> also because the safety egineer blidnly trusted the software runnign the car My understanding is the opposite. Uber's software was generating a lot of false

> also because the safety egineer blidnly trusted the software runnign the car My understanding is the opposite. Uber's software was generating a lot of false breaking events so they set it up so it wasn't controlling the breaks. Drivers were trying to gather evidence about the triggers for these false events. That created this perverse situation where the software correctly identified it should have braked, but the only action it could take was to raise an alert, distracting the driver at a critical moment.