uber plans to restart testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh once federal investigators conclude their inquiry into the Tempe crash. The company also said it is having discussions with California leaders to restart testing.

67 comments

  1. Ugh by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Ugh, I was working in the self-driving unit and I just got canned. I thought it would work!

    1. Re:Ugh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I wanna be a test napper in a car.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Ugh by TWX · · Score: 1

      You really don't. Too much facing the sun so you can't really get off to sleep, and they're monitoring you on video the whole time anyway.

      The most boring days I've ever had were workdays without anything to do but sit there. Being the "driver" in a self-driving car without being allowed to do anything would be hell.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Ugh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So what is the future of Uber? Waymo is ahead on the tech, and Lyft is partnering with other SDC developers. So if Uber pulls back, they are going to get crushed on price when competing SDC rideshares are available. They are bleeding cash even at current prices ($11B burn rate last year). So how do they survive?

    4. Re:Ugh by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The amount others waste trying to build SDCs isn't really relevant to the ultimate demise of Uber.

      They don't survive, but first there is chump's money to collect.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will work, but most of the companies put marketing and PR ahead of engineering. That almost always fails, but it always looks good before failing and often makes corporate owners tons of money.

    6. Re:Ugh by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      It depends on how this effects investing, since they aren't really making money, but this should reduce their burn rate significantly.

      If a driver makes $12/hour (I feel I read that's what they make after accounting for other costs) it'll take at least 2 years for a self driving car to recoup the cost of a full time driver (a self driving car could in theory replace 2+ drivers though). That's assuming around 20k mark up for the car (which I suspect is low).

      Sure, a company with a reliable self-driving base fleet may have some advantages in costs, but I'm not sure how much. In exchange, they will have a harder time attracting drivers for the busy times, insufficient coverage during those times, or have to eat the cost of unused capital during slow times.

      Self driving cars will likely be the future, but until the tech (1) exists, and (2) is quite inexpensive it will have a hard time competing with a ride sharing company that doesn't spend that R and D money.

      Uber and Lyft both are going to face a serious crunch soon though if the economy keeps as it is, it will be more and more expensive to get drivers as they have more pressure to break even. The increased rates will eat into their edge in cities with functional cab services, and relegate them to areas such as small/medium sized cities, suburbs, and non-Manhattan New York.

      I'm sure there's money in that, but not enough to support their massive valuations, and they'll really need to start getting profitable fast to keep alive rather than selling a dream that they pretty much just shut themselves out of.

      I hope ride sharing exists, they really filled a need in my area that was unmet by the cab industry (actually showing up when you called for a casual ride was a game changer here).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it would work!

      holy fucking shit, it's a damned good thing that you got fired and hopefully you will also be blacklisted for your stupidity

  2. fr1s7 p057 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot is ded

    1. Re:fr1s7 p057 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's fr1s7 p507, dumbass. L25p311

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. By intentionally disabling safety systems... by TWX · · Score: 2

    ...and then running the cars on public roads leading to the fatal collision, they should consider themselves lucky if any jurisdiction is willing to let them run again.

    If I were a mayor or town manager I'd ban them. If the state overruled me, I'd request that my police department ensure that their vehicles do not pose a danger to the public, which would probably mean being pulled over all of the time and inspected for any violations by the commercial enforcement team. I doubt that the person behind the wheel has the ability to prove that safety systems are enabled, so that might mean a lot of vehicles get stopped, fail to prove safety, and get towed back to the shop with a fix-it ticket.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:By intentionally disabling safety systems... by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I were a mayor or town manager I'd ban them.

      That's what San Francisco did before the Arizona accident. It specifically banned Uber back in December because its self-driving car ran a red light. See video (wait until the 10 seconds mark).

      After that, Uber was allowed to test in California, just not in San Francisco. After the Arizona accident, Arizona, California, and one other State pulled Uber's permit to test cars on their public streets.

