Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Prosecutor Says Uber Not Criminally Liable In Fatal Self-Driving Crash (reuters.com)
Uber is not criminally liable in a March 2018 crash in Tempe, Arizona, in which one of the company's self-driving cars struck and killed a pedestrian, prosecutors said on Tuesday. "The Yavapai County Attorney said in a letter made public that there was 'no basis for criminal liability' for Uber, but that the back-up driver, Rafaela Vasquez, should be referred to the Tempe police for additional investigation," reports Reuters. From the report: Vasquez, the Uber back-up driver, could face charges of vehicular manslaughter, according to a police report in June. Vasquez has not previously commented and could not immediately be reached on Tuesday. Based on a video taken inside the car, records collected from online entertainment streaming service Hulu and other evidence, police said last year that Vasquez was looking down and streaming an episode of the television show "The Voice" on a phone until about the time of the crash. The driver looked up a half-second before hitting Elaine Herzberg, 49, who died from her injuries. Police called the incident "entirely avoidable."
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating.
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating.
in their new election?
Why don't you get a real job? You make Slashdot SUCK.
Republican police called the incident "entirely avoidable."
how involve can they be?
Chuck the robot car in jail and make it repay its debt to society!
A special jail for corporate entities who are criminally liable. :rolleyes: bwahahaha
Just take the settlement check and shuddup already.
For following the law? Not many Republicans then.
That is precisely what they are there for. Every autonomous vehicle will need a human for backup. That human doesn't need as much training as they normally would. They just need to be able to know how and when to take over when needed.
Cheaper drivers mean lower shipping costs. Having humans in place means having scapegoats in case of failure. And no matter what anyone tells you, the moment a truly AI vehicle has a serious crash, the company behind it will be facing serious litigation. No one else responsible, no one else to pass the buck off to, than the creator of the AI.
That's part of the reason why it is such a joke. At least compared to the marketting hype.
Arizona wants Uber investment dollars so they would gladly scape goat an Uber employee while giving the company a mulligan. Reminds me of the Arab Bank Supreme Court decision last year where the court dismissed a lawsuit against a foreign company that funded terrorism because the precedent would be bad for business. The legal partiality for the corporate person over the individual is becoming more and more apparent.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
I think that you are referring to Maximum Homerdrive
Human drivers are liable for breaking traffic laws when using company-owned vehicles. This isn't new. Just because this vehicle was testing autonomous driving doesn't mean the human sitting inside is exempt from liability. She had one job while sitting in that car, and it wasn't watching videos on her phone.
Secondly, it was found that Uber isn't criminally liable; they could still be hit with a civil suit.
Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a mighty voice
Big money make no sound
Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a mighty web
Big money draw the flies
Mmmmm...hogfat.
back-up driver needs to get source code and logs if they go to CRIMINAL COURT. and if they try any of the NDA / EULA BS then YOU MUST ACQUIT!
too many subcontractors to just blame uber.
I interviewed at their ATG and the stuff out of the software lead's mouth were terrifying. More people are going to die via Uber.
They think the TUV (~German NTSB) is a bunch of academics that don't know what they're talking about. I asked explicitly about HIL testing (dSpace sells computer vision testing benches).
This software shouldn't have made it off the bench. They're chasing profit and first to market and relying on the 'driver' to be both a calibration engineer and a failsafe.
The NTSB should start digging around their PA offices, IMHO.
This will ALWAYS happen with autonomous driving.
Time for Uber to pay up.
A $100 million fine sounds reasonable to me.
. . . when Republicans try to execute one.
As I recall, the police already found that the dead pedestrian was at fault. I remember because I disagreed with that finding. But I also disagree with letting the corporation off the hook while intimating that the "backup driver" might be prosecuted.
Uber's self-driving functionality worked well enough that few people would be able to remain vigilant behind the wheel for an extended period of time. It worked well enough that the driver felt comfortable entrusting her own life to the system. I'm sure prosecutors can prove all the elements of some charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think this woman should be criminally sanctioned for what is the literally-unprecedented failure of an autonomous vehicle resulting in human death.
I would make an exception if the crime was something non-stigmatizing like using a cell phone while driving, because a misdemeanor conviction should make it much easier for the victim's family to win a lawsuit against Uber without ruining the driver's life.
who will be liable if an autonomous car that's put into operation without a backup safety driver injures or kills someone?
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time. So sticking this on a under trained backup driver with poor systems in place + really bad video that looks like was made to make uber look good is very bad.
