Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Could Resume Testing of Its Self-Driving Vehicles this Summer (bizjournals.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Uber could resume its testing of self-driving vehicles this summer after a long pause on the program following a fatal crash in March. From a report: The possible restart of Uber's self-driving testing comes after the company conducted an internal safety review that led to 16 recommended improvements, according to a source familiar with the matter. Those changes would all be implemented before Uber returns its vehicles to the road. The recommendations "include developing emergency braking features to help minimize collisions if the main self-driving system fails," as first reported in The Information.

56 comments

  1. Test in San Francisco or Portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Uber homeless intercept vehicle is an efficient means of culling the heard.

    1. Re:Test in San Francisco or Portland by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The Uber homeless intercept vehicle is an efficient means of culling the heard.

      Does "the heard" include everyone who can't spell "herd" properly? Just curious.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Test in San Francisco or Portland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as efficient as the Incel right wing nutjob in Maryland.

  2. When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
    Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?

    Guber driverless vehicles should be required to have a flashing light in order to let pedestrians know that as in all things, Guber doesn't follow rules, so you've been warned citizens.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still have people saying, after every "self driving car" accident that the statistics aren't there yet to prove self-driving cars are more dangerous than human drivers.

      Maybe some of these self-driving efforts should spend some time on tracks. Hell, I'd pay good money to watch the self-driving companies compete against each other in races. Put it on PPV or Pay for stream. There you go, guys. It gets all of you a chance to strut your stuff in a public forum without risking lives in city driving. You have a chance to look better than the competition. And you all get to improve by having actual, competitive driving. It isn't the same as city driving, but there'd be no choice but to constantly improve the systems driving the cars if you wanted to beat the competition. Make the tracks toss the occasional obstacle out (robots as pedestrians) and it could even help you improve your city driving possibilities. The competitions happen rain or shine, good weather, bad weather, winter weather, you name it.

      The first company to make it through a set number of races (make it a relatively large number, say 50 or so) without a crash and without wiping out a robot wandering the track gets a chance to do real world driving with their system. The rest keep competing until they break the barrier number.

    2. Re:When Uber comes to town by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      So, keeping Uber off the roads should reduce pedestrian fatalities by, oh, 0.07% this year, eh?

      Based on the number of people killed by cars with drivers in 2017, of course. No statistics available for the whole country for 2018 yet....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One story reported that the 'roadway obstacle detection system' had been turned off because it was over-reacting to plastic bags and trash in the road.

      Has Uber confirmed that this was the case and found a way to improve their system?

      In other vein, has the politician (Az Governor Ducey) who invited Uber to test their vehicles in the Phoenix Metro area been included in any of these lawsuits?

    4. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So, keeping Uber off the roads should reduce pedestrian fatalities by, oh, 0.07% this year, eh?

      Based on the number of people killed by cars with drivers in 2017, of course. No statistics available for the whole country for 2018 yet....

      I'll repeat - Remember when people were saying how safe these self driving cars were? After all, the software is not fallible as a human.

      I wonder what the pedestrain fatalities per mile driven were compared to the unsafe human driven cars?

      Regardless, the point stands - Driverless cars indeed also kill pedestrians, so sorry - they are dangerous as well. Or does getting killed only count when a human is behind the wheel?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:When Uber comes to town by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I like this idea.. you could even appeal to the public to enter new challenges. Anyone out there who finds a tricky situation in traffic can submit it for use on the track. You could have specials that model real life accident scenarios.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:When Uber comes to town by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Extrapolate those fatalities to the number of human driven cars on the road and your argument falls apart.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:When Uber comes to town by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Just because Uber messed it up does not disprove their safety. Uber tries to do everything on the cheap to boost their profits. Meanwhile Google's cars would have spotted that pedestrian with the tech they were using four years ago.

      Self driving cars can are safe, just not the el-cheapo versions Uber is trying to use.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:When Uber comes to town by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I'll repeat - Remember when people were saying how safe these self driving cars were? After all, the software is not fallible as a human.

      Nope. I remember folks saying that about Waymo/Google, but not Uber. Uber has always been a company that takes shortcuts and ignores rules/laws. Anybody expecting safe self-driving tech from them should have realized their mistake long before the first accident.

      Self-driving tech will eventually be much safer than humans, because it will be able to learn from mistakes on a scale that humans can't hope to achieve. But none of that precludes a company from taking shortcuts and, as a result, creating a dangerous solution.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:When Uber comes to town by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      More lies spouted off by the Uber PR machine.

