9 ms·

Back when this originally came out, Uber claimed "this incident was due to human error" [1]. Well technically, if you really twist the meaning of words, Uber co

Back when this originally came out, Uber claimed "this incident was due to human error" [1]. Well technically, if you really twist the meaning of words, Uber could interpret this as "human error", considering: - It was "human error" that the programmers who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking. - It was also "human error" that the human driver in the front seat failed to notice the red lights and stop the car. Uber's statement is effectively true, if you hideously twist the meaning of words. I fully believe that's what they did in their statement. There's similar wordplay for the word "natural", i.e. claiming "All pollution is natural", because humans are part of nature and everything we do is natural, so all consequences of our actions are also "natural". Deceiving yet ultimately, effective. [1] Uber says self-driving car ran red light due to “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...

ars 10y ago
> who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking. From the article it sort-of seems like that error is actually in the mapping software that didn't mark that intersection as having traffic lights, so the car didn't look for them.
- spike021 10y ago
  Shouldn't a self-driving car always be passively looking for red lights? I mean, take a school bus for instance. They don't have permanent red-light fixtures, but if you're behind them they could enable the red light sign at any moment. If the self-driving car isn't always looking wouldn't that be an issue?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Even normal stoplights can be added or removed. If a car needs an accurate internal map of every single stoplight, it's doomed.
    - ars 10y ago
      That's the current status of self driving cars. And yes, I think they are doomed. At least for city streets - I expect them on specially instrumented freeways though.
      - jayjay71 10y ago
        Delphi actively looks for traffic lights at every intersection with their self-driving technology, or at least they used to.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - olalonde 10y ago
        > That's the current status of self driving cars. Do you work in the field? I'm a bit skeptical about that. Waymo's self-driving car seems to do pretty well with things that aren't encoded in maps like road works and unexpected obstacles. I don't see why red lights would be exceptionally challenging to detect.
        hbk1966 10y ago
        Tesla's demo video of their fully self driving software looks pretty good too.
        gens 10y ago
        A talk about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5E28fp4oc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5E28fp4oc0
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - pmontra 10y ago
      There are also temporary traffic lights added and removed during road works. There are also pranksters that turn traffic lights by 90° to make them face the wrong direction. Those are hard to map.
  - AustinDizzy 10y ago
    Forget if you're behind a school bus as I'd hope it would stop for any vehicle stopping in front of it. If you're on a normal rural highway (i.e. one with two but oppositely travelling lanes) and a school bus which is coming towards you makes a stop, you must stop so that any exiting kids can safely cross the street to their homes. What happens when a school bus makes a stop and the car decides to keep rolling through the bus's displayed and flashing red stop sign?
    - spike021 10y ago
      Fairly sure (though it likely depends on geographic location laws) that no matter your lane you need to stop if a bus displays its stop sign and lights, because, like you said, kids might try crossing the street at any time/place. So a self-driving car might be a lane or two away from the bus (not directly behind it) and still need to know to stop.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        The exact rules do depend on the area. Where I am you always have to stop behind a bus on your side in any lane, but traffic on the other side does not have to stop if there are 4+ lanes.
        mkmdy 10y ago
        Much of the material I studied for my learners permit written test has since become just part of how I drive (I hope), but the rules regarding stopping for school-busses have always stuck with me for some reason. In Florida, the rule is that all traffic going in either direction must stop, except when the road is "a divided highway with an unpaved space of at least 5 feet, a raised median, or a physical barrier"[0], in which case the opposing traffic does not have to stop. It's interesting to me to see how little things like this change from place to place, and how these localized rules will be handled by self-driving vehicles. [0]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.172.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...
Fricken 10y ago
The test driver failed to intervene, that's all. This is a non-issue, obviously Uber's autonomous vehicles are a work in progress.
- eli 10y ago
  If it's a non-issue, why'd they lie about it?
  - yabatopia 10y ago
    It's Uber. It's in their DNA.
- atonse 10y ago
  Yeah don't beta test your BETA on real drivers, even after the DMV has asked you to stop. Screw Uber. I hope the CA government comes down hard on them. But we all know Uber will find yet another slimy way to keep going. For the record, I'm the biggest proponent of autonomous cars and can't wait for that day. But companies that just put people in danger like this are not going to get us there faster. They're going to slow everything down by their carelessness and greed.
  - dsl 10y ago
    > But we all know Uber will find yet another slimy way to keep going. Like moving the program to Arizona...
    - edoceo 10y ago
      And Nevada, with stolen Google engineer!
  - Fricken 10y ago
    I don't like Uber either, and I don't know what they were thinking testing in California without a permit, but they were otherwise doing the same thing all of the 23 companies with testing permits in California are doing. (Any fly-by-night operation can get an av testing permit in California so long as they meet some basic requirements. It costs $140 and the approval process takes 3 business days). The AI is expected to fail occasionally, so a human driver is onboard ready to intervene the instant that happens. The test driver wasn't paying attention, and the car ran a red light. It was a human error. Uber did not lie, they didn't mince words or twist the definition of things, the human driver just didn't do his job. Irrespective of all the other bullshit going on with Uber, this is a mistake that any test driver with any other company testing autonomous prototypes on public roads could have made. Just like with Tesla's Autopilot, any autonomous test vehicle is technically a level 2 vehicle, meaning the human driver is legally responsible for any traffic violation the vehicle makes.
rhizome 10y ago
Uber's statement is effectively true, if you hideously twist the meaning of words. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
JeremyNT 10y ago
The full article from the NYT[0] which is the source for the information presented in the Verge post includes a quote indicating that Uber blames the operator for not manually stopping the vehicle. Their story is essentially that the car isn't ready to handle this scenario on its own and the operator should have known to intervene. [0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-levandowski-waymo-uber-google-lawsuit.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-lev...
- falcolas 10y ago
  Which could (and will) be said for any autonomous accident in the past and future. The NTSB takes a similar view: autopilot failures that result in aircraft crashes are still human error, since the human should have corrected. Still not very encouraging, since the driver in this case would have had seconds at most to identify and fix the error with a panic stop.
  - g00gler 10y ago
    I don't think that's really a fair comparison if we're taking Uber at their word since the car is still a dev unit. It seems like a known problem, cars would not stop at any red light period and the driver just forgot to stop because he wasn't paying attention.
  - robryan 10y ago
    They also track disengages as a metric for progress right? So it could be that these drivers will if at all possible avoid taking over.

