4 ms·

>Yes I don't understand why so much focus has been put on the failure of the technology rather than the failure of the back up driver. It was well known all al

>Yes I don't understand why so much focus has been put on the failure of the technology rather than the failure of the back up driver. It was well known all along that humans are poorly equipped to remain actively engaged in situations that require split-second reactions, while exerting zero effort or control for hours on end. Air traffic is as safe as it is because the accident analysis always pushes past "pilot error" as the root cause. If one pilot can make the error, why won't another? Did the system set them up to fail? Even if it didn't, could the system be enhanced such that the failure (or class of failures) could be prevented? In the case of the human in Uber's self-driving car, they were set up for failure. And in such a well known way that makes any claim Uber was not negligent very hard to defend.

spuz 8y ago
As far as Uber being negligent for putting an easily-distracted human in charge of a car that ostensibly (even if they claim otherwise) needs little attention, I totally agree they are negligent. The reason for that is I believe it's unreasonable to expect a human driver to pay 100% attention to the road while in a car that only requires 5% attention to the road. However, I also believe as well as telling the driver "pay attention to the road 100% of the time" she would have been told "Do not use your phone while driving" which I believe is a totally reasonable request and expectation. With this assumption and if the blame has to fall on only a single party then I think this news puts it squarely on the driver.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Aren't they required to use their phones to record diagnostic data? It's a small step from there to messing around on the phone.
  - pas 8y ago
    What? Why don't they have their hands on the fucking steering wheel?
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      They didn't want to pay to have two people in the car anymore.
  - spuz 8y ago
    No, of course not. They have to pay attention as a driver. The car does all the diagnostic recordings.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      That's false though. http://theconversation.com/preliminary-report-on-ubers-driverless-car-fatality-shows-the-need-for-tougher-regulatory-controls-97253 http://theconversation.com/preliminary-report-on-ubers-drive... > According to Uber, the developmental self-driving system relies on an attentive operator to intervene if the system fails to perform appropriately during testing. In addition, the operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review.
- ErikVandeWater 8y ago
  > However, I also believe as well as telling the driver "pay attention to the road 100% of the time" she would have been told "Do not use your phone while driving" which I believe is a totally reasonable request and expectation. I think if you are going to pay someone near minimum wage and let them hold onto their phone while in the car, you know they are likely to use it. Even if the request is reasonable, you know minimum wage workers are going to do that sort of thing if not monitored via an in-car camera directed at the driver's seat.
  - s2g 8y ago
    You could pay me an absurd amount of money, I'm still going get distracted.
jryle70 8y ago
I believe all other driveless tests work the same way, with sensors but requiring human driver at all time. Would you also consider Waymo, Cruise, et al, negligent? The technologies are not ready. They are being tested. Aircraft get to such a safe state like today after so many iterations and improvement, both in technology and process. A terrible tragedy happened in this case. Hopefully it will help save a lot of lives in future.
- bjl 8y ago
  > Would you also consider Waymo, Cruise, et al, negligent? Absolutely. We know from centuries of evidence that humans are profoundly bad at monitoring 'mostly autonomous' systems. Waymo/Uber know this as well, they just employ the driver as a convenient way to offload legal liability while they test unproven and unsafe technology on the public without consent.
- rayiner 8y ago
  There is a difference between putting technology out there that is "not ready" and putting technology on the road that fundamentally doesn't do the basic things that a car must do, such as brake for pedestrians. It's an unfortunate but avoidable tragedy if a self-driving system fails due to a computer bug. Here, Uber disabled the self-driving system's emergency braking function: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-uber-arizona-ntsb-20180524-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-uber-arizona-nts.... As far as I know, Waymo at least is at least theoretically capable of braking for a pedestrian in autonomous mode.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    The overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road today don't break for pedestrians. Just a few models of cars sold in the past few years have features to automatically engage braking. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/where-automakers-stand-on-automatic-emergency-braking-pledge/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/where-automakers-...
- emodendroket 8y ago
  If these technologies, as you say, are not ready (I think you are right), what are they doing on public roadways?

spuz 8y ago

As far as Uber being negligent for putting an easily-distracted human in charge of a car that ostensibly (even if they claim otherwise) needs little attention, I totally agree they are negligent. The reason for that is I believe it's unreasonable to expect a human driver to pay 100% attention to the road while in a car that only requires 5% attention to the road. However, I also believe as well as telling the driver "pay attention to the road 100% of the time" she would have been told "Do not use your phone while driving" which I believe is a totally reasonable request and expectation. With this assumption and if the blame has to fall on only a single party then I think this news puts it squarely on the driver.

emodendroket 8y ago
Aren't they required to use their phones to record diagnostic data? It's a small step from there to messing around on the phone.
- pas 8y ago
  What? Why don't they have their hands on the fucking steering wheel?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    They didn't want to pay to have two people in the car anymore.
- spuz 8y ago
  No, of course not. They have to pay attention as a driver. The car does all the diagnostic recordings.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That's false though. http://theconversation.com/preliminary-report-on-ubers-driverless-car-fatality-shows-the-need-for-tougher-regulatory-controls-97253 http://theconversation.com/preliminary-report-on-ubers-drive... > According to Uber, the developmental self-driving system relies on an attentive operator to intervene if the system fails to perform appropriately during testing. In addition, the operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review.
ErikVandeWater 8y ago
> However, I also believe as well as telling the driver "pay attention to the road 100% of the time" she would have been told "Do not use your phone while driving" which I believe is a totally reasonable request and expectation. I think if you are going to pay someone near minimum wage and let them hold onto their phone while in the car, you know they are likely to use it. Even if the request is reasonable, you know minimum wage workers are going to do that sort of thing if not monitored via an in-car camera directed at the driver's seat.
- s2g 8y ago
  You could pay me an absurd amount of money, I'm still going get distracted.

jryle70 8y ago

I believe all other driveless tests work the same way, with sensors but requiring human driver at all time. Would you also consider Waymo, Cruise, et al, negligent? The technologies are not ready. They are being tested. Aircraft get to such a safe state like today after so many iterations and improvement, both in technology and process. A terrible tragedy happened in this case. Hopefully it will help save a lot of lives in future.

bjl 8y ago
> Would you also consider Waymo, Cruise, et al, negligent? Absolutely. We know from centuries of evidence that humans are profoundly bad at monitoring 'mostly autonomous' systems. Waymo/Uber know this as well, they just employ the driver as a convenient way to offload legal liability while they test unproven and unsafe technology on the public without consent.
rayiner 8y ago
There is a difference between putting technology out there that is "not ready" and putting technology on the road that fundamentally doesn't do the basic things that a car must do, such as brake for pedestrians. It's an unfortunate but avoidable tragedy if a self-driving system fails due to a computer bug. Here, Uber disabled the self-driving system's emergency braking function: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-uber-arizona-ntsb-20180524-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-uber-arizona-nts.... As far as I know, Waymo at least is at least theoretically capable of braking for a pedestrian in autonomous mode.
- malandrew 8y ago
  The overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road today don't break for pedestrians. Just a few models of cars sold in the past few years have features to automatically engage braking. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/where-automakers-stand-on-automatic-emergency-braking-pledge/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/where-automakers-...
emodendroket 8y ago
If these technologies, as you say, are not ready (I think you are right), what are they doing on public roadways?