5 ms·

“We don’t want people to be confused or think it was a failure of the technology that we supply for Volvo, because that’s not the case,” Zach Peterson, a spokes

“We don’t want people to be confused or think it was a failure of the technology that we supply for Volvo, because that’s not the case,” Zach Peterson, a spokesman for Aptiv Plc, said by phone. The Volvo XC90’s standard advanced driver-assistance system “has nothing to do” with the Uber test vehicle’s autonomous driving system, he said. Aptiv is speaking up for its technology to avoid being tainted by the fatality involving Uber ... No. This is Volvo pressuring Aptiv to make a statement on its behalf, to avoid being tainted by this PR disaster and to shift investigators' focus away from both companies. Also, in all of the discussions about this incident, let's forget that Elaine Herzberg, a mother of two children, lost her life due to an engineering experiment and publicity stunt ("Come to Arizona! We don't have safety regs!") being conducted on public roads with great risk to members of the public. Volvo, Aptiv, and other participants in these trials should have never signed off ... yet they willingly participated, and an innocent member of the public has paid with her life.

la_oveja 9y ago
Yes, it's tragic. but she crossed the road where she shouldn't. She made a mistake, and a tragic indicent happened. And like this, everyday.
- lambda 9y ago
  There were multiple failures here. Let's not put all of the blame on the victim. This particular location has the sidewalk end on one side, and there is a paved section in the median which looks like it is intended for crossing. There is a small sign that indicates that you should not cross here. From the video, we can see that while there were street lights on the road, the area in which the apparent crossing existed was completely dark. A pedestrian may not have been able to see the sign indicating that you shouldn't cross here; or even if she did, there are so many roads that are built in pedestrian unfriendly ways that sometimes you just have to cross at unmarked crossings to avoid having to go substantially out of your way. Additionally, the video shows that the driver was distracted immediately before the crash. While the dash cam video seems to indicate that you can't see the pedestrian until it was probably already too late, human eyes are a lot more sensitive over a greater dynamic range than most video cameras, so there's a good chance that if the driver were paying attention, she would have seen the pedestrian before the car did. The thing about safety systems and standards are that there should be some redundancy in them. People make mistakes, so you shouldn't have to rely on every actor acting perfectly to remain safe. In this case, there was a failure on many parts leading to a tragedy. It's definitely worth investigating whether Uber had done enough to ensure that operators will be staying alert during the entire test, and whether Uber had done enough testing before being on open roads of small, possibly moving obstacles on dark parts of the road, like pedestrians, deer, and so on. I'd also put a good amount of blame on whatever department designed that portion of road and sidewalk.
pythonaut_16 9y ago
I don't see how Volvo is responsible for Uber's recklessness. Volvo didn't make them test on public roads with unsafe technology.
- dagw 9y ago
  The question isn't if Volvo is in any way culpable (they almost certainly aren't) but if there's a risk that Volvo might appear in any way culpable to the general public. The very last thing Volvo wants is the headline "Self-driving Volvo kills pedestrian".
  - chillingeffect 9y ago
    Especially because a Volvo plowed into a pedestrian almost a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW2UgmjJUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW2UgmjJUA IIRC it was discovered this happened because the owner hadn't purchased the "Pedestrian Avoidance Package". And shortly before that, a Volvo plowed into a parked truck (in a demo): https://youtu.be/aNi17YLnZpg https://youtu.be/aNi17YLnZpg This was "was the result of an earlier flat battery that temporarily disabled the system due to low voltage" [0] The pattern here is not only due to the collision systems themselves, but to the system around the collision avoidance system. [0] https://jalopnik.com/5648126/volvo-pedestrian-avoidance-crash-test-fails-spectacularly https://jalopnik.com/5648126/volvo-pedestrian-avoidance-cras...
  - pythonaut_16 9y ago
    To be clear, I was specifically responding to the parent who somehow acted like Volvo was somehow complicit in this crash and thus wrong to distance itself.
- SkyPuncher 9y ago
  Critical thought would agree. Unfortunately for Volvo, the vehicle was a Volvo and without proper context (e.g. only looking at an image) it'd be easy to miss that Uber's self-driving technology was being used - not Volvo's.
mkempe 9y ago
Are you saying that Volvo and Aptiv should have stopped Uber from running these tests in Arizona, because Uber disabled Volvo's proven safety features?
pvaldes 9y ago
> let's forget that Elaine Herzberg, a mother of two children, lost her life due to an engineering experiment I'll sound harsh, but to be honest it seems that Elaine Herzberg's behaviour also played a role in this drama. The video is a perfect example of jaywalking. Dressed in black, crossing the street at night in a dark place, no lights, not reflective jacket or zebra crossing area, not paying enough attention to traffic. In the video she's not even looking at the car. There is not signs of the woman stopping or changing their trajectory to avoid the crash.