      Uber also suspended its testing in San Francisco and Pittsburgh following the crash,

      Lie #1: Uber was permanently banned from testing in San Francisco in December several months before the crash. This is the reason why. See the video for yourself. At the time, Uber placed the entire blame on the driver saying that he was the only one driving the car and that the system was disengaged, but internal documents later obtained by the New York Times show the direct opposite of that claim. That's lie #2.

      And please note, at that time Travis Kalanick was no longer in charge, so the lying is not something they can blame on him anymore. Also note that San Francisco has nothing against self-driving cars themselves, it's currently allowing two self-driving car companies to test their cars 24/7 all over its city. And the State of California itself has nothing against self-driving cars/trucks, it is currently allowing a number of different self-driving cars and self-driving 18-wheelers to drive within its State and even on public freeways at normal speeds 24/7.

      it let its California permit for testing self-driving vehicles lapse that month.

      Lie #3: While it's correct that Uber preemptively suspended all its testing on public roads after the crash, the real truth is that California, Arizona, and one other State informed it that Uber would no longer be allowed to test on their public roads as soon as they learned of the deadly accident themselves. So letting their California permit lapse is complete hogwash too.

      And while the NTSB could give its ok, after all it's a Federal government organization under the influence of President Trump. It's very unlikely that States would allow Uber self-driving cars on their public roads ever again (unless some serious campaign contributions/bribes exchanged hands). So for that reason, I would recommend everyone to stay vigilant and be proactive about contacting your State representatives to let them know that you don't think Uber can be trusted.

      Self-driving cars and trucks are coming. That is for certain. In the US alone, there are 50+ companies working on the problem. It's just that Uber should not be one of those companies. It still lies too much. Uber is too desperate for an IPO right now. It's only interested in self-driving cars as an excuse for raising billions of dollars. That's why they've been cutting so many corners. That, and the fact that their company is still rotten to the core despite Travis no longer being CEO.

    10. Re:When Uber comes to town by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, by miles driven. And really, you should control for the traffic, road, and weather conditions in which the SDCs are operating.

    11. Re:When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the only way to keep these "el-cheapo" self-driving cars off the road is called Regulation, which is a big scary word these days. We either get the unregulated Wild West for self-driving cars, which means a lot of people killed or maimed by the technology, or we get the slow and expensive development of a regulated technology.

      In the end, even the regulated development is going to kill a lot of people, because the technological problems have been greatly underestimated. You need an artificial intelligence controlling a vehicle to make it truly safe, and that is a problem that will take a long time to solve.

    12. Re:When Uber comes to town by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Uber has always been a company that takes shortcuts and ignores rules/laws

      Based on the previous articles it sounds like they completely ignored doing MIL/SIL/HIL testing. Every issue they had should have been caught by ISO26262 requirements and traceability.

    13. Re:When Uber comes to town by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Uber isn't boosting any profits.

      They are are trying to minimize burn perhaps, and have PR wins to get more funding.

      Nothing about Uber is about making money currently.

      Their hopes are either:
      1) drive traditional cabs out of business, then charge as much as they do, but not have the overhead of maintaining their own vehicles and the logistics that includes
      2) replace drivers with automation, allowing for much lower cost of service during less peak times (they'll still need extra cars during the busy times)

      or perhaps some combo of the 2.

      Currently Uber makes no money.

      There is a third option:
      The business model is completely flowed and they're just leaching investor money until they collapse.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    14. Re:When Uber comes to town by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?

      No. Not at all. Because no one ever did. What they did say was that with consistency, repeatability, not wavering, not sleeping, and the ability to continuously improve they *will be* far safer than human drivers can ever hope to be. But absolutely no one has made a universal claim like you just have, not even really silly people.

    15. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?

      No. Not at all. Because no one ever did. What they did say was that with consistency, repeatability, not wavering, not sleeping, and the ability to continuously improve they *will be* far safer than human drivers can ever hope to be. But absolutely no one has made a universal claim like you just have, not even really silly people.

      Here's some reading material for the no one ever said that crowd:

      Some of the words: "Driverless cars are designed to have almost a superhuman-like ability to recognize the world around them. This is because they use loads of sensors to gather tons of data about their environment so that they can seamlessly operate in a constantly changing environment."

