10 ms·
This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross neglig
by hunter23 9y ago
This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator:
* Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it was dark conditions (that's when you are supposed to slow down due to decreased visiblity). I would then:
* Construct a test to be able to operate under day and night conditions. Periodically audit each operator to confirm they can pass this. This is essentially equivalent of a driving test but would be a controlled environment that simulates real cities. Maybe have robot humans to simulate pedestrians and obviously have other cars on the road.
* Require that operators test X miles of specific scenarios (city driving, highway, etc.) each month and audit their # of disengagements in each of these scenarios. When it his a threshold, their license is revoked and they need to go back to the lab. They should also submit videos of clips for all disengagements.
* Require all operators to have video on their safety operators and submit records of % of the time the operator has eyes on the road along with videos. Regulators can revoke license if they see issues with the the operator not paying attention.
We can't rely on a corporation to safely controlling their experiments, the regulators need to step up here. was uber doing anything for example, to make sure the operator was watching the road? The operator is looking down for most of the time during the crash video.
- agumonkey 9y agoGood, a CI for road safety. I would love to see that.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoCall your representative and demand legislation.
- agumonkey 9y agoReminds me of Google desire for a test neighborhood..
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bertjk 9y agoThe article mentions that the car was going "40 miles an hour in a 45-mile-an-hour zone." Is there a more reliable source stating that the car was speeding?
- sethev 9y agoSeems an odd question. Do have some reason to think it was speeding?
- danso 9y agoEarly reports said the police stated the AV was going 38 in a 35mph zone
- drawkbox 9y agoIt is right in a transition period between 35mph and 45mph. The Mill ave bridge is 35mph and Mill ave is slow (25mph) because it is an urban area and by ASU and Tempe Town Lake with lots of pedestrians. After the bridge it changes to 45mph so it could be the Uber was also in a 10mph speed up phase in the hundreds of feet from the bridge right where the pedestrian was.
- lsaferite 9y agoThe accident was ~590ft after the speed increase.
- drawkbox 9y agoSo about 6-8 seconds or so, as the car was still accelerating most likely. There is also probably a slight delay for AI based driving after speed limits change, so probably closer to 4-5 seconds later.
- saalweachter 9y agoThat actually sounds like a potential corner case - braking while still accelerating. I'd hope to all that's holy that sort of corner case comes up in your first million miles of testing and not basically in production, but it sets my debugging nose a-twitching.
- bnj 9y agoOut of curiosity, is anyone aware whether it might serve some use to do tests like this virtually? Drive a car around to gather a mass of raw sensor readings on a busy street, and then feed those readings to test cars as inputs? I guess that description doesn't make much sense, but it would be interesting to develop a virtual testing environment for testing the algorithm package even though that doesn't address hardware and numerous other concerns.
- castle-bravo 9y agoI think that's what NVIDIA tried to do with their BB8 test car [0]. I don't know what came of that. [0] https://youtu.be/LVBBKppAaV4 https://youtu.be/LVBBKppAaV4
- jaytaylor 9y agoThat's super cool! Looks like Nvidia has turned it into a self-driving car on chip, due for release later in 2018: https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/10/nvidia-introduces-a-computer-for-level-5-autonomous-cars/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/10/nvidia-introduces-a-comp...
- netsharc 9y agoGoogle^W Waymo's cars have "driven" millions of virtual miles.
- cmac2992 9y agoThey've drive 5 million real miles and billions of virtual miles.
- doublerebel 9y agoYes, multiple of these virtual testing environments, with sensor simulation/playback exist. See Microsoft's Airsim, or carla-simulator.
- spaceribs 9y agoThis sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.
- erobbins 9y agoYou don't think most humans would see someone crossing a flat straight road in an area with mediocre lighting? If that's true we should have thousands more deaths a year like this.
- wilde 9y agoWe have plenty of deaths like this. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fatalities-crash-statistics-us-2016 https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16438444/traffic-fataliti...
- Erlangolem 9y agoI thought the point of SDV’s was that they would be radically better than human drivers? You can’t have it both ways.