      Now Uber can only do testing on its own private track with fake pedestrians and fake bicyclists, and I really doubt that it will ever be allowed to test its cars on the public roads in California again. Thankfully, there are 50 other self-driving car companies in the US. And in the San Francisco Bay Area, I now see 7 different types of self-driving cars which seem to multiplying in numbers, I just no longer see the Uber ones anymore.

    2. Re: By intentionally disabling safety systems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's amazing about that video, is there's a pedestrian crossing after the Volvo runs the red. It was super clear it was red. That was a hit waiting to happen.

  4. The Uncanny Highway by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Must not ham humans...Must not harm humans...Must not harm humans...Must *carrier interrupted* Harm humans.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  5. Surprising by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    You'd think with all the tech they stole from Waymo/Google, they would've been better at this.

    Without autonomous cars, I wonder how Über plans to survive long-term? It seems unlikely investors will be willing to keep throwing millions and millions of dollars at them.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. So by mewsenews · · Score: 2

    Is their business model going to be kill someone in a criminally negligent fashion, pull up stakes and move to a different state? Will they run out of states or fix their technology first?

  7. You're next, Tesla by elrous0 · · Score: 0

    Stick to union busting.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. headline incorrect! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    should be "Uber Shutting Down Killbot Operations in Arizona Due to Low Effectiveness".

    Or maybe the Pentagon threw some money at them and they've taken the program black. /Alex Jones

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. "criminally negligent fashion" by gatfirls · · Score: 2

    Was this proven? I hadn't heard anything other than the droves of internet people giving their armchair forensic and legal opinions.

    1. Re:"criminally negligent fashion" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They paid off the crackheads family, real fast. Doesn't look good for them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:"criminally negligent fashion" by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Well then it doesn't look good for any company ever when there is a possibility of a lawsuit.

      This is SOP for anything every regarding any type of liability when it comes to lawyers and insurance.

    3. Re:"criminally negligent fashion" by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Where are you reading that?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:"criminally negligent fashion" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Less than a week. That's what happens when they don't want any attention.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: "criminally negligent fashion" by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Correct. All companies everywhere try to get out ahead of litigation as soon as possible.

    6. Re:"criminally negligent fashion" by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...

  10. ... intentionally disabling safety systems... by gatfirls · · Score: 2

    This isn't your facebook feed, you can't just post that kind of stuff without some sort of proof to back up that claim.

    1. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't "How To Google" either, but you look like you need a clue:

      Uber Disabled Volvo SUV's Safety System Before Fatality

      Fatal driverless crash: Radar-maker says Uber disabled safety systems

      Uber Reportedly Disabled Key Safety Feature Prior to Deadly Crash

    2. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Of course they would need to "disable" one system to enable another. Phrasing sure can show bias. I am sure the 737 I am flying on today has 'intentionally disabled safety systems' along the way. Should I be concerned, I mean if I leave out context that means there are no more safety systems.

      Do you have the article that shows how disabling those systems to use others in their place caused this accident?

    3. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't your facebook feed, you can't just post that kind of stuff without some sort of proof to back up that claim.

      I can't quite remember where I read it, but the car model has collision detection in the default configuration and would normally have performed an emergency brake when collision was imminent. All the "smart" features were disabled to run Uber's SDC software, though from what I understand this is standard practice so you don't have competing/conflicting automated systems. Nobody made a big deal of that part, it's just part of the explanation of how it could plow down that pedestrian without reacting at all - they disabled a primitive system that worked and replaced it with a sophisticated system that didn't and actually performed worse than out of the box.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a more unbiased account. An AC above posted some links and from what I can gather all it proves is that they are saying "it wasn't our systems that failed!". Hardly what the parent was trying to imply. Yes it would be a serious mess if two systems tried to take over car controls.

    5. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by TWX · · Score: 1

      And I read somewhere that not only did they disable the OEM system, but they disabled their own system too.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      They kind of said more than "it wasn't our system that failed", more along the lines of "our system would have applied the brakes 1 second before impact"
      Which is much better than plowing through the person at 30+mph. Despite the video footage being terrible and much worse than would have been seen by the OEM camera.
      At 30mph the XC90 can come to a complete stop in about 15m. Less than 1 second at that speed.

