19 ms·

Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

207 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stuckagain 10y ago
Self-driving Uber car blows red signal at crosswalk in SF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  Nice video, but the evidence is not clear that was human or computer error. It would be nice to make that distinction somewhere..
  - symlinkk 10y ago
    There is a red light. The car, which is being driven by a computer, did not stop. That is a computer error.
    - jgacook 10y ago
      The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was in control when the car blew the red light.
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants. One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident. There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to intervene quickly enough to avert an accident once it became apparent that the tech was failing.
        jodrellblank 10y ago
        And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'. If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don't say "that's exactly what Garmin want, a human to absolve them when their tech fails". Because the driver is in the position of responsibility, the tech is not.
        unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want the cachet (and the cash) without the responsibility. >Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving That analogy isn't even close to holding. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. At a minimum, your reaction time will be slowed as you must first recognize that the car is not responding properly in, perhaps, a split second when it suddenly does something unexpected. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. This have-it-both-ways Tesla-invented PR spin that says "our tech is statistically safer, but it's your fault for not correcting it even if it does screw up" is a pernicious subterfuge and I personally don't like how it defines our relationship with technology.
        lisivka 10y ago
        Car is not 100% safe even with human driver. If a tech makes less mistakes than a human, then the tech is better. It's your responsibility to chose what is better: you, the tech, or a taxi driver. IMHO, every self-driving car must be equipped with a black-box to capture all information in case of an accident and special commission for investigation, to make rules to follow, so self-driven cars will be safer for others, and that is all. Self-driven system manufacturer can be punished only if these rules are not followed, by suspending a license to manufacture self-driving systems. Currently, we have almost no such rules at all. IMHO, the first rule for self-driving cars, until they will be mature, must be better communication between computer and human: as driver, I want to see how computer sees road and obstacles, and planned actions, and other variants of these actions to pickup. I want computer to project computer map to wind-shield and be presented with tree buttons: big red «stop» button, left button, and right button, so I will be able to see road situation, computer understanding of that situation, and will be able to correct computer or make a full stop.
    - singlow 10y ago
      But do we know whether it was under computer control at the time?
    - Gustomaximus 10y ago
      The video doesn't show if it was a person or computer driving. And Uber claim it was a human error though I'm not inclined to take that as proof. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
    - onion2k 10y ago
      which is being driven by a computer The point is that we don't know that. It may have been under driver control at the time. There's probably a good argument for having some sort of external indicator of whether or not a self-driving car is under computer control or human control. Maybe a small roof mounted beacon that has to be lit up or something.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Maybe it learned a bit too much from San Francisco drivers?
  - spike021 10y ago
    Been watching too many Muni busses.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    If it uses Uber drivers for training, heaven help us: I’ve seen illegal U-turns, constant double parking, reversing down 1-way streets, moving right turns through red lights, sudden stops, speeding 25+ mph over the legal limit, lane changes in intersections, lots of turning without signals, lack of proper yielding to obvious pedestrians, cyclists nearly side-swiped, etc. (Some subset of) Uber drivers are one of the worst hazards on the road.
    - detaro 10y ago
      Curious, have you reported those things to uber/given appropriately bad ratings? (Uber always claims the rating system should filter unsafe actors out quickly)
      - jacobolus 10y ago
        I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.
        detaro 10y ago
        oh, then I misunderstood. Would still be curious how passengers actually act in these cases, since "I don't want to give a bad rating" seems to be a big thing.
        surfmike 10y ago
        Why wouldn't you want to give a bad rating for bad driving? I almost always give 5 stars, but with the notable exception being distracted or aggressive drivers.
- relics443 10y ago
  Uber released a statement saying that it was human error https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
- JamilD 10y ago
  Updated Uber statement: "This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
  - stuckagain 10y ago
    They should release the interior video of the incident, then. It's their car and their employee (not one of their contractors) and with no passenger there's no privacy concern either.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    Seems like a reckless statement on a couple of fronts. For one, it's openly disrespectful to the human drivers upon whom they've relied to this point--seemingly regarding them as nuisances which must be discarded post-haste. And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen? Their statement could easily be used against them.
    - jnky 10y ago
