6 ms·

Uber's self-driving car killed a person because it had it's emergency braking system disabled due to too many false positives [1] That's all that ever needs to

Uber's self-driving car killed a person because it had it's emergency braking system disabled due to too many false positives [1] That's all that ever needs to be said about Uber's self driving system, the company should be disbanded and whomever the highest-level person in the company knew vehicles were operating in such a way should be imprisoned. 1: https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/24/uber-in-fatal-crash-detected-pedestrian-but-had-emergency-braking-disabled/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/24/uber-in-fatal-crash-detect...

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Uber's self-driving car killed a person because its driver was playing on his phone rather than doing his job.
- umvi 8y ago
  Uber's self-driving car killed a person because the victim was jaywalking on an unilluminated section of 4-lane highway at night and did not stop, look, or listen before crossing
  - hnuser987654321 8y ago
    Said person was also high on meth and weed.
    - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
      People not on meth and weed jaywalk without stop, look, or listen before crossing. Or are you saying that this person normally does those things but the meth and weed inhibited them from doing that?
- linuxftw 8y ago
  We don't know much about this person, what they were told to expect, what they believed their responsibilities were, what kind of training they had, or whether the person was obviously unfit for the task (eg, they hired a young person with no/little work history, etc).
- SilasX 8y ago
  In a sense, I want to agree. That was a big no-no on her part. But ... for a project like this, it's the kind of thing they should have planned for and could have easily worked around. First of all, Uber's setup was to have one person do both the analytics monitoring and safety roles. That's ridiculous. The safety person needs to focus on that alone. Second, for any boring job, it's expected that people will tend to mentally check out, and you should design it so that a single checkout doesn't cascade to death. They could have had a periodic "press this button to prove you're paying attention", or limited the employee from bringing any device except a limited one with no distractions. So yeah, she shouldn't have been watching a movie, but Uber shouldn't have had better safeguards for the inevitable attention drift.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    The (literal) victim blaming on this thread is absolutely astounding. [ADDED: I'm not talking about the driver although they were partially at fault. But the person who was killed.] Anyone with that attitude shouldn't be allowed anywhere near developing or operating a mission-critical system.
    - umvi 8y ago
      The victim is partially to blame for her own death in this case. I agree that victim blaming is _not_ useful when trying to figure out why a safety critical application failed and should not even be in the equation when developing, operating, or maintaining such safety-critical systems. But to simply answer the question "Who is to blame for her death?" the blame does _not_ rest 100% solely on Uber, nor the driver, nor the victim. All 3 failed to prevent the accident (and all 3 had the power and indeed responsibility to prevent it). People are responsible for their own risk management. If I take an unnecessary risk (like jaywalking at night on a freeway) and I get hit by a car (autonomous or not), that's partially on me.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        There were at least three parties who bore some responsibility for what happened. But some people come across as simply excusing Uber in this case. I expect that many of those same people wouldn't be so quick to excuse a human driver who hits a cyclist or pedestrian who isn't interacting with cars in the safest possible manner.
daniel-cussen 8y ago
I agree with the sentiment but one dead body is ordinarily not worth disbanding a company over, especially a fairly large company that provides a lot for a lot of people. I have knowledge of mining in Chile, where things are thus: One dead "viejo", and there's an investigation by the government, the mine will need to take more protocols and invest more in safety, make some pretty good explanations, and even people in management could go to jail for some time. It shakes the mining operation to its foundations, which should ideally be safe but is still intrinsically risky to miners. So in a way it is understood to be a risk and the workers know this to some degree, so the mine can continue operating after that. Two dead "viejos?" That's game over. The mine (as in the "yacimiento," the underlying mineral formation) is thereafter not to be exploited. (Miners in Chile are universally known as "viejo's", regardless of whether they're actually old or not.)
- _tulpa 8y ago
  Endangering people who work for you is waaaaay different to endangering the general public.
Gys 8y ago
Social media (effectively FB outlets and Twitter) killed many people already. So you think these companies should be shutdown immediately ? Mark Z in jail ? For example, from [0]: 'Across India, social media rumors have caused rural villagers to patrol in anxious groups on the look-out for anyone they don’t recognize. These mobs have already killed numerous people. In May and June alone, at least six people died in WhatsApp-related mob attacks in eastern Assam, western Maharashtra and southern Tamil Nadu. There’s also simmering tensions over Hindu vigilante groups who’ve targeted and killed Muslims.' [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/one-cop-s-fight-against-fake-news-is-saving-lives-in-india https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/one-cop-s...