- notahacker 9y agoI also think most current human drivers would also expect to spend significant time in jail for causing death by driving so careless they didn't even try to brake when confronted by an pedestrian in the roadway (even if she shouldn't have been there and an accident may not have been entirely avoidable) I'm fine with Uber's executives and programmers accepting the same level of culpability as an alternative to meeting higher standards than humans to get on the road. Ditto for their culpability for potential bugs which would be considered [attempted] vehicular homicide in the absence of a more logical explanation for the vehicle's actions if driven by humans. Abdicate that responsibility and you'd better be prepared for more stringent tests.
- spaceribs 9y ago
- chrsstrm 9y agoWhen does the next batch of YC applications open up? I'd like to introduce TestTrack - Autonomous vehicle certification as a service. State (and federal) governments collaborate with us to develop a certification plan that AV makers must pass before being allowed to operate in their state. With a plan in hand, AV makers and state reps meet at one of our regional test tracks to implement the custom tests. Obstacle avoidance, braking distance, driving in snow, heat, rain, all the scenarios. If you can dream up a test, we can make it happen. Once satisfied the tests have passed, we certify the vehicle and its software. We create a signing key and sign the software, which is then allowed to be deployed to the maker's vehicles. The state is given a device that they can use to audit a vehicle's software during routine checks and of course during the investigation of any incidents. We're still working on our pricing tiers and we might reconsider the name.
- exhaze 9y agoS18 batch applications are already open: https://www.ycombinator.com/apply/ https://www.ycombinator.com/apply/
- beamatronic 9y agoYou have to work blockchain into there somehow, looks good otherwise
- chrsstrm 9y agoJust imagine if autonomous ride-hailing services were required to self-authenticate their firmware before each ride. On the blockchain. Which means you sit in a stationary car, by yourself, for 4+ minutes (probably being forced to watch ads) before it starts moving. But hey, BLOCKCHAIN!!!
- 908087 9y agoDuring which time the price of "gascoin" dives 50% and your ride is abruptly ended as a result of inadequate payment. When you try to pay the difference, you're informed that the network is congested (due to people rushing to send their coins to an exchange and panic sell) and it will take 3 hours to confirm.
- saas_co_de 9y agoHow about blame the driver behind the wheel who was hired to drive the car and was 100% responsible for everything that happened? Funny how the pile on is targeted at Uber and the tech, when this is a test vehicle with a human driver who was hired to be responsible to monitor, respond, and override the computer at all times. The human failed. Blame the computer. Makes sense.
- kalleboo 9y agoWhy not blame both? The human should have been paying attention. But it's obvious that riding long stretches in an automatic car is going to lead to people getting bored and distracting themselves and not paying attention. It's a HUGE topic in every discussion on self-driving cars. It's why Teslas require you to grab the wheel every 15 seconds. Uber should have short shifts, bans on personal cell phones, attention and tiredness tracking (which IIRC Volvos already have!) etc, etc to combat this. But they don't actually care, it's just a regulatory checkmark, so they stick some minimum wage warm body in there on a full-time shift and this is what happens when it gets late. Other safety-conscious know that humans will cut corners and hence have tricks like safety interlocks, double-checks, multiple people involved etc to combat that. In aerospace you can't just say "well the maintenance guy shouldn't have done that, 300 people died and it was all his fault" - you have redundant systems, verifications, checks, etc. edit: from the article, Uber used to have two safety drivers in each car, but cut it down to one for whatever reason > When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber’s operations. They were worried that going solo would make it harder to remain alert during hours of monotonous driving. They knew this was going to be unsafe but did it anyway
- chrismcb 9y agoWhile that person wasn't looking at the road, the blame should fall on Uber and the state of Arizona. Someone sitting behind a wheel and not digging is going to have a much slower reaction time than someone driving. These cars were not ready to be driving at such speeds at night.
- xvf22 9y agoAbove all I'm interested why the car apparently did not apply the breaks when a person appeared in the visible light camera. The NTSB investigation should be interesting.