      > And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen? That's not a problem at all. They'll just use "git blame" and fire the programmer whose "human error" caused the accident.
  - jdale27 10y ago
    Why on earth should we believe them?
  - dictum 10y ago
    > This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. My new side project is a The Aristrocrats joke, except it ends with "The Gig Economy!"
- detaro 10y ago
  HN submission of that video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13180172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13180172
- kt9 10y ago
  Looks like the video was taken by a dash cam from a police car - am I reading that right? If thats true I wonder why the cop didn't pull the uber over. edit: This also leads to another question - how does a cop pull a self driving car over? Does the car know to respond to police lights? And if it does pull over then who does the cop talk to?
  - russell_h 10y ago
    It was a taxi.
  - stuckagain 10y ago
    It's a taxi, actually. I'm sure they were delighted to get this video.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The video, published by the San Francisco Examiner, was captured by a dashcam mounted inside a vehicle operated by Luxor Cab, one of SF’s licensed cab companies. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident... The car certainly should know how to respond to police lights/sirens. I was reading Google's monthly reports on their cars and they were talking about adding a pull over response to their system.
  - return0 10y ago
    > And if it does pull over then who does the cop talk to? It's going to be even funnier when the patrol car is an unmanned self-driving bot itself.
- DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  Whoops.
- return0 10y ago
  There should be special fines for self-driving cars making errors. It would force companies to be more careful and lead to better engineering. Also, competing manufacturers could "turn in" to police other manufacturer's cars that misbehave.
  - amelius 10y ago
    Also, any changes to the software run on self-driving cars should be stored in an "escrow" service for at least X months before it is uploaded (preferably by an independent party) to the cars, to allow for sufficient testing. We don't want to end up in the situation where car manufacturers make quick updates to cover flaws. If the software is broken, the cars should be grounded, the software should be fixed and tested for at least X hours of driving.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.
  - Daviey 10y ago
    If the car was driving autonomous or not, there was a driver sat in the drivers seat which is fully responsible for the actions of the car. If the self-driving capability missed the red light, then it is the drivers responsibility to have intervened and stop the car. If I did this in a Tesla with autopilot enabled, would all Tesla's be banned in California? I should be punished as the driver in command of the vehicle. If I did this in an old banged out SUV, would the car be banned? No, i'd received a citation for the offence of running a red. Which is exactly how this incident should have been handled.
    - JamilD 10y ago
      The ban wasn't because of the car running the red light (though the incident may have contributed to it), it's because Uber didn't apply for a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California. Tesla, by the way, received a permit.
    - skepticaldrunk 10y ago
      The problem with the thrust of your argument, I think, is that you're proposing that self-driving cars are something a driver actually needs to pay more attention to than a standard automobile.
      - sundaeofshock 10y ago
        As long as the vehicle requires human intervention, they should not be allowed to enter autonomous mode in a dense, urban environment.
symlinkk 10y ago
Uber tries to break the law to get a competitive advantage yet again. Innovation at its finest.
emp_zealoth 10y ago
>"Safety is our top priority" Do they want me to die from laughing?
dsl 10y ago
Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can actually get killed.
- goalieca 10y ago
  Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
  - dmix 10y ago
    It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit? From the DMV legislation: > (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged. To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear: > (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
hkon 10y ago
Can't disrupt these days without breaking some laws.
scarmig 10y ago
The only thing that might surpass Google's inability to execute on their autonomous cars is Uber's congenital need to break the law for no reason at all.
JamilD 10y ago
I want self-driving cars to happen as quickly as possible, but Uber seems like they were extremely reckless and negligent here. Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100% attentive to their surroundings, especially since it's the first day of real, commercial trials.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  Then we are better off driving for real because `not driving, meaning not being in control, but being ready to take the helm at any time` must be more exhausting (because you have to focus on everything not under your control vs focus on everything that you don't have control minus what you actually control) and increase our reaction time (since some time will pass between the moment you notice you have to take the helm and the moment when you actually are in control) than just driving.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Being ready to take the helm at any time is required by law, at this point. It applies to Google's test cars, to Tesla Autopilot, etc.
    - deathanatos 10y ago