This is the moment, this is the checkpoint where the hype meets reality. You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame, and it doesn't pay enough. And the driverless car isn't able to do this task on its own without a driver, per the evidence of this case. The law will not protect you, per this case. Does the 'backup driver' have sufficient control to avoid dangerous situations in the first place? Are there traps they can't avoid even if they were not on their phone? Did the company sufficiently explain to the driver that they were not actually in reserve for backup duty, but that they were from the first moment the legal and primary operator of that vehicle? If not, I could understand why they were on their phone; waiting for some timely and orderly signal to pay attention and resume operation of the vehicle. If I was on the jury for that individual, I would need to know that information. This is new and unproven technology, and quite-frankly, the state allowed it. The state suddenly refers this case for prosecution of the individual?
Even if this driver wasn't watching their phone, there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second. There are numerous tragedies in trains, and planes already to demonstrate this problem; and those are cases that are actually simpler from an automation perspective. Additionally, Tesla (inaptly-named ) Autopilot has its history.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car. Will some hapless engineer be responsible? the person who assembled the car? The CEO? The person who hailed the car?
Maybe Google or Tesla, or xyz is a different case, but I doubt it. I suspect they will suffer from the same hype of delivering 80% of the solution and claim victory (or perpetually just 2 years away.) The last 19.999% to ensure reasonable safety and availability under all conditions may be nearly impossible and I'm not hearing much talk about it. Maybe in constrained scenarios it might be better odds, but who is responsible for those decisions?
Is lesser cases, who gets the traffic ticket when a driverless car exceeds the speed limit? (Do driverless cars pull-over if a cop car is behind them?) Will people pay for cars that refuse to speed?
when they become conscious, we can sue them :)
[($)]
Just say you didn't see the old lady/cyclist/kid in the road, or that you feared for your life. Gets you off Every (every?) Every time.
And it helps if you aim at the dark-skinned ones.
ooo, calm down, trumper. truth bites!
Worth noting somewhere in here that Uber intentionally disabled all object-detection stoppage in order to "tune for a smoother ride" so the basic automatic braking was never implemented at all. On top of that, who is responsible for enforcing the very basic attention to the job that the drivers should require?
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car. Will some hapless engineer be responsible? the person who assembled the car? The CEO? The person who hailed the car?
How about the person who ran out in front of a car? Would this be any different if the person ran out in front of a train?
You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame
Hold up. While it's tempting to think this case is the bar we're setting. Consider the released footage of the driver for a second. Imagine any industry where you look away from a machine in motion for that long, yeah, you're at fault for your reckless behavior. Like if I was watching a show on my phone while operating a table saw, yeah, I really wouldn't have a strong case for an injury lawsuit.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second
Bull fucking shit. It's about as disconnected as using cruise control and asking people to keep tabs on how fast or slow traffic is going. Just keep your goddamn eyes on the fucking road, it's not brain surgery.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car
No, there's no guessing, because when we get to that point, we'll have laws that outline who is at fault and the kinds of insurance a company needs to operate a fully driverless machine. I get we like to rag on politicians here at Slashdot, but you can't deny there's going to be dollar signs that pop up into someone's eyes about regulating fully automatic machines interacting with the general public. If anything greed will put short work to wild-wild-west style self-driving cars.
Basically the rest of your comment is "We don't know ABC..." Yeah, we don't but we can base it off of what we do know and go from there. Your comment is the Webster's definition of Luddite. No one has every answer, that's not a reason to stop doing anything. Yeah, there's going to be complication and people will get killed along the way, add that to the pile of 103 folks who died today in the US driving somewhere or the 15,000 people who were involved in some sort of highway collision. I mean shit dude, if we didn't do something simply because we didn't have all the answers upfront, fuck, we'd all be dead of preventable diseases. What is the point of your drivel here? That something new is complicated? Wow, big reveal there.
I disagree with your point about cruise control. It's actually quite difficult to smoothly come in and out from cruise control on any cruise control because you're not already actively driving.
Similarly, one of my big fears of things like adaptive cruise control is how do you really know it's not working until it's way too late ? If it's keeping you 3 seconds back, do you take over when your car is 2 seconds back ? 1? You're already in a dangerous position.
I don't mind regular CC because it's basically an extension of myself. Adaptive I can't get used to trusting.