      "The more data we feed it the more vocabulary it has and the more it can recognize what a pedestrian is. And we do the same thing with bicyclists, cars, trucks, and we do it at all times of day and different weather conditions. So again, essentially it has this infinite capability to build up a memory and understanding of what all of these different types of things could encounter would look like," he said.

      "Superhuman", "Infinite ability" just non-committal words, and no doubt.

      This one gives AV lovers hard-ons The headline? "Google's Self-Driving Cars Are Ridiculously Safe' https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/...

      So safe it is ridiculous - That must be superhumanly and infinitely safe, n'est-ce pas? Did you know that if you don't believe tht, you are suffering from Dunning - Kruger effect? Right there in the article. Jebuz Kryst - I save that insult for 1 step below inviting someone into the parking lot for a fistfight, and yet this calm rational person sticks it in his article. I suspect he really feels strongly positive about that there autonomous vehicle technology to call anyone who disagrees not smart enough to differ in opinion. Those stupid luddites, we'll nave no opposing opinions.

      If you want more, you can google it, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining - People on the internet, and people in here have long been insulting others if they don't believe in the brave and safe new world that will be ours, if only we eliminate the incompetent asses behind the wheel.

      By they way - in a situation where the automobile must make adecision on who to kill in an unavoidable accident - are you willing to have your car kill you to save others? There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.

      Do you want a switch that will tell the car in such instances that you want it to save you and purposely kill others? Enjoy.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re: When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up +1000

    17. Re: When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even worse. What if you type in McDonalds and instead it only will take you to Burger King. Think about it.

    18. Re:When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guber

      Ad hominem by intentionally misnaming a person or group is childish and doesn't help your argument.

    19. Re: When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And even worse. What if you type in McDonalds and instead it only will take you to Burger King. Think about it.

      Pay enough, and no doubt this will happen at some point.

      But I've always wondered about say, getting a call from home, and your SO tells you to stop off at school to pick up one of the kids in the middle of your ride. Are you going to have to get real specific about the school? Are you going to have to pre-plan every day's travel? Things that we do automatically without a thought will have to be planned out and programmed meticulously, and changes will have to be as seamless as getting told to pick up the children, or bread, or whatever. And for the automation is simply superior to humans, will the machinery always translate whet you say perfectly?

      I don't want to trade driving for the pain in the ass that turning simple trips with simple changes might end up turning into.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Guber

      Ad hominem by intentionally misnaming a person or group is childish and doesn't help your argument.

      I was talking to you, Guber.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:When Uber comes to town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber was incredibly stupid, and should end up punished for wrongful death - as should the driver that was supposed to be in full control of the vehicle.

      Uber's vehicle spotted the pedestrian, but Uber made the decision to disable the emergency braking module. They felt that emergency braking, at the (relatively) early stage of the system's learning, was too jerky to be allowed on public roads. They relied entirely on the human driver to be attentive in an emergency, and their human driver relied entirely on the self-driving system by deciding to watch videos.

      The death wouldn't have happened had the car been set fully autonomous. It would've seen the pedestrian and stopped. The death wouldn't have happened if the driver had been attentive. Both those who disabled the emergency braking and the vehicle driver are criminally liable as the death was easily foreseeable as a consequence of their actions.

      That doesn't mean self-driving cars aren't safe. The self-driving car failed due to willful stupidity, not by any inherent flaw in computer control systems.

    22. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean self-driving cars aren't safe. The self-driving car failed due to willful stupidity, not by any inherent flaw in computer control systems.

      As Gallager said - Drive safe on the way home folks, getting killed only counts if its a holiday.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:When Uber comes to town by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      "Superhuman", "Infinite ability" just non-committal words, and no doubt.

      Yeah, great words about the ability to learn which is exactly what I said. Now go back and read what you quoted to me. I'll highlight some for you:
      The more data we feed it

      This one gives AV lovers hard-ons The headline? "Google's Self-Driving Cars Are Ridiculously Safe' https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/... [bigthink.com]

      So are you saying it's wrong? How many accidents have Google's self-driving cars caused in it's time? The answer is 1 in over 8 million kilometers of driving. That is a ridiculously AWESOME safety record, far better than even some of the best drivers out there.

      If you want more, you can google it

      Nope thanks I'll keep letting you reaffirm what I said. Got any more examples of safety far better than normal, and descriptions of self driving cars as something that has no limits to how well it will learn as we continuously feed it more info?