      Are Google's / Waymo's vehicles not steering-wheel and pedal free? E.g., go to Waymo's own site here[1], scroll to "2015 World’s first fully self-driving ride on public roads", and watch the video: they give, if I'm not mistaken, a blind man a ride in a steering-wheel-free, pedals-free autonomous vehicle on public roads, in Texas. Now, granted, the original article is about the CA DMV, but I've seen vehicles that are indistinguishable from the prototype car in the video driving in Mountain View. Unless there's a model with steering wheels and pedals (it is hard to say from the outside), that would seem to imply that Google is testing fully autonomous cars in California. (Note that I'm not trying to imply that this is illegal: I'm not well-versed enough in the DMV's rules around autonomous vehicles to know if it requires "being ready to take the helm at any time" or not. I also did not realize, until Waymo's announcement recently, that they were so far along.) [1]: https://waymo.com/journey/ https://waymo.com/journey/
serge2k 10y ago
Uber just doesn't get the whole concept of regulations do they? I understand violating ones that are "dumb" and hurt your business (e.g. taxi medallions) or those that it's easier to just do it and figure out hte results later (e.g. insurance) but this is literally "get the permit first". They should process this nice and sloooooooooooow.
- krapp 10y ago
  > Uber just doesn't get the whole concept of regulations do they? I think you don't get the whole concept of free market capitalism behind Uber - any regulation they can't simply ignore if they choose to hurts their business by definition.
- slowmotiony 10y ago
  I don't know about regulations, but Uber has made traveling around my city a cheap and pleasurable experience for me, which was certainly not the case before with the so called "legal and regulated taxis", constantly offering shit service and outright scamming people. When it seems like the regulations are not helping consumers, it's only natural that the consumers will not care if a company follows them.
brilliantcode 10y ago
This is really worrying for Uber. It's supposedly burning 2 billion dollars a year. It doesn't own any fleet of vehicles or it's drivers. Neither is there a sustainable cost savings that doesn't involve lighting pile of cash on fire. It desperately needs driverless cars before Tesla and Google kills their business off. Now Uber has finally hit a regulatory wall which it won't be able to pay off. It's likely to hit more such obstacles until it realizes it's not really in the business of taxi but a business of acquiring market share with low interest rate capital. We won't see an Uber IPO anytime soon.
- krasin 10y ago
  Michigan just passed a set of very pro-self-driving cars laws: http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/michigan-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/michigan-self-driving-cars/ So, Uber only hit the wall in SF, and can still continue testing elsewhere. That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do.
  - rgarrett88 10y ago
    >That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do. We gamble with pedestrian's lives every time we get in a car. No one has seen how these vehicles perform in real world scenarios. It seems very possible they could perform better than humans on average.
    - krasin 10y ago
      My guess is that the levels of these systems will differ. Some systems will be better than humans (on average), and some systems will be worse. The gamble I mention is that Uber and Tesla are putting too many machines on the road at once without having good priors for their current level of competence.
      - dmix 10y ago
        > The gamble I mention is that Uber and Tesla are putting too many machines on the road at once without having good priors for their current level of competence. And from whom do you expect this data will come from? How many is too many? Why? As far as I'm concerned as long as a human can take control at a seconds notice, the risk here is very much overblown. I haven't seen an instance where a company wasn't taking reasonable precautions and was acting foolishly. I'd love to be proven otherwise... There's a reason why companies waited until 2016 to start putting these on public roads. And even then they are usually limited like Teslas. They are taking it slowly like responsible engineers... Now that full data capture and machine learning is being added pretty much every ride is contributing to the quality of these systems.
czep 10y ago
The pedestrian was at fault for not installing Uber's app. This gives new meaning to the term "god mode"... "Install our app, or DIE!"
snowmaker 10y ago
I recommend reading the actual letter from the DMV. It's impressively well-written, balanced, and thoughtful about autonomous technology. I was not expecting a response like that from the government.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Link? Don't even know what DMV is.
  - detaro 10y ago
    It's embedded in the article.
  - RamenJunkie_ 10y ago
    Department of Motor Vehicles.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  As an outside observer, California seem to be dealing with the whole self-driving car matter really sensibly.
Crito 10y ago
If these people actually gave a damn about the environment they would embrace self-driving cars. One-car-per-person is ludicrously wasteful.
nodesocket 10y ago
Does Tesla have this DMV permit for their autopilot feature?
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  Why would they need it, except for testing their feature on public roads in vehicles operated by Tesla themselves?
knorby 10y ago
Uber has the garages for both Otto and these cars on Harrison, between 3rd and 4th streets, on the side of the lanes headed to I-80W/101S. When they need to park either, particularly the semi-trucks, they get people in vests to come out, stop traffic for pretty much all lanes of traffic, and slowly park their delicate vehicles.... Glad to see this story.
edblarney 10y ago
'Disrupt' is fine, but not when you're potentially putting lives at risk.
tudorw 10y ago
Can anyone tell me if these things are smart enough to slow down enough through a puddle to avoid splashing a pedestrian?
jmelloy 10y ago
What? There were self-driving vehicles in San Francisco? I'll spend the next hour of my life getting up to speed with this. Good stuff!