> Hold up. While it's tempting to think this case is the bar we're setting. Consider the released footage of the driver for a second. [theguardian.com] Imagine any industry where you look away from a machine in motion for that long, yeah, you're at fault for your reckless behavior. Like if I was watching a show on my phone while operating a table saw, yeah, I really wouldn't have a strong case for an injury lawsuit.
You have a point, but conversely: people are really, really, really bad at vigilance tasks, where they are supposed to monitor something that almost always goes right, look for something that almost always doesn't appear, etc. Asking someone to be a vigilant backup driver for 4 hours may be a lot harder than driving for 4 hours.
Although the driver definitely deserves criticism for her actions, this ruling is very convenient for Uber.
This means that they can relax significantly when it comes to the safety of the testing vehicles; if an accident happens, the courts says it's the driver's fault. Uber can sit back and blame the driver. Very handy.
The court should take into account the hazards posed to the public; if a company tests out new driving technology on public roads where the sole purpose is to disconnect the driver from the driving task, the hazards arising from the driver actually becoming disconnected should be taken into account. Especially, the automotive safety standard (ISO-26262) explicitly states that 'foreseeable misuse' MUST taken into account in the hazard analysis.
Is 'using the phone in the car while driving' a foreseeable misuse? You bet it is. We have all seen it (and done it). NHTSA has emphasized this in a recent report, saying that this is not only applicable for L3 and L4 AD systems, but even for L2 systems: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nh...
So, if the hazard analysis identifies this risk, but the company neglects to handle it in such a way that someone gets killed, shouldn't it be held liable? I think so. If the company neglects to perform a proper hazard analysis (i.e. not using established, acknowledged standards and best practice) and therefore misses hazards and therefore have someone killed, shouldn't they be held liable? I think so.
Ergo; I think Uber needs to be held responsible for this.
Nice try but we know that if operators are relieved of too much work, their attention will start to drift. And there are other examples of catastrophic consequences of automation.
These "automation surprises" where nobody knows who's in control are like the old quote, "A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You programmed it, you built it, you set it up, you put it on the roads. Not your fault though.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Bull fucking shit. It's about as disconnected as using cruise control and asking people to keep tabs on how fast or slow traffic is going. Just keep your goddamn eyes on the fucking road, it's not brain surgery.
Then why not just drive yourself? I mean if you have to pay as much attention to a vehicle you are not in primary control of then just take primary control. It's a lot easier to remain focused on the road when you are the driver and not the passenger.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
if they try any of the NDA / EULA BS then YOU MUST ACQUIT!
But what if Chewbacca lives on Endor?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If you buy an autopilot car, it's because you don't want to hassle about trafic issues. If, anyway you must watch on the road and drive accordingly, the main use of an autopilot is blown away. So don't buy an autopilot car!
I wonder how this will play out down the road? Will the human always be to blame when automation fails? So the vehicle's self driving system was the primary driver at the time, the driver was simply a backup. Its like blaming the passenger when the driver crashes a car.
Worth noting somewhere in here that Uber intentionally disabled all object-detection stoppage in order to "tune for a smoother ride" so the basic automatic braking was never implemented at all.
Wrong; they disabled the manufacturers auto-breaking system and replaced it with one of their lown.
That would be the driver.
Did Uber consider monitoring their backup drivers? With all the snazzy tech for a self driving car they could not fathom a low paid temporary staff might try to pass the time by doing something else besides paying attention? Basic AI could alert Uber their driver not paying attention. Seems like this would be a prerequisite before letting a car loose.
These "automation surprises" where nobody knows who's in control
That would be substantially more convincing of the links corresponded to the points you were trying to make, and were not completely unrelated.
Yes because when a pilot flies an airplane with autopilot "they don't need as much training as they normally would".
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
A person would have at least lost their license to drive. Just saying. Again large corporation gets off scott free. I look forward to a future where millions of self-driving car passengers with no control over the car get held responsible for them just like getting held responsible for an accident in a taxi or a bus today. That's going to be awesome.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
When airline pilots make an error worth prosecuting, there is generally not enough left of them to identify, let alone prosecute.
Also there is a fucking world of difference between "made an error" and "decided to watch a TV show instead of working".
You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame
Not at all. The driver didn't get the blame because a self driving Uber killed someone or because they weren't able to avoid an accident. The driver got the blame because they didn't do their job at all while at the same time also illegally operating a motor vehicle.
If you want to spend all day watching TV then maybe you should should become a TV critic rather than an Uber backup driver.