      Validation makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :-D

    24. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.

      You merely don't accept words like Superhuman ability, and infinite ability and claiming that anyone against it is so stupid they don't realize it and are therefore wrong - AKA Dunning Kruger - or "ridiculously safe" as examples of what my original point was. My original point was that people are expounding just how safe AV technology is. Hyperbole and insults. Well okay, some people don't see such words as anything but normal discourse..

      And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident. Does the car hit and kill the pedestrian, or drive off the cliff with you in it? Do you want the ability to choose who the car kills?

      Noted that you ignored the question the first time I asked it. this is a big issue that many proponents want to go away, to turn AV's into a sort of video game. Perhaps you would like to explain your position to the family of the dead pedestrian.

      My point is not how safe, how few bloody corpses per million miles - hype words inserted for your benefit - but that many of the proponents have displayed a marked level of hubris about the AV subject. Hubris in the mix seldom works out.well. You end up dismissing a dead person's life.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:When Uber comes to town by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.

      If you think so. Sure. But based on your inability to read I can see why you think why.

    26. Re:When Uber comes to town by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Crap I hate double replying but yeah I missed it the first time around:

      And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident.

      The question doesn't actually exist outside of any stupid theoretical mind. A car will be programmed to take the safest course of action given that it couldn't possibly know enough variables to make the decision. That course of action is to attempt to stop in a controlled way. Maybe one day in 2218 when technology is fed perfect information about friction and the value to society of everyone around it and in it, then we can re-ask the question, but my guess is by then we're either all dead, we're back in the stone age or we've eliminated accidents.

      So to answer your question: An autonomous car won't purposefully kill anyone. It doesn't have the ability to make that decision.

      My point is not how safe

      Allow me to quote something I read recently

      Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?

      Maybe you are actually Trump's alter ego.

    27. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.

      If you think so. Sure. But based on your inability to read I can see why you think why.

      You have the ability to choose what you will be. So for some reason you chose to be an asshole. I think you can do much better than that, but as you keep saying, I'm quite wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:When Uber comes to town by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.

      Like what?

      Robocars only need one rule: if there is an obstacle ahead (any obstacle) and there isn't time to safely drive around it, then hit the brakes and hope for the best.

    29. Re:When Uber comes to town by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident.

      Nobody.
      If the car just hits the brakes when there it senses an obstacle ahead, then nobody can sue the
      manufacturer since that will always be a legally acceptable choice.

    30. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.

      Like what? Robocars only need one rule: if there is an obstacle ahead (any obstacle) and there isn't time to safely drive around it, then hit the brakes and hope for the best.

      Way overly simplified There is an ethical dillemma that pops up from time to time that occurs in driving. The unavoidable accident where there is no good decision, where each decision will lead to death of people. Humans caught in such a dilemma have to make these decisions - and slamming on the brakes might be the worst possible decision Maybe hitting the two bicyclists coming the other way will kill less people than running into the10 bicyclists in your lane as you round the blind corner. Maybe driving off the cliff will only kill you. Which will it be?

      MIT has a good read on this: https://www.technologyreview.c...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:When Uber comes to town by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident.

      Nobody.

      If the car just hits the brakes when there it senses an obstacle ahead, then nobody can sue the manufacturer since that will always be a legally acceptable choice.

      Amusing - what it slamming on the brakes will cause you to be killed by the guy tailgating you at 80 mph?

      Humans must make these choices, just slamming on the brakes is one of many. Since I have occasionally avoided accidents by speeding up, hitting the brakes hard might be the worst possible decision.

      I gave you one link already from the people who might be writing the software or involved with self driving cars, here's one from the auto industry https://www.inverse.com/articl...

      You might want to call Ford and maybe MIT to let them know that you have solved the problem - Hit the brakes and hope.Who knew the answer was so simple, and the ethical dilemma solved by a random guy on Slashdot?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Bonneville by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yup, they can test all they want at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.

  4. As well they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fatal "accident" was neither an accident nor was it Uber's fault. The driver was watching American Idol or some such nonsense instead of watching the road as he was paid to do.

    Self-driving cars are orders of magnitude safer than human driven vehicles. And this crash was yet another example of human fallibility.

    Had the vehicle been properly configured to allow the computer to do what it was designed to do, the two failures in this case (the human deadbeat driver and the human dumbass pedestrian) would have been routed around and disaster easily averted.