207 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Self-driving Uber car blows red signal at crosswalk in SF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4

Overtonwindow 10y ago
Nice video, but the evidence is not clear that was human or computer error. It would be nice to make that distinction somewhere..
- symlinkk 10y ago
  There is a red light. The car, which is being driven by a computer, did not stop. That is a computer error.
  - jgacook 10y ago
    The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was in control when the car blew the red light.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants. One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident. There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to intervene quickly enough to avert an accident once it became apparent that the tech was failing.
      - jodrellblank 10y ago
        And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'. If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don't say "that's exactly what Garmin want, a human to absolve them when their tech fails". Because the driver is in the position of responsibility, the tech is not.
        unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why? Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want the cachet (and the cash) without the responsibility. >Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving That analogy isn't even close to holding. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. At a minimum, your reaction time will be slowed as you must first recognize that the car is not responding properly in, perhaps, a split second when it suddenly does something unexpected. Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. This have-it-both-ways Tesla-invented PR spin that says "our tech is statistically safer, but it's your fault for not correcting it even if it does screw up" is a pernicious subterfuge and I personally don't like how it defines our relationship with technology.
        lisivka 10y ago
        Car is not 100% safe even with human driver. If a tech makes less mistakes than a human, then the tech is better. It's your responsibility to chose what is better: you, the tech, or a taxi driver. IMHO, every self-driving car must be equipped with a black-box to capture all information in case of an accident and special commission for investigation, to make rules to follow, so self-driven cars will be safer for others, and that is all. Self-driven system manufacturer can be punished only if these rules are not followed, by suspending a license to manufacture self-driving systems. Currently, we have almost no such rules at all. IMHO, the first rule for self-driving cars, until they will be mature, must be better communication between computer and human: as driver, I want to see how computer sees road and obstacles, and planned actions, and other variants of these actions to pickup. I want computer to project computer map to wind-shield and be presented with tree buttons: big red «stop» button, left button, and right button, so I will be able to see road situation, computer understanding of that situation, and will be able to correct computer or make a full stop.
  - singlow 10y ago
    But do we know whether it was under computer control at the time?
  - Gustomaximus 10y ago
    The video doesn't show if it was a person or computer driving. And Uber claim it was a human error though I'm not inclined to take that as proof. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
  - onion2k 10y ago
    which is being driven by a computer The point is that we don't know that. It may have been under driver control at the time. There's probably a good argument for having some sort of external indicator of whether or not a self-driving car is under computer control or human control. Maybe a small roof mounted beacon that has to be lit up or something.
scarmig 10y ago
Maybe it learned a bit too much from San Francisco drivers?
- spike021 10y ago
  Been watching too many Muni busses.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  If it uses Uber drivers for training, heaven help us: I’ve seen illegal U-turns, constant double parking, reversing down 1-way streets, moving right turns through red lights, sudden stops, speeding 25+ mph over the legal limit, lane changes in intersections, lots of turning without signals, lack of proper yielding to obvious pedestrians, cyclists nearly side-swiped, etc. (Some subset of) Uber drivers are one of the worst hazards on the road.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Curious, have you reported those things to uber/given appropriately bad ratings? (Uber always claims the rating system should filter unsafe actors out quickly)
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.
      - detaro 10y ago
        oh, then I misunderstood. Would still be curious how passengers actually act in these cases, since "I don't want to give a bad rating" seems to be a big thing.
        surfmike 10y ago
        Why wouldn't you want to give a bad rating for bad driving? I almost always give 5 stars, but with the notable exception being distracted or aggressive drivers.
relics443 10y ago
Uber released a statement saying that it was human error https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
JamilD 10y ago
Updated Uber statement: "This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
- stuckagain 10y ago
  They should release the interior video of the incident, then. It's their car and their employee (not one of their contractors) and with no passenger there's no privacy concern either.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  Seems like a reckless statement on a couple of fronts. For one, it's openly disrespectful to the human drivers upon whom they've relied to this point--seemingly regarding them as nuisances which must be discarded post-haste. And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen? Their statement could easily be used against them.
  - jnky 10y ago
    > And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen? That's not a problem at all. They'll just use "git blame" and fire the programmer whose "human error" caused the accident.
- jdale27 10y ago
  Why on earth should we believe them?
- dictum 10y ago
  > This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. My new side project is a The Aristrocrats joke, except it ends with "The Gig Economy!"
detaro 10y ago
HN submission of that video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13180172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13180172
kt9 10y ago
Looks like the video was taken by a dash cam from a police car - am I reading that right? If thats true I wonder why the cop didn't pull the uber over. edit: This also leads to another question - how does a cop pull a self driving car over? Does the car know to respond to police lights? And if it does pull over then who does the cop talk to?
- russell_h 10y ago
  It was a taxi.
- stuckagain 10y ago
  It's a taxi, actually. I'm sure they were delighted to get this video.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The video, published by the San Francisco Examiner, was captured by a dashcam mounted inside a vehicle operated by Luxor Cab, one of SF’s licensed cab companies. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident-of-self-driving-car-running-a-red-light-captured-on-dashcam/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident... The car certainly should know how to respond to police lights/sirens. I was reading Google's monthly reports on their cars and they were talking about adding a pull over response to their system.
- return0 10y ago
  > And if it does pull over then who does the cop talk to? It's going to be even funnier when the patrol car is an unmanned self-driving bot itself.
DoodleBuggy 10y ago
Whoops.
return0 10y ago
There should be special fines for self-driving cars making errors. It would force companies to be more careful and lead to better engineering. Also, competing manufacturers could "turn in" to police other manufacturer's cars that misbehave.
- amelius 10y ago
  Also, any changes to the software run on self-driving cars should be stored in an "escrow" service for at least X months before it is uploaded (preferably by an independent party) to the cars, to allow for sufficient testing. We don't want to end up in the situation where car manufacturers make quick updates to cover flaws. If the software is broken, the cars should be grounded, the software should be fixed and tested for at least X hours of driving.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.