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
Only because airline pilots often die due to their mistakes. And calling this a "pilot error" is disingenuous. Sorry wrong word. err. No it's absolutely fucking stupid. The person didn't make an error, they outright were not attempting to remotely do the job they were being paid to do all while operating a motor vehicle illegally.
Even if Uber was 100% liable the driver should still be charged with manslaughter for their actions.
I think the problem is the idiotic mentality to hire the cheapest.
Autonomous cars in Germany usually have 2 or 3 passengers, one the obvious back up driver, and the others are engineers. They keep each other awake and pay attention and usually have diagnostic screens active and a laptop connected to the car system.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
put the trail on hold till he get's hear.
Bad analogy - you're not the backup operator for your table saw , it doesn't operate itself , you have to operate it therefore you're 100% in charge of it. However if it was an automated saw and all you were supposed to do was tell it what to cut and it did it and you were there just to sit and watch it for hours then it suddenly goes wrong and cuts someone in half for the 30 seconds you're not watching it then would you really be at fault?
Very good point. Also, the whole point of an automated driver (if we can pretend for a moment that there is one) is so that the person in the car doesn't have to pay attention.
It's quite a pickle. If the driver is responsible then the auto-driving feature is pointless. If the driver is not responsible, then what? We start suing machines? Will it be the car maker's fault? No. You were responsible to read the EULA, after all. The part where it says they're not responsible will no doubt be right below where it says they will collect data about you while you drive and that you are not allowed to remove or obstruct the microphones.
Safe trip. :)
Let's have where some one loses there kid in a self driving car (with no manual control) crash and they are held criminally liable and go to prison.
In prison they learn how to be an criminal FF to them getting out and after the life of mc job's and no health care they so I had it better in lock up so they hunt the down the CEO of the self driving car corp and KILL there son SAYING NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LOSE YOUR KID!!! AND I DON'T GIVE A DAM LOCK ME UP I LIKED IT.
The software developers are 100% responsible for the accident.
Put the software developers to death I say. Everytime a software developer works on something against the people, like Internet ads or tracking for example, they should be strung up like the traitors they are.
I disagree with your point about cruise control. It's actually quite difficult to smoothly come in and out from cruise control on any cruise control because you're not already actively driving.
Similarly, one of my big fears of things like adaptive cruise control is how do you really know it's not working until it's way too late ? If it's keeping you 3 seconds back, do you take over when your car is 2 seconds back ? 1? You're already in a dangerous position.
I don't mind regular CC because it's basically an extension of myself. Adaptive I can't get used to trusting.
Cruise Control is for maintaining a consistent vehicle speed, that IS IT. If you can't transition out of cruise control quickly or smoothly enough to avoid a potentially dangerous system then you shouldn't be driving a car. Adaptive cruise control doesn't keep you a specific number of seconds behind a vehicle, it keeps you at a distance range. If you're not able to tell if and when it is working properly then I suggest that you NOT use this feature.
I'm pretty sure (but happy to be corrected) that individual states are responsible for administering the rules that govern whether a self-drive vehicle can be permitted on public roads. I'n not sure where that leaves access to Federally-maintained interstates, however.
But the real question here concerns "fitness to drive". Today, if you want to drive a vehicle on the road, unsupervised, you have to pass a driving test. You have to be able to demonstrate to an examiner that you can control the vehicle safely, navigate, follow road directions, conduct emergency stops, etc.
I'm not aware of any state that actually conducts driving examinations of autonomous vehicles. So how, exactly, can the public be given any assurance that the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles are safe? The answer is that states have produced their own set of requirements for autonomous vehicles. I've only read those requirements from California, but they are pretty complex - and, more importantly, there doesn't appear to be much energy or interest in rigorous enforcement.
This really feels like a loophole in regulatory oversight that is being, if not exploited, then certainly used, by manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. The whole point about having laws and regulations is to stop this sort of accountability from "vanishing down the cracks" between two or more other pieces of regulation. If the prosecutor finds that the authors of the self-drive software are not liable, then safeguards need to be put in place to limit functionality in such a way that it forces the person at the wheel of the vehicle to remain attentive and ready to intercede at a moment's notice.
The current laws for these tests require an operator. Ultimately it's their responsibility. This finding has 0 precedence to a case that occurs once an attentive driver is no longer a requirement.