ars 10y ago

> who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking. From the article it sort-of seems like that error is actually in the mapping software that didn't mark that intersection as having traffic lights, so the car didn't look for them.

spike021 10y ago
Shouldn't a self-driving car always be passively looking for red lights? I mean, take a school bus for instance. They don't have permanent red-light fixtures, but if you're behind them they could enable the red light sign at any moment. If the self-driving car isn't always looking wouldn't that be an issue?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Even normal stoplights can be added or removed. If a car needs an accurate internal map of every single stoplight, it's doomed.
  - ars 10y ago
    That's the current status of self driving cars. And yes, I think they are doomed. At least for city streets - I expect them on specially instrumented freeways though.
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      Delphi actively looks for traffic lights at every intersection with their self-driving technology, or at least they used to.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - olalonde 10y ago
      > That's the current status of self driving cars. Do you work in the field? I'm a bit skeptical about that. Waymo's self-driving car seems to do pretty well with things that aren't encoded in maps like road works and unexpected obstacles. I don't see why red lights would be exceptionally challenging to detect.
      - hbk1966 10y ago
        Tesla's demo video of their fully self driving software looks pretty good too.
        gens 10y ago
        A talk about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5E28fp4oc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5E28fp4oc0
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - pmontra 10y ago
    There are also temporary traffic lights added and removed during road works. There are also pranksters that turn traffic lights by 90° to make them face the wrong direction. Those are hard to map.
- AustinDizzy 10y ago
  Forget if you're behind a school bus as I'd hope it would stop for any vehicle stopping in front of it. If you're on a normal rural highway (i.e. one with two but oppositely travelling lanes) and a school bus which is coming towards you makes a stop, you must stop so that any exiting kids can safely cross the street to their homes. What happens when a school bus makes a stop and the car decides to keep rolling through the bus's displayed and flashing red stop sign?
  - spike021 10y ago
    Fairly sure (though it likely depends on geographic location laws) that no matter your lane you need to stop if a bus displays its stop sign and lights, because, like you said, kids might try crossing the street at any time/place. So a self-driving car might be a lane or two away from the bus (not directly behind it) and still need to know to stop.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      The exact rules do depend on the area. Where I am you always have to stop behind a bus on your side in any lane, but traffic on the other side does not have to stop if there are 4+ lanes.
      - mkmdy 10y ago
        Much of the material I studied for my learners permit written test has since become just part of how I drive (I hope), but the rules regarding stopping for school-busses have always stuck with me for some reason. In Florida, the rule is that all traffic going in either direction must stop, except when the road is "a divided highway with an unpaved space of at least 5 feet, a raised median, or a physical barrier"[0], in which case the opposing traffic does not have to stop. It's interesting to me to see how little things like this change from place to place, and how these localized rules will be handled by self-driving vehicles. [0]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.172.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Fricken 10y ago