    1. Re:As well they should by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Humans drive 3.22 billion miles a year and get into around 19 million accidents. That's a little under 170K miles successful between each accident. Let's ignore the fact that humans achieve this rate through snow storms, whether there is a clearly marked road sometimes with damaged signage, I would propose 170K miles should be the goal for an unmanned automated vehicle to reach before they are called 'as safe as humans'.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:As well they should by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sorry, 3.22 trillion *

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:As well they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The accident was entirely Uber's fault. The self-driving system was aware of the pedestrian but refused to stop. It could have been aware earlier if Uber had working LIDAR.

      The monitoring system was designed in a way that human monitoring of the road was very unlikely - a known flaw of such systems: if human intervention is too infrequent, than humans don't keep alert. Trains and airplanes had simple workarounds for this for decades, but Uber was just too cheap. Oh, and they hired a felon as a driver, and cut down on the second tester position.

      I'm sure self-driving cars will be safer than human driven cars - so long as Uber isn't involved.

    4. Re:As well they should by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      People are people. They can not stay focussed on a boring task for a long time. Failing to account for this when planning the test is a failure on the part of the designers.

  5. Innovation must continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont condone what happened in that accident. She should have been paying attention, jail and move on.

    In addition to the improvements,

    1. They could also add cameras which detect when the driver is not focusing on the road since this is an internal test.

    2. The Uber tester/driver should also be trained to help the AI mark subtle environmental changes which are only going to be noticed during a real life situation rather than just playbacks on a tv screen by developers.

    As unfortunate as this was, we cannot let innovation stop, if they would have stopped construction of airplanes just because of an accident. we would still be cocooned societies nations and cultures.

    On top, self driving cars will free up time and money for the middle class.

    1. Re:Innovation must continue by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      1. would be difficult to do. They may have their eyes open and looking forward, but still difficult to remain split-second responsive when you haven't had to do anything for an hour. I think they should have to answer constant questions about what is happening in the traffic ahead. Things like "what color car just turned onto the road in front of you", and "what is the upcoming cross street?"

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Innovation must continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are decades of data in the railroad industry about Driving Safety Devices (also known as 'SIFA' in some countries), which are meant to solve this exact problem. One type of such systems use special breaks that have to be pressed every X seconds or the train is coming to a halt. Granted, we can't use this exact solution in SDCs (parking aside isn't always possible or desirable), but we can come very close.

  6. all safety drivers will now be 1099'ers and need t by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    all safety drivers will now be 1099'ers and need to take full liability

  7. Internal Review by Luthair · · Score: 2

    Seems good. /rubberstamp

    1. Re:Internal Review by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Seems good. /rubberstamp

      the company conducted an internal safety review that led to 16 recommended improvements

      Hopefully, one of those 16 is requiring the safety driver to pay attention and not watch pop TV shows while monitoring the car.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Internal Review by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Obviously government regulation improvements should be called for as well. Expecting companies to 'self regulate' is an extreme conflict of interest.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Internal Review by slipped_bit · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      And hopefully one of those 16 is also having the obstacle detection system turned on, which it wasn't during the fatal crash.

    4. Re:Internal Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government regulations" translates to "slow and expensive" research.

  8. Give it up Uber by jacks+smirking+reven · · Score: 1

    Optimistically you are in 4th place in self driving tech Behind Waymo Cruise and Tesla (and really no-one is close to Waymo with 7M miles logged and 80k vehicles on order) This accident showed how far behind they really are and from the details of their legal fight it shows how Waymo was really right all along about Levandowski and the methods he wanted to take. He wanted to push the envelope and get vehicles on the road when they wanted to be conservative and test as much as possible. Now that $500M for Otto is down the tubes with nothing to show for it. Give it up and focus on competing with Lyft and improving your core service.

    1. Re:Give it up Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm
      https://www.investinontario.com/spotlights/blackberry-qnx-pole-position-autonomous-car-race
      http://blackberry.qnx.com/en/blackberry-qnx-autonomous-vehicle-innovation-centre

  9. NIMBY by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Uber could resume its testing of self-driving vehicles this summer after a long pause

    Don't care as long as they do it somewhere else I don't literally get crushed by their arrogance and stupidity and greed.

  10. We could use this in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber vehicles would clean of the homeless problem in no time...