      Intel Corp.’s Mobileye, which makes chips and sensors used in collision-avoidance systems and is a supplier to Aptiv, said Monday that it tested its own software after the crash by playing a video of the Uber incident on a television monitor. Mobileye said it was able to detect Herzberg one second before impact in its internal tests, despite the poor second-hand quality of the video relative to a direct connection to cameras equipped to the car.

    7. Re:... intentionally disabling safety systems... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      though from what I understand this is standard practice

      So you're criticising a company for the standard practice of not screwing up their algorithms by running a second set over the first ones? Gotchya. Thanks for clarifying. I thought you had something relevant to say about the topic.

  11. Do you remember the good old days by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when the progress of science wasn't hindered by a few statistical accidents. The age of discoveries. The space race, when you could at least pretend mankind had its aim at the stars, even if it was mostly about political bickering between superpowers.

    Now it's all about safety and well-being for everyone, no child left behind. If there's any of that sci-fi tech around we used to dream of, we might as well put ourselves in the stasis chamber and be comfortably numb for the rest of eternity.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked NASA wasn't crashing rockets into the public during the space race.

    2. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kind of ignoring the fact that the public at large is being conscripted into this experiment aren't you, Sparky? It ain't just the guy testing the "autopilot" who's at risk. So's your sister and her kid.

    3. Re:Do you remember the good old days by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except one of the much vaunted benefits of self-driving cars is they're going to be safer than human drivers...

      Anyway, this wasn't a freak accident - the safety driver was watching their phone and not the road and, if you believe the video they released, then the car was driving too fast for the visibility conditions (the alternative is not to believe the video...)

      Even in the good ol' 60s, if Apollo 11 had landed on a civilian's head because the Heroic Astronauts were busy Tweeting then Questions Would Have Been Asked (like, "what the hell is Tweeting?")

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:Do you remember the good old days by novakyu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, the good old days when scientist like Marie Curie killed themselves with exposure to dangerous radiation, rather than the public (I mean, yes, there are "radium girls," but Curie discovered polonium, not radium).

      P.S. To be actually serious, it's a good thing for autonomous cars that unscrupulous companies like Uber will be driven out of the business (if not "out of business" altogether). There are much more competent, ethical, and less-profit-crazy companies out there. They are the future of technology, not companies like Uber.

    5. Re:Do you remember the good old days by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Is Uber profit crazy?

      they don't seem to be doing it right if they are.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it is painfully obvious their pedestrian avoidance algos are shit.

    7. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean discoveries like coal fueled power plants, leaded gasoline, CFC's, DDT, Neonicotinoids, AI behavior profiling? According to the EPA 95% of all chemicals have not undergone even minimal testing for safety or environmental impact. Considering that our technology has brought our planet into the 6th great extinction event humanity would be much better off if they contemplated all the consequences of a technology before deploying it.

    8. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      when the progress of science wasn't hindered by a few statistical accidents.

      If you're going to move 100% of your profits to Ireland, then the Netherlands and onto the Caymen Islands to avoid paying taxes, and otherwise not give back to society, don't expect society to tolerate you externalizing your research costs.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Do you remember the good old days by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Hence "crazy".

    10. Re:Do you remember the good old days by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      when the progress of science wasn't hindered by a few statistical accidents. The age of discoveries. The space race, when you could at least pretend mankind had its aim at the stars, even if it was mostly about political bickering between superpowers.

      Now it's all about safety and well-being for everyone, no child left behind. If there's any of that sci-fi tech around we used to dream of, we might as well put ourselves in the stasis chamber and be comfortably numb for the rest of eternity.

      Well, the usual ratio to consider is "risk"/"reward".

      I can see how self driving taxis benefit a taxi company. I am not seeing how they benefit me, or civilization generally.

