3 ms·

That's a really weird interpretation. Uber's system could obviously brake but not 'emergency brake'? The system disabled a part of itself? How is that any diffe

That's a really weird interpretation. Uber's system could obviously brake but not 'emergency brake'? The system disabled a part of itself? How is that any different than it just never deciding to 'emergency brake'? I think the better interpretation is that the Uber system disabled another separate (non-Uber) system.

ggggtez 8y ago
No. Read the PDF. Volvo has automatic driver-assistance emergency braking. That's turned off while Uber's self driving system is on, because obviously the two systems are not built to work together. Uber also disabled emergency braking from their own system. That was because it would "drive erratically" when it was turned on.
throwaway_se099 8y ago
Uber's system could obviously brake but not 'emergency brake'? There are two systems in the vehicle. One is the manufacturer's, let's call it System V after Volvo, and the other is System U, for Uber. System V provides collision detection and emergency braking. It played no part in this incident, since it's inactive if the car is under control of System U, which it was at the time. System U can decide that the car should slow down in some situations. Let's call gradual slowdown Action U1, and emergency slowdown Action U2. The incident called for Action U2, by Uber's criteria. What Uber said is that a) they disabled automatic execution of Action U2, punting it to the driver (really, a bored passenger in driver's seat), and b) that the driver would get no indication of emergency situations from the system. The idea is, presumably, that driver should watch the road and react in emergencies. But we also know that the driver had the duty of working with the onboard console, which must have been quite a distraction. Effectively, Uber has set themselves up for failure, and it happened.
- aeorgnoieang 8y ago
  You were right. It seemed so stupid I refused to believe it!

ggggtez 8y ago

No. Read the PDF. Volvo has automatic driver-assistance emergency braking. That's turned off while Uber's self driving system is on, because obviously the two systems are not built to work together. Uber also disabled emergency braking from their own system. That was because it would "drive erratically" when it was turned on.

throwaway_se099 8y ago

Uber's system could obviously brake but not 'emergency brake'? There are two systems in the vehicle. One is the manufacturer's, let's call it System V after Volvo, and the other is System U, for Uber. System V provides collision detection and emergency braking. It played no part in this incident, since it's inactive if the car is under control of System U, which it was at the time. System U can decide that the car should slow down in some situations. Let's call gradual slowdown Action U1, and emergency slowdown Action U2. The incident called for Action U2, by Uber's criteria. What Uber said is that a) they disabled automatic execution of Action U2, punting it to the driver (really, a bored passenger in driver's seat), and b) that the driver would get no indication of emergency situations from the system. The idea is, presumably, that driver should watch the road and react in emergencies. But we also know that the driver had the duty of working with the onboard console, which must have been quite a distraction. Effectively, Uber has set themselves up for failure, and it happened.

aeorgnoieang 8y ago
You were right. It seemed so stupid I refused to believe it!