sundaeofshock 10y ago
As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.
- Daviey 10y ago
  If the car was driving autonomous or not, there was a driver sat in the drivers seat which is fully responsible for the actions of the car. If the self-driving capability missed the red light, then it is the drivers responsibility to have intervened and stop the car. If I did this in a Tesla with autopilot enabled, would all Tesla's be banned in California? I should be punished as the driver in command of the vehicle. If I did this in an old banged out SUV, would the car be banned? No, i'd received a citation for the offence of running a red. Which is exactly how this incident should have been handled.
  - JamilD 10y ago
    The ban wasn't because of the car running the red light (though the incident may have contributed to it), it's because Uber didn't apply for a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California. Tesla, by the way, received a permit.
  - skepticaldrunk 10y ago
    The problem with the thrust of your argument, I think, is that you're proposing that self-driving cars are something a driver actually needs to pay more attention to than a standard automobile.
    - sundaeofshock 10y ago
      As long as the vehicle requires human intervention, they should not be allowed to enter autonomous mode in a dense, urban environment.

symlinkk 10y ago

Uber tries to break the law to get a competitive advantage yet again. Innovation at its finest.

emp_zealoth 10y ago

>"Safety is our top priority" Do they want me to die from laughing?

dsl 10y ago

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can actually get killed.

goalieca 10y ago
Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
- dmix 10y ago
  It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit? From the DMV legislation: > (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged. To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear: > (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...

hkon 10y ago

Can't disrupt these days without breaking some laws.

scarmig 10y ago

The only thing that might surpass Google's inability to execute on their autonomous cars is Uber's congenital need to break the law for no reason at all.

JamilD 10y ago

I want self-driving cars to happen as quickly as possible, but Uber seems like they were extremely reckless and negligent here. Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100% attentive to their surroundings, especially since it's the first day of real, commercial trials.

johnchristopher 10y ago
Then we are better off driving for real because `not driving, meaning not being in control, but being ready to take the helm at any time` must be more exhausting (because you have to focus on everything not under your control vs focus on everything that you don't have control minus what you actually control) and increase our reaction time (since some time will pass between the moment you notice you have to take the helm and the moment when you actually are in control) than just driving.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Being ready to take the helm at any time is required by law, at this point. It applies to Google's test cars, to Tesla Autopilot, etc.
  - deathanatos 10y ago
    Are Google's / Waymo's vehicles not steering-wheel and pedal free? E.g., go to Waymo's own site here[1], scroll to "2015 World’s first fully self-driving ride on public roads", and watch the video: they give, if I'm not mistaken, a blind man a ride in a steering-wheel-free, pedals-free autonomous vehicle on public roads, in Texas. Now, granted, the original article is about the CA DMV, but I've seen vehicles that are indistinguishable from the prototype car in the video driving in Mountain View. Unless there's a model with steering wheels and pedals (it is hard to say from the outside), that would seem to imply that Google is testing fully autonomous cars in California. (Note that I'm not trying to imply that this is illegal: I'm not well-versed enough in the DMV's rules around autonomous vehicles to know if it requires "being ready to take the helm at any time" or not. I also did not realize, until Waymo's announcement recently, that they were so far along.) [1]: https://waymo.com/journey/ https://waymo.com/journey/

serge2k 10y ago

Uber just doesn't get the whole concept of regulations do they? I understand violating ones that are "dumb" and hurt your business (e.g. taxi medallions) or those that it's easier to just do it and figure out hte results later (e.g. insurance) but this is literally "get the permit first". They should process this nice and sloooooooooooow.