- agildehaus 9y agoBecause it likely only uses the LIDAR for obstacle avoidance. The camera is there for stoplights, other car's turn signals, etc.
- imh 9y agoBut regulations cost jobs! Uber could just move to another state! >The Phoenix area was added a year ago, and quickly became the company’s main testing ground, with 400 employees and more than 150 autonomous cars driving local roads because of "favorable regulatory environment, favorable weather conditions,” according to a company document. The sorts of regulations you're suggesting cost California the privilege of hosting Uber's self driving program.
- dlp211 9y agoAnd no one in California is dead because of that.
- imh 9y agoExactly. I may need to be a bit more explicit with a /s tag next time.
- hunter23 9y agoYes, and I love that California requires that the operator report on dis-engagements. It gives us some measure of how good the cars are performing (obviously not a great measure). The fact that the industry leader (Waymo) is fine with California's regulations show that they aren't onerous.
- gfdr 9y ago> This is essentially equivalent of a driving test but would be a controlled environment that simulates real cities. So, which is it? A controlled environment, or a real city? I think it is a bit naive to expect /every/ edge-case to be worked out prior to even a testing permit being given out. If you could pass a test that faithfully simulates ALL the intricacies of driving in a real city, you're well past testing phase anyway. Further, this ignores that we may be able to incentivize this behavior (learn all the lessons you can in controlled environments before putting people at danger) in other ways, e.g. financial penalties.
- simion314 9y agoThose tests would be required but not enough to proof the car is safe, if you fail the test you are not allow to test on the real city with a security driver, if you pass the test you can move at the next step of testing with the security driver in the real city.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cma 9y ago> Require that operators test X miles of specific scenarios (city driving, highway, etc.) each month and audit their # of disengagements in each of these scenarios. They need to go beyond periodic checks. Simply have constant video telepresence any time they are operating. Another operator monitors them to ensure they are attentive.
- jopsen 9y agoRegulate that testing on public road must be done by a third-party who is certified. It's not perfect but would reduce perverse financial incentives...
- galdosdi 9y agoI'm about to get my hack license (taxicab operator) in NYC. I learned in taxi school yesterday that in NY, any fatality or serious injury involving a taxi (including ubers etc) triggers an instant suspension of the driver's hack license until an investigation is complete (and if the investigation finds the driver was at fault, the suspension becomes a permanent revocation) I don't see why an experimental self driving taxi should be treated more leniently than that.
- joncrane 9y agoWhy are you getting a hack license?
- galdosdi 9y agoWhy go from hacker to hack? I'm taking a break from the corporate software job world and thinking about what to do next, but I need something interesting to keep me busy. Many people would travel in a time of their lives like that, and I see this as much like that. Its just that this is depth over breadth, that is, exploring my beloved NYC in very fine detail excites me more than exploring the world in almost pointlessly coarse detail... Making a few extra bucks and making myself useful rather than purely self indulgent (unlike traditional tourism) is a plus also. It's also something that comes with zero schedule commitment and no boss. It also dovetails with a longtime obsession with transportation. That wasn't the point of my comment of course, just stating where I got this info, but I guess I piqued your curiosity.
- underwater 9y ago> audit their # of disengagements in each of these scenarios. This would incentivise the companies (and force the drivers) to not disengage in borderline dangerous situations.
- wruwew8uu9 9y agoYes, tests could use Boston Dynamics-type robots to simulate humans or deer etc, but the test for not killing a person crossing a highway could be simpler to begin with: A test-road intersected by a tram-track with a motorized trolly on which various test-subjects are mounted; the car drives the road (at night under controlled lighting conditions) and the tolley drives the test-subject across the car's path at various speeds and times. The car must perform an emergency-brake, swerve or other safety move depending on the test-subject (a crash-test dummy, cardboard-box, plastic-bag, fake-bird etc). The test result data could be fed back into the machine-learning to inform simulations for further testing in virtual environments. A company with Uber's resources can afford to build such a test-track and should have. There's a gap in the market for a company to provide such testing facilities for car makers.