The test driver failed to intervene, that's all. This is a non-issue, obviously Uber's autonomous vehicles are a work in progress.

eli 10y ago
If it's a non-issue, why'd they lie about it?
- yabatopia 10y ago
  It's Uber. It's in their DNA.
atonse 10y ago
Yeah don't beta test your BETA on real drivers, even after the DMV has asked you to stop. Screw Uber. I hope the CA government comes down hard on them. But we all know Uber will find yet another slimy way to keep going. For the record, I'm the biggest proponent of autonomous cars and can't wait for that day. But companies that just put people in danger like this are not going to get us there faster. They're going to slow everything down by their carelessness and greed.
- dsl 10y ago
  > But we all know Uber will find yet another slimy way to keep going. Like moving the program to Arizona...
  - edoceo 10y ago
    And Nevada, with stolen Google engineer!
- Fricken 10y ago
  I don't like Uber either, and I don't know what they were thinking testing in California without a permit, but they were otherwise doing the same thing all of the 23 companies with testing permits in California are doing. (Any fly-by-night operation can get an av testing permit in California so long as they meet some basic requirements. It costs $140 and the approval process takes 3 business days). The AI is expected to fail occasionally, so a human driver is onboard ready to intervene the instant that happens. The test driver wasn't paying attention, and the car ran a red light. It was a human error. Uber did not lie, they didn't mince words or twist the definition of things, the human driver just didn't do his job. Irrespective of all the other bullshit going on with Uber, this is a mistake that any test driver with any other company testing autonomous prototypes on public roads could have made. Just like with Tesla's Autopilot, any autonomous test vehicle is technically a level 2 vehicle, meaning the human driver is legally responsible for any traffic violation the vehicle makes.

rhizome 10y ago

Uber's statement is effectively true, if you hideously twist the meaning of words. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

JeremyNT 10y ago

The full article from the NYT[0] which is the source for the information presented in the Verge post includes a quote indicating that Uber blames the operator for not manually stopping the vehicle. Their story is essentially that the car isn't ready to handle this scenario on its own and the operator should have known to intervene. [0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-levandowski-waymo-uber-google-lawsuit.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-lev...

falcolas 10y ago
Which could (and will) be said for any autonomous accident in the past and future. The NTSB takes a similar view: autopilot failures that result in aircraft crashes are still human error, since the human should have corrected. Still not very encouraging, since the driver in this case would have had seconds at most to identify and fix the error with a panic stop.
- g00gler 10y ago
  I don't think that's really a fair comparison if we're taking Uber at their word since the car is still a dev unit. It seems like a known problem, cars would not stop at any red light period and the driver just forgot to stop because he wasn't paying attention.
- robryan 10y ago
  They also track disengages as a metric for progress right? So it could be that these drivers will if at all possible avoid taking over.