I'm curious if this will end up setting precedence in the courts. Sure, a DA deciding to refer isn't a court ruling, but it's heading that way. The question then becomes, if my SDC, with no one in it, kills someone while my car is going to pick up my kid from school, am I liable? I think the answer is yes.
Not at all. The driver didn't get the blame because a self driving Uber killed someone or because they weren't able to avoid an accident. The driver got the blame because they didn't do their job at all while at the same time also illegally operating a motor vehicle.
You can't have it both ways. A self driving car should not require a driver and conversely, if a driver is required then the car isn't really 'self driving', is it? Uber's job title for these backup drivers is 'Mission Specialist' and I would bet good money that before the accident NONE of those specialists were told outright that they were the legal operator of the vehicle they were babysitting. It's obvious that the software running these self driving cars is nowhere NEAR ready for prime time and they shouldn't be allowed on the street. In fact, Uber now requires 2 mission specialists to be in every self driving car, which makes that moniker even MORE of a joke.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
The old adage if you think your application is fool proof, set a fool in front of it and they will prove you wrong.
Same thing applies here.
I have driven many times in that area at night and people are idiots when it comes to crossing the street.
Drunk, not paying attention, not using cross walks. Arizona has one of the highest pedestrian deaths in the nation because of stupid people.
So if people are getting run over by humans on a consistent basis, it makes sense that a computer would run someone over as well.
This time the fool is in front of the car.
What an incredibly horrible precedent this sets. Corporations can *literally* get away with murder so long as machines do it.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
This is the moment, this is the checkpoint where the hype meets reality.
Yep, but the reality train of pain isn't for the job of backup driver... Its for all the idiots who believe autonomous cars mean they can sit back and watch a movie whilst the car does everything.
Because you're still in control of the vehicle, this means you're liable for what the vehicle does.
there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second.
This is why autonomous cars won't be allowed for decades, let alone are right around the corner. Machines are a long way from being able to tell a leaf from a child, most do not even take into account the trajectory of a moving object, as was evidenced in the Uber Arizona case. The pedestrian was detected, but it didn't consider it a hazard.
Still the driver.
Its the same as it is today, unless a manufacturing defect with the vehicle can be positively identified the responsibility falls to the individual in control of the vehicle. With an autonomous vehicle the person giving the instructions is still in control from a legal standpoint.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
That's because most of the time they don't kill or injure people.
Same as most driver errors do not have criminal proceedings. For mistakes not including a fatality or serious injury, you're dealing with insurance, not the cops.
When people die due to pilot error, the pilot is definitely charged... Its rare because if the pilot is making an error big enough to kill a passenger, the pilot is usually killed as well.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Pilots bear SOLE responsibility for the operation of their aircraft, even under autopilot, etc. Up to and including failures that should have been caught by pre-flight inspection or following ATC instructions that are dangerous. The Pilot In Command responsible for the safety of the flight and is authorized, expected to verify the condition of their aircraft and deviate from instructions that are potentially dangerous.
The PIC is essentially GOD of that aircraft and bears all the responsibility.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
This was an experimental vehicle. You might say that an experimental vehicle should not be on the public roads, but no matter what bar you set for autonomous vehicles at some time there will be a point where you let them on the roads. At that point they will still, by definition be experimental.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job. The only important question here for culpability is: Was the safety backup driver, in the view of a competent person, behaving in a manner that allowed them to do their job or were they negligent? If the answer is no they might be criminally libel.
Fully autonomous vehicle will not require a backup safety driver, but we are not there yet. The only way we will get there is to allow experimental vehicles on the roads with competent human backup drivers.
When autonomous vehicles are finally sold to the public the liability will be held by the manufacturers. They will likely turn to insurance companies to cover that liability and bake the cost into the price of the vehicle.
Because this was an experimental vehicle. There was no passenger. There was a safety observer who was being paid to stay alert and monitor the car's operation.
When a fully autonomous vehicle becomes available it will not require someone to monitor it. That's why it will be autonomous and why people will pony up the money for it.
It is an experimental self driving car. The only reason to have a "mission specialist" is to monitor the car and ensure that it's experimental control system does not fail and cause damage.
I would expect that Uber absolutely informed the "mission specialists" they were responsible for the operation of the vehicle, else why have them? There is absolutely no proof they did not.
You are trying to cover up for the incompetent behavior of the "mission specialist" in question, who was streaming a TV show while they were suppose to be working.
that Uber disabled safety features to make the ride smoother for a Demo to their CEO and then forgot to turn them back on. It was on Ars.