krapp 10y ago
> Uber just doesn't get the whole concept of regulations do they? I think you don't get the whole concept of free market capitalism behind Uber - any regulation they can't simply ignore if they choose to hurts their business by definition.
slowmotiony 10y ago
I don't know about regulations, but Uber has made traveling around my city a cheap and pleasurable experience for me, which was certainly not the case before with the so called "legal and regulated taxis", constantly offering shit service and outright scamming people. When it seems like the regulations are not helping consumers, it's only natural that the consumers will not care if a company follows them.

brilliantcode 10y ago

This is really worrying for Uber. It's supposedly burning 2 billion dollars a year. It doesn't own any fleet of vehicles or it's drivers. Neither is there a sustainable cost savings that doesn't involve lighting pile of cash on fire. It desperately needs driverless cars before Tesla and Google kills their business off. Now Uber has finally hit a regulatory wall which it won't be able to pay off. It's likely to hit more such obstacles until it realizes it's not really in the business of taxi but a business of acquiring market share with low interest rate capital. We won't see an Uber IPO anytime soon.

krasin 10y ago
Michigan just passed a set of very pro-self-driving cars laws: http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/michigan-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/michigan-self-driving-cars/ So, Uber only hit the wall in SF, and can still continue testing elsewhere. That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do.
- rgarrett88 10y ago
  >That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do. We gamble with pedestrian's lives every time we get in a car. No one has seen how these vehicles perform in real world scenarios. It seems very possible they could perform better than humans on average.
  - krasin 10y ago
    My guess is that the levels of these systems will differ. Some systems will be better than humans (on average), and some systems will be worse. The gamble I mention is that Uber and Tesla are putting too many machines on the road at once without having good priors for their current level of competence.
    - dmix 10y ago
      > The gamble I mention is that Uber and Tesla are putting too many machines on the road at once without having good priors for their current level of competence. And from whom do you expect this data will come from? How many is too many? Why? As far as I'm concerned as long as a human can take control at a seconds notice, the risk here is very much overblown. I haven't seen an instance where a company wasn't taking reasonable precautions and was acting foolishly. I'd love to be proven otherwise... There's a reason why companies waited until 2016 to start putting these on public roads. And even then they are usually limited like Teslas. They are taking it slowly like responsible engineers... Now that full data capture and machine learning is being added pretty much every ride is contributing to the quality of these systems.

czep 10y ago

The pedestrian was at fault for not installing Uber's app. This gives new meaning to the term "god mode"... "Install our app, or DIE!"

snowmaker 10y ago

I recommend reading the actual letter from the DMV. It's impressively well-written, balanced, and thoughtful about autonomous technology. I was not expecting a response like that from the government.

user5994461 10y ago
Link? Don't even know what DMV is.
- detaro 10y ago
  It's embedded in the article.
- RamenJunkie_ 10y ago
  Department of Motor Vehicles.
mcintyre1994 10y ago
As an outside observer, California seem to be dealing with the whole self-driving car matter really sensibly.

Crito 10y ago

If these people actually gave a damn about the environment they would embrace self-driving cars. One-car-per-person is ludicrously wasteful.

nodesocket 10y ago

Does Tesla have this DMV permit for their autopilot feature?

belovedeagle 10y ago
Why would they need it, except for testing their feature on public roads in vehicles operated by Tesla themselves?

knorby 10y ago

Uber has the garages for both Otto and these cars on Harrison, between 3rd and 4th streets, on the side of the lanes headed to I-80W/101S. When they need to park either, particularly the semi-trucks, they get people in vests to come out, stop traffic for pretty much all lanes of traffic, and slowly park their delicate vehicles.... Glad to see this story.

edblarney 10y ago

'Disrupt' is fine, but not when you're potentially putting lives at risk.

tudorw 10y ago

Can anyone tell me if these things are smart enough to slow down enough through a puddle to avoid splashing a pedestrian?

jmelloy 10y ago

What? There were self-driving vehicles in San Francisco? I'll spend the next hour of my life getting up to speed with this. Good stuff!