5 ms·

I wouldn't be one bit surprised. The antics of this company are well known. This incident has my wondering: of all the companies working on this, why is Uber

I wouldn't be one bit surprised. The antics of this company are well known. This incident has my wondering: of all the companies working on this, why is Uber trusted to be testing this technology?

mehrdadn 9y ago
> I wouldn't be one bit surprised. The antics of this company are well known. I would be surprised under the new CEO.
- acdha 9y ago
  Culture takes time to change and we don’t know how hard they’re trying. A new CEO matters long-term but lower level management matters more in the short-term.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It wasn't just the CEO who was the problem at Uber.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    That's not what I was suggesting either. We had a long discussion in a nearby thread about this; I got tired of it but check it out if you're interested.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Yeah, I found it only after I replied. I read through all of it now; I don't think I have any points to add to it.
emodendroket 9y ago
https://jalopnik.com/safety-third-is-the-running-joke-at-ubers-self-driving-1793368132 https://jalopnik.com/safety-third-is-the-running-joke-at-ube... > Levandowski seemed to struggle in other ways as well. In December, Uber dispatched 16 self-driving cars, with safety drivers, in San Francisco without seeking a permit from the California DMV. The test went poorly—on the first day, a self-driving car ran a red light, and the DMV ordered Uber to halt its program in the state. > The company suffered further embarrassment when a New York Times article, citing leaked documents, suggested that Uber’s explanation for the traffic violation—that it had been caused by human error—wasn’t complete. The car malfunctioned, and the driver failed to stop it. > The misdirection came as no surprise to the Uber employees who’d spent time at Otto’s San Francisco headquarters. Someone there had distributed stickers—in OSHA orange—with a tongue-in-cheek slogan: “Safety third.”
itronitron 9y ago
trusted by _who_ in order to get approval for testing?
- neom 9y ago
  I'd trust someone like UL.com - we trust them with a hell of a lot, why not this?
  - itronitron 9y ago
    that would be good, although it may take some time for the insurance companies to start requiring it
  - tlb 9y ago
    I’ve gotten 2 products UL certified, and I don’t think it’d be very useful for self-driving cars. The process seemed to be mainly reactive: only things that had caused frequent problems in the past were part of the standard. For instance, plug-in devices must have fuses. The standard gives no guidance about the right size of fuses, but a reasonable engineer would of course pick a good size. The standard’s main effect is to avoid cutting safety features to save cost. We shipped a mobile office robot. We sweated the details of it not running into people or crashing, but the UL cert only verified that we had fuses and flame-retardant plastics and the like.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Trusted in general. Trusted by people. Trusted by authorities. I mean, there ought to be the point at which someone says, "this company has a long, consistent, documented history of antisocial behaviour and complete disrespect for law, therefore they shall not be allowed to work on this society-changing and life-critical technology". That this doesn't happen is, I feel, a failure of our society/regulatory apparatus.
wpietri 9y ago
Well, they weren't, not in California. E.g.: https://www.kqed.org/news/11231526/uber-to-state-weve-pulled-self-driving-cars-from-s-f-streets https://www.kqed.org/news/11231526/uber-to-state-weve-pulled... In 2016 they tried just turning their autonomous vehicles loose in SF without regulatory approval. They got shut down. Rather than apply for permits, they headed off to Arizona, where the then-new governor welcomed them with open arms, an "anything-goes approach", and a lot of anti-regulation blather: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-industry-favorite-self-driving-hub.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-i...

I wouldn't be one bit surprised. The antics of this company are well known. This incident has my wondering: of all the companies working on this, why is Uber trusted to be testing this technology?

mehrdadn 9y ago

> I wouldn't be one bit surprised. The antics of this company are well known. I would be surprised under the new CEO.

acdha 9y ago
Culture takes time to change and we don’t know how hard they’re trying. A new CEO matters long-term but lower level management matters more in the short-term.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
It wasn't just the CEO who was the problem at Uber.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  That's not what I was suggesting either. We had a long discussion in a nearby thread about this; I got tired of it but check it out if you're interested.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Yeah, I found it only after I replied. I read through all of it now; I don't think I have any points to add to it.

emodendroket 9y ago

https://jalopnik.com/safety-third-is-the-running-joke-at-ubers-self-driving-1793368132 https://jalopnik.com/safety-third-is-the-running-joke-at-ube... > Levandowski seemed to struggle in other ways as well. In December, Uber dispatched 16 self-driving cars, with safety drivers, in San Francisco without seeking a permit from the California DMV. The test went poorly—on the first day, a self-driving car ran a red light, and the DMV ordered Uber to halt its program in the state. > The company suffered further embarrassment when a New York Times article, citing leaked documents, suggested that Uber’s explanation for the traffic violation—that it had been caused by human error—wasn’t complete. The car malfunctioned, and the driver failed to stop it. > The misdirection came as no surprise to the Uber employees who’d spent time at Otto’s San Francisco headquarters. Someone there had distributed stickers—in OSHA orange—with a tongue-in-cheek slogan: “Safety third.”

itronitron 9y ago

trusted by _who_ in order to get approval for testing?

neom 9y ago
I'd trust someone like UL.com - we trust them with a hell of a lot, why not this?
- itronitron 9y ago
  that would be good, although it may take some time for the insurance companies to start requiring it
- tlb 9y ago
  I’ve gotten 2 products UL certified, and I don’t think it’d be very useful for self-driving cars. The process seemed to be mainly reactive: only things that had caused frequent problems in the past were part of the standard. For instance, plug-in devices must have fuses. The standard gives no guidance about the right size of fuses, but a reasonable engineer would of course pick a good size. The standard’s main effect is to avoid cutting safety features to save cost. We shipped a mobile office robot. We sweated the details of it not running into people or crashing, but the UL cert only verified that we had fuses and flame-retardant plastics and the like.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Trusted in general. Trusted by people. Trusted by authorities. I mean, there ought to be the point at which someone says, "this company has a long, consistent, documented history of antisocial behaviour and complete disrespect for law, therefore they shall not be allowed to work on this society-changing and life-critical technology". That this doesn't happen is, I feel, a failure of our society/regulatory apparatus.

wpietri 9y ago

Well, they weren't, not in California. E.g.: https://www.kqed.org/news/11231526/uber-to-state-weve-pulled-self-driving-cars-from-s-f-streets https://www.kqed.org/news/11231526/uber-to-state-weve-pulled... In 2016 they tried just turning their autonomous vehicles loose in SF without regulatory approval. They got shut down. Rather than apply for permits, they headed off to Arizona, where the then-new governor welcomed them with open arms, an "anything-goes approach", and a lot of anti-regulation blather: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-industry-favorite-self-driving-hub.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-i...