    11. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      There’s a big difference between “a few statistical accidents” and “engaging in reckless behavior”, which is effectively what Uber has been doing. Their incident rate is known to be several orders of magnitude worse than their competitor’s, yet they’ve been testing their vehicles on public streets nonetheless. The reason they were in Arizona to begin with is because they got kicked out of California after running red lights and operating without a license. While Google and others are responsibly testing their vehicles, and yes, will have some accidents along the way, Uber is endangering the public by putting these vehicles on the road far too early.

      I’m fine with having some accidents, but these guys are doing pre-alpha tests on public roads. That isn’t something we should be supporting when the device being tested is a one ton machine capable of causing death at any moment.

    12. Re:Do you remember the good old days by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember the days when corporations were allowed to all but openly kill in pursuit of profits. Very few people remember them as the "good old days".

    13. Re:Do you remember the good old days by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Volunteering for a dangerous mission to Mars is fine, but random cyclists on public roads didn't volunteer to be part of Uber's SDC testing.

      There has to be a balance between progress and killing members of the pubic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Do you remember the good old days by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Coal power brought us into the industrial age, which was a huge step forward at the time. Without it, we probably wouldn't have all this nice technology now. At the age of coal, we didn't know any better, but we decided to move forward with the "good enough" instead of searching the best and cleanest tech forever. It's a bit like hacking up an ugly script to get your work done, vs. taking your time to do a clean modular design. Or any other case where the can-do guys get things done.

      Of course, while getting things up and running the ugly way, we should keep looking for better solutions. We should have phased out coal a long time ago, instead of letting things like trade unions get in the way of clean air. Progress and discovery means you shouldn't get too attached with one particular tech.

      As for the original article, I'm not vouching for Uber, I'm just generally disappointed at all the negative news on new technology -- it's always the death and destruction, rarely about actual progress. For instance, every time the word "algorithm" appears in the headlines, it's always about some evil data mining operation, whereas in reality it might also be about children learning to code.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    15. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the progress of science wasn't hindered by a few statistical accidents.

      Back then, they weren't testing on public roads.

      Take NASA for example, even today they aren't testing on public roads or public airports for that matter. And the "human ready to take over" is a military officer with a big red switch ready to blow the rocket up if it even starts looking like it might get near a flight corridor.

    16. Re:Do you remember the good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semi-autonomous vehicles are 100%, absolutely, and totally unsafe. A human that is only engaged part of the time isn't capable of keeping focus on the road. If the car isn't more reliable than a human in the general case, then letting it drive without a real professional (who is trained and paid extra to never lose focus) behind the wheel is unethical. I'm sorry this hurts your unstoppable drive to progress at the expense of innocent people.

      And you shouldn't believe the video. Either the camera was a $10 Alibaba special, or the video was edited to severely truncate the range. Other people have recorded videos with their phones which show the street is very well lit. Plus any legal headlights travel about 10x further along flat terrain then was shown in the video. You've been played by Uber's ass-covering division.

  12. Shut down all SDCs everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it abundantly clear this 'technology' has been rushed to market, clearly and objectively isn't up to the job, and never will be? Half-assed so-called 'AI' that really isn't 'AI' to begin with, marketing hype, and magical thinking? Haven't enough people been killed? Hasn't there been enough accidents? SHUT IT ALL DOWN, DISMANTLE IT ALL, FORGET IT EVER EXISTED.

  13. Why does it take several weeks by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    To burn the records and wipe the hard drive?

  14. Hilarity Ensues by hwihyw · · Score: 1

    Why would a taxi company even try to develop self driving cars? Why not wait for the pro's to get it right and just purchase the hardware/software from them. Here's a list of companies in the self-driving car sector: GM, Google, Daimler-Bosch, Ford, Volkswagen Group, BMW-Intel-FCA, Aptiv, Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, Tesla, Toyota, Audi, Nissan, Peugeot, ........

    1. Re:Hilarity Ensues by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Because those companies aren't going to sell the cars... not to Uber. They'll just make a fucking app themselves. Uber's only value is the install base, and that's primarily only valuable in the driver community. (They'll then make an interoperable app they all own and split the market nicely between themselves.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. So, what do GM, Ford and Fiat Crysler do? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    The next time a couple of their cars are involved in an accident, they'll stop making and selling cars.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:So, what do GM, Ford and Fiat Crysler do? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      The will cooperate with DOT and the NTSB to thoroughly investigate the accident and improve their system.