la_oveja 9y ago

Yes, it's tragic. but she crossed the road where she shouldn't. She made a mistake, and a tragic indicent happened. And like this, everyday.

lambda 9y ago
There were multiple failures here. Let's not put all of the blame on the victim. This particular location has the sidewalk end on one side, and there is a paved section in the median which looks like it is intended for crossing. There is a small sign that indicates that you should not cross here. From the video, we can see that while there were street lights on the road, the area in which the apparent crossing existed was completely dark. A pedestrian may not have been able to see the sign indicating that you shouldn't cross here; or even if she did, there are so many roads that are built in pedestrian unfriendly ways that sometimes you just have to cross at unmarked crossings to avoid having to go substantially out of your way. Additionally, the video shows that the driver was distracted immediately before the crash. While the dash cam video seems to indicate that you can't see the pedestrian until it was probably already too late, human eyes are a lot more sensitive over a greater dynamic range than most video cameras, so there's a good chance that if the driver were paying attention, she would have seen the pedestrian before the car did. The thing about safety systems and standards are that there should be some redundancy in them. People make mistakes, so you shouldn't have to rely on every actor acting perfectly to remain safe. In this case, there was a failure on many parts leading to a tragedy. It's definitely worth investigating whether Uber had done enough to ensure that operators will be staying alert during the entire test, and whether Uber had done enough testing before being on open roads of small, possibly moving obstacles on dark parts of the road, like pedestrians, deer, and so on. I'd also put a good amount of blame on whatever department designed that portion of road and sidewalk.

pythonaut_16 9y ago

I don't see how Volvo is responsible for Uber's recklessness. Volvo didn't make them test on public roads with unsafe technology.

dagw 9y ago
The question isn't if Volvo is in any way culpable (they almost certainly aren't) but if there's a risk that Volvo might appear in any way culpable to the general public. The very last thing Volvo wants is the headline "Self-driving Volvo kills pedestrian".
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  Especially because a Volvo plowed into a pedestrian almost a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW2UgmjJUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW2UgmjJUA IIRC it was discovered this happened because the owner hadn't purchased the "Pedestrian Avoidance Package". And shortly before that, a Volvo plowed into a parked truck (in a demo): https://youtu.be/aNi17YLnZpg https://youtu.be/aNi17YLnZpg This was "was the result of an earlier flat battery that temporarily disabled the system due to low voltage" [0] The pattern here is not only due to the collision systems themselves, but to the system around the collision avoidance system. [0] https://jalopnik.com/5648126/volvo-pedestrian-avoidance-crash-test-fails-spectacularly https://jalopnik.com/5648126/volvo-pedestrian-avoidance-cras...
- pythonaut_16 9y ago
  To be clear, I was specifically responding to the parent who somehow acted like Volvo was somehow complicit in this crash and thus wrong to distance itself.
SkyPuncher 9y ago
Critical thought would agree. Unfortunately for Volvo, the vehicle was a Volvo and without proper context (e.g. only looking at an image) it'd be easy to miss that Uber's self-driving technology was being used - not Volvo's.

mkempe 9y ago

Are you saying that Volvo and Aptiv should have stopped Uber from running these tests in Arizona, because Uber disabled Volvo's proven safety features?

pvaldes 9y ago

> let's forget that Elaine Herzberg, a mother of two children, lost her life due to an engineering experiment I'll sound harsh, but to be honest it seems that Elaine Herzberg's behaviour also played a role in this drama. The video is a perfect example of jaywalking. Dressed in black, crossing the street at night in a dark place, no lights, not reflective jacket or zebra crossing area, not paying enough attention to traffic. In the video she's not even looking at the car. There is not signs of the woman stopping or changing their trajectory to avoid the crash.