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

Uber's self-driving car killed a person because its driver was playing on his phone rather than doing his job.

umvi 8y ago
Uber's self-driving car killed a person because the victim was jaywalking on an unilluminated section of 4-lane highway at night and did not stop, look, or listen before crossing
- hnuser987654321 8y ago
  Said person was also high on meth and weed.
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    People not on meth and weed jaywalk without stop, look, or listen before crossing. Or are you saying that this person normally does those things but the meth and weed inhibited them from doing that?
linuxftw 8y ago
We don't know much about this person, what they were told to expect, what they believed their responsibilities were, what kind of training they had, or whether the person was obviously unfit for the task (eg, they hired a young person with no/little work history, etc).
SilasX 8y ago
In a sense, I want to agree. That was a big no-no on her part. But ... for a project like this, it's the kind of thing they should have planned for and could have easily worked around. First of all, Uber's setup was to have one person do both the analytics monitoring and safety roles. That's ridiculous. The safety person needs to focus on that alone. Second, for any boring job, it's expected that people will tend to mentally check out, and you should design it so that a single checkout doesn't cascade to death. They could have had a periodic "press this button to prove you're paying attention", or limited the employee from bringing any device except a limited one with no distractions. So yeah, she shouldn't have been watching a movie, but Uber shouldn't have had better safeguards for the inevitable attention drift.
- ghaff 8y ago
  The (literal) victim blaming on this thread is absolutely astounding. [ADDED: I'm not talking about the driver although they were partially at fault. But the person who was killed.] Anyone with that attitude shouldn't be allowed anywhere near developing or operating a mission-critical system.
  - umvi 8y ago
    The victim is partially to blame for her own death in this case. I agree that victim blaming is _not_ useful when trying to figure out why a safety critical application failed and should not even be in the equation when developing, operating, or maintaining such safety-critical systems. But to simply answer the question "Who is to blame for her death?" the blame does _not_ rest 100% solely on Uber, nor the driver, nor the victim. All 3 failed to prevent the accident (and all 3 had the power and indeed responsibility to prevent it). People are responsible for their own risk management. If I take an unnecessary risk (like jaywalking at night on a freeway) and I get hit by a car (autonomous or not), that's partially on me.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      There were at least three parties who bore some responsibility for what happened. But some people come across as simply excusing Uber in this case. I expect that many of those same people wouldn't be so quick to excuse a human driver who hits a cyclist or pedestrian who isn't interacting with cars in the safest possible manner.

daniel-cussen 8y ago

I agree with the sentiment but one dead body is ordinarily not worth disbanding a company over, especially a fairly large company that provides a lot for a lot of people. I have knowledge of mining in Chile, where things are thus: One dead "viejo", and there's an investigation by the government, the mine will need to take more protocols and invest more in safety, make some pretty good explanations, and even people in management could go to jail for some time. It shakes the mining operation to its foundations, which should ideally be safe but is still intrinsically risky to miners. So in a way it is understood to be a risk and the workers know this to some degree, so the mine can continue operating after that. Two dead "viejos?" That's game over. The mine (as in the "yacimiento," the underlying mineral formation) is thereafter not to be exploited. (Miners in Chile are universally known as "viejo's", regardless of whether they're actually old or not.)

_tulpa 8y ago
Endangering people who work for you is waaaaay different to endangering the general public.

Gys 8y ago

Social media (effectively FB outlets and Twitter) killed many people already. So you think these companies should be shutdown immediately ? Mark Z in jail ? For example, from [0]: 'Across India, social media rumors have caused rural villagers to patrol in anxious groups on the look-out for anyone they don’t recognize. These mobs have already killed numerous people. In May and June alone, at least six people died in WhatsApp-related mob attacks in eastern Assam, western Maharashtra and southern Tamil Nadu. There’s also simmering tensions over Hindu vigilante groups who’ve targeted and killed Muslims.' [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/one-cop-s-fight-against-fake-news-is-saving-lives-in-india https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/one-cop-s...