I'm not sure how that effects things, but it probably should have been investigated more.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Autonomous cars don't have to be better than the beat drivers. They only have to be better than the median drive, which, unfortunately is not a high bar.
I've seen drivers on their phones totally oblivious to what was happening on the road. Several times I've seen people reading books, newspapers and magazines while driving. People are generally speaking lousy drivers.
If autonomous cars reduce the number of accidents and the cost to insurance companies they will be on the roads. Only knee jerk emotion will keep them off, and only in some countries. If the U.S. does not develop the technology someone else will and they will garner the benefits.
The real point of auto driving systems is to generate marketing hype to sell new vehicles, regardless to if it works or not. Companies know they don't have to deliver, they simply need to keep up with competitors.
"Let the engineers figure it out now, we've already sold it."
The law enforcement is using a very special net. It will catch all the little fish, while letting the big ones escape.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A Singapore Airline pilot took off on a runway undergoing maintenance. Bulldozers and cranes were on that runway, 2 or 3 km from the starting point. Plane collided with them. They prosecuted him for being negligent.
France too had prosecuted some pilots for disobeying the safety rules.
Surprisingly, in the USA, the land of liability litigation, FAA and NTHSB has somehow managed to give immunity to the pilots, as long as they dont cover up anything. As long as every mistake, every violation of protocol is strictly documented, whether it results in an accident/incident or not, there is immunity from prosecution for those mistakes.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I also immediately thought of Solyndra and similar green slush fund companies. Of course, Solyndra never sold a product, and nobody ever tried to stop them, so you can't really say anyone killed Solyndra other than their own leadership. I don't know if they actually INTENDED to eventually sell a product, or to just keep taking tax money while repeatedly announcing plans to make solar panels "real soon now". Republicans sure had fun with Obama getting auckered into that, though.
They took the standard Kickstarter vaporware hype scam up to 11 and Obama went all in. Of course, Kaiser had given Obama almost $100,000 at that point, so I guess Oabma owed him a press conference.
What if the car avoids hitting a street crossing kindergarten class, by driver you into a tree.
Which makes sense since this will hurt only the driver, not multiple kids.
Another one I thought of is Planned Parenthood. Republicans have been trying to kill that for a while.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Obviously the driver has a lot of blame in this and should be punished the same as any other inattentive driver.
But for Uber to be able to throw the driver to the wolves and take no responsibility is infuriating to me.
Uber has just as much responsibility in this as the driver because it is their experiment, this wouldn't have happened if they hadn't put that car on the road.
For the buck to stop at the lowest rung really does not seem right at all.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job.
How do you know that?
You have no idea what that person was hired to do. You have no idea what that person was trained to do. No idea what Uber told them their job was.
We both have an idea what the job should have entailed, but that's way different than actually knowing what it did entail. More than likely, if this goes to trial that's going to be the driver's #1 defense.
If Uber can pull out evidence that the driver was told that it was their responsibility to make sure the car didn't hit anything, and was trained in how to mitigate accidents, the driver is going to be SOL. However, knowing Uber, I'd put good money on that never having happened. Subcontractor of a subcontractor was most likely hired to be a "backup driver", shown how to start the self-driving bit which was pre-programmed, and then turned loose to sit in and dick around on their phone while the car did its thing. "If it can't complete the route, just drive it back."
If someone hires me to do a job, what they train me to do isn't sufficient to prevent accidents, AND they don't tell me that they've disabled safety devices, that's 100% on them. This is all going to come down to the job description and training, and whether or not Uber made it abundantly clear that they were in charge of the vehicle, or if they were just along for the ride.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
That's for sure.
Most Republicans see Pllanned Parenthood in one of two ways:
A. They are in the business of murdering babies. ...
B. It's not quite the same as murdering babies, let me see if I can explain the difference
If your perspective is A, Planned Parenthood is literally similar to the Nazis, and you definitely want to put a stop to it.
If your perspective is B, "not technically murdering babies, there is a subtle difference" also sounds like a pretty horrible thing!
That's what I find interesting. Some people think using a straw should be a crime, while "not *exactly* killing babies for profit" is perfectly fine. How can one be in love with government enough to think outlawing a large soda is a good idea, but when it comes to "it's slightly different from murdering babies", suddenly they are all about freedom?
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job.
