4 ms·
A backup driver should be just that -- someone there to take over in case of software/hardware error. Such a driver was deemed necessary, failed to do their job
by JosephRedfern 8y ago
A backup driver should be just that -- someone there to take over in case of software/hardware error. Such a driver was deemed necessary, failed to do their job, resulting in the crash.
If the system was supposed to be entirely driverless and autonomous, then sure -- perhaps more blame would lie with those in charge of whatever kind of "certification" procedures take place (rather than the developers). But IMO, in this instance the blame lies with the backup driver, and Uber for not enforcing more training or monitoring of the backup driver to prevent this kind of horrendous incident from happening in the first place.
- scblock 8y agoThere was no software or hardware error. It didn't break, it worked exactly as it was programmed. Which is the problem, and one of the many reasons Uber is at fault.
- JosephRedfern 8y agoI don't want to argue over the semantics of this being a software or hardware error. Clearly the car didn't perform as intended. A vast majority of software issues occur even though they are functioning "as programmed", it doesn't mean that they aren't bugs. I'm not saying Uber aren't at fault -- an Uber employee failed to do their job by watching TV instead of concentrating on the road, and Uber failed to do sufficient training/screening or failed to put enough safeguards in place to stop this from happening. My point is that they KNEW that the automated system side of things wasn't perfect which is why they employed someone to look after the car in the first place. Yes, the car failed to stop react to the pedestrian -- but the safeguard (i.e. the human in the car) failed to do their job, which was to step in under such circumstances.