      Although I'm pretty sure the Big 3, along with BMW, Toyota, etc will have tested the 'suddenly appearing obstacle' scenario among others before they put their semi-autonomous vehicles on public roads. Sometimes you can't replace 120 years of accumulated knowledge with "disruption".

    2. Re:So, what do GM, Ford and Fiat Crysler do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The will cooperate with DOT and the NTSB to thoroughly investigate the accident and improve their system.

      Uber is doing this. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx

    3. Re:So, what do GM, Ford and Fiat Crysler do? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      I believe that one way the NTSB and other agencies can contribute usefully is to publish a reference set of scenario "test cases" based on real world accidents for self-driving car researchers and manufacturers.

      There is no reason someone else should die because their car thought a trailer crossing a roadway was a road sign, didn't recognize a stopped firetruck on the highway, or followed the wrong line into a traffic divider.

  16. Saw the video. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Back when the original crash was news, I saw the video on YouTube.

    It was apparently taken by a dashcam. The person walking a bike across the road was obscured until they were about in the lane directly ahead of the car. It wasn't clear until I looked closely, but the obscuring object seemed to be the (very out-of focus) driver's side windshield-wiper.

    If the camera had been mounted somewhere else (like on the front side of the rear-view mirror) the pedestrian would have been clearly visible.

    Which made me wonder: Is that camera just for recording a view from the driver's seat? Or is it what the auto-driving software is using for vision.

    (If the latter, WTF? Why the HELL would anyone design a self-driving system based on a camera with an obscured view of the oncoming and cross traffic, pedestrian or otherwise? If the former, why the HELL would you log, for your engineering analysis, what a separate camera sees but not what the CAR sees?)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re: Saw the video. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The video you saw was also very dark, because Uber edited it to turn down the brightness and contrast to deflect blame. That street was and is actually very well lit.

      Also, there is no legal requirement to cross at a cross walk in that area, even if there were crosswalks. This isn't an interstate highway or anything like that, just a county road.

    2. Re:Saw the video. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which made me wonder: Is that camera just for recording a view from the driver's seat? Or is it what the auto-driving software is using for vision.

      A lot of people wonder. Sensible people don't leave that conspiracy theory crap out of the "stupid ideas" section of their brain. Look at the feed, if that was being used to drive then the car wouldn't have hit the pedestrian, it would have run off the road and been wrapped around a tree.

      Now in the mean time does it seem likely that Uber would load a metric shitton of gear on the roof racks of their cars and then use a grainy cabin cam to do the driving?

      If the former, why the HELL would you log, for your engineering analysis, what a separate camera sees but not what the CAR sees?

      What makes you think in any way shape or form that they didn't log / record what the car itself saw? And if it's because you say they haven't shown it, what makes you think that anyone (not even company, but any person) would share information with the public which is obviously destined for legal hold?

    3. Re: Saw the video. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't have to edit the video.

      The video quality is exactly what you get from a cheap dashcam, the kind you can pick up for less than $100 on Ebay combined with not having set it to night mode.

      I have one of those and videos taken at night look exactly like the one from the crash.

    4. Re: Saw the video. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video you saw was also very dark, because Uber edited it to turn down the brightness and contrast to deflect blame.

      Maybe, but that just makes it worse. What the video showed was speeding with only low beams where high beams would be required. That's reckless driving at a minimum, along with a "self-driving" car that isn't even capable of self-switching on the high beams.

      How bad does the real crime need to be before one starts pretending to have been driving recklessly to deflect blame? First degree murder with a vehicle?

  17. The appropriate response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the big name AAA studios needs to add a voice-over that says "Uber Kill" when you drive over someone in their FPS game.

  18. Hmm . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost as if this tech is bullshit and doesn't actually work. Curious *the sound of billions of dollars and reams of valley smugness being flushed down the crapper* . . .