Nonsense. The problem here was that the technology was obviously not tested sufficiently to be safe on a public road. Self driving technology that cannot discern, and then stop for or otherwise avoid an obstacle, is absolutely not ready to be operated on a public road, with or without a back up driver. The failure of the back up system is a secondary problem.
Wrong; they disabled the manufacturers auto-breaking system and replaced it with one of their lown.
This is the way I understand it as well. I believe Volvo's technology would have stopped the car in plenty of time to avoid the pedestrian. Uber's didn't even try, not even when the pedestrian was only a few feet away. Not even a blip on the radar. It is outrageous that Uber put such blatantly disfunctional technology on a public road at all.
How about "life guard" or "airline pilot." If you watch life guards, then watch for like 30 minutes or so, then switch with another guard. That's because if you stare at the same area of water for long periods of time you completely tune-out. Pilots similarly have a process where the pilot and copilot say to each other something like "scanning 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3'oclock..." because otherwise staring at an empty sky totally desensitizes you. Human brains are terrible watchdogs.
You can't put a person in a car for 8 hours with literally nothing to do and expect them to be alert and vigilant. That's just not how our brains work. There's plenty of blame to go around for this woman's death, but Uber cheaping out by putting only one person in the test vehicle gets a good chunk of it. And by doing this on public roads they're putting all of us at risk, and that should be criminal.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
FWIW, there is evidence that the footage was tampered with to reduce contract and make everything look darker. "Tampered with" may be wrong, since I don't know that the actual details, as opposed to the visual display of them, were actually hidden. But other cameras recording the same scene didn't show it as that dark at all. They weren't good enough to record the necessary detail, but they did record the general level of illumination.
So I guess it's possible that Uber was just using a grossly substandard camera rather than dicking with the display of the evidence. But the prior analysis I read indicated that the guy doing the analysis believed the scene was intentionally displayed at a lower level of illumination that was accurate. He was working off the released video, however, not off the original recordings.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Uber knew, or had reason to know, that the job asked of the "backup driver" was impossible. Perhaps the "backup driver" or "mission specialist" is *also* to blame, but the primary blame should be on Uber. He is merely an accomplice before the fact.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
this backup-driver may need a $300/hr Attorney if they go to court as there is a lot of stuff in this case that can get them off but they need to flight it out and not plea bargain also take the bail bond as well you don't want to get stuck in tent city jail.
The family knew that the case would be long & costly so they took an quick settlement.
Why the fuck is this modded troll? Should be insightful. Little kids on slashdot cant handle truth?
Which language was that typed in?
Sorry, the paragraph break separated the link from the related point. Removing the break makes things clearer:
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
No, their self-driving cars have their own ability to detect objects and stop. They intentionally disabled this feature because false positives caused what they felt to be too frequent stoppages.
How do you propose we know when a technology is "safe enough" to be tested on a public road, since we can expect that public road testing will reveal new defects and weaknesses?
I'm not quibbling that Uber really fucked up. I just think that it's reasonable to think that we can't get the technologies to be perfectly safe relying on recorded data of other driving and test-track scenarios.
Obviously extensive testing on public roads is and should be a requirement before the technology can be put into general use. But closed course testing should have been more than sufficient to iron out whatever bugs were present that could have allowed the car to plow into an obstacle without even a hint of recognition. In this case, a failure to slow down in a smooth manor, or to get a little too close to the pedestrian as it passed, would be the kind of bugs I'd be expecting here. Absolutely not a complete failure to even notice the obstacle.
I'm really fed up with this...
The backup driver did nothing wrong. She was paying attention to the instrumentation, exactly as trained. The whole "watching a movie" trope is utter bullshit supported by no evidence more convincing than some random trolls here on /. and elsewhere.
The "family" didn't give a shit about her, otherwise she wouldn't have been living on the streets. They only "cared" when they thought they could get money out of the incident.
The woman crossing was in the wrong for illegally crossing, in the dark, directly in front of a car she could see coming miles down the road. The woman in the car was in the wrong for not doing her job as a tester and paying attention to the road (though I doubt ANY human could have reacted quickly enough to stop the car). Uber, surprisingly, didn't actually do anything wrong this time.
Untested Emergency Automatic Braking systems are incredibly dangerous and require extensive validation. You slam on your brakes and a motorcyclist behind you dies.
And as of today vehicles aren't legally required to have one, so disabling the feature doesn't make your vehicle any less safe or less legal than the hundreds of millions of older vehicles on our roads without an EAB.
Untested Emergency Automatic Braking systems are incredibly dangerous and require extensive validation. You slam on your brakes and a motorcyclist behind you dies.
This is complete nonsense. That's only true if the motorcyclist behind you is actively looking for the Darwin award. Would it be better to stop even faster than the cycle could under the best of conditions by slamming into a car? Would it be better to flatten an innocent pedestrian than to test the reflexes of a motorcyclist who is following too closely and/or not paying paying attention? I think not.
And as of today vehicles aren't legally required to have one, so disabling the feature doesn't make your vehicle any less safe or less legal than the hundreds of millions of older vehicles on our roads without an EAB.
More nonsense. Disabling that feature may well make your vehicle less safe, if you're not a very attentive driver. In other words, if you're like the average driver.
I'm not arguing that Uber should have had the Volvo EAB active. I'm arguing that Uber's software should have been advanced enough to never need it before being tested on public roads.
I seem to remember a few years back all companies stayed they would take liability for any accidents that happened whiletheir respective AI systems were enabled. They said this to relive tensions and get started to allow their systems on the road. I find it funny that now that one has a fatality on record they want to blame the driver which trusted their systems. If they don't change their opinion on this then I don't see why their system should be allowed on the road.
Oh get outta here with your german car superiority! You know that 3rd person is the mandatory mechanic. Mercedes and BMW both are complete fucking garbage. I started turning them away from my garage 2 years ago. Ain't worth my time. Hell if that car weren't already owned by the parent manufacturing company, it would have to haul a mandatory Loan Officer as a 4th passenger just to pay the mandatory mechanic!
Does anyone remember watching the video of this accident?
If not, you should go back and rewatch it. Here is what I remember...
The idiot pedestrian walked out in front of an oncoming car in the dark and wearing dark clothing without looking for oncoming traffic. The speed limit in the area was fast enough that a normal person would not be able to stop in time, even if they were paying attention.
The fault is the pedestrian's. They were stupid and walked in front of a moving vehicle. The driver of the vehicle would have been unable to avoid hitting the pedestrian if they tried.
Go back and watch the video and this is very obvious.
Libertas in infinitum
You can't have it both ways. A self driving car should not require a driver and conversely
I don't have it both ways. There are legal obligations currently under both the laws that govern vehicles moving on public roads, and the regulations that govern the testing of self driving vehicles. Those laws state you need a driver. That driver was there, employed for a job that he didn't do. He wasn't distracted, he outright was not doing his job and breaking the law in the process.
This isn't having it both ways. It's having it one way. Person being paid for a task should be doing the task. If I decided to suddenly stop paying attention whip out my phone and watch a movie while moving a heavy load with a crane and I ended up crushing someone, would I get a free pass too?
The Uber system detected miscategorized the cyclist as roadside debris-- like a plastic bag-- after categorizing objects correctly the vast majority of the time.
Look, Uber clearly had all kinds of software quality and process problems. But I guarantee you even the leading implementations like Waymo are learning a whole shit-ton from real road stuff-- exactly about this kind of misclassification problem. Synthetic test conditions reflect experimenters' bias.
Tesla has a bit of an advantage with all the video they're sampling from customers' driving habits, but even so the selection of that video and annotation and review for potential problems doesn't have the strength of real-world testing because it's not a priori (researchers' own biases, classification issues, and selection issues can come into play) and not as rigorous.
Adaptive cruise control keeps speed and following distance, I think that was the AC's point.
Exactly my point. As part of states allowing driver-less car experiments, that needs to be spelled out explicitly for the parties involved: engineers, vehicle operators, and the general public. Just assuming people understand isn't enough.
Watching TV is damning in hindsight, this person is probably SOL since that is how people will look at this. Time to get a good lawyer. Is there room to convince a jury, hypothetically, by saying: "I don't recall Uber giving me those instructions; they said they were operating on public streets at SAE level 4 automation and the state permitted it. I was just there to collect data and drive it back if it breaks."? Is the ball back in the state's court to prove their case, not just say there was no proof that Uber did not say it?
I agree, there is too much emphasis on real-world testing. It probably makes for better press-releases.
Show me the documentation that they performed their diligence in first proving out all weather and lighting conditions for all foreseeable traffic obstacles. Testing shouldn't just be reactionary, but comprehensive.
You can gather real-world data without the car actually operating. i.e. turn the sensors on but truly just have a human driver that knows they are the primary driver. No automation hand-off required.