6 ms·

> "The vehicle operator’s prolonged visual distraction, a typical effect of automation complacency, led to her failure to detect the pedestrian in time to avoid

> "The vehicle operator’s prolonged visual distraction, a typical effect of automation complacency, led to her failure to detect the pedestrian in time to avoid the collision." This is quite an important point. It was very dangerous of Uber to disable both the car’s built-in collision avoidance system and to have nothing to replace it but the backup driver especially when there is a non-zero risk of automation complacency. I’m not trying to cover for the driver as they were clearly at fault. The evidence seems overwhelming. However, Uber shouldn’t be cleared of fault just because the backup driver is found guilty.

cyrux004 6y ago
For a development vehicle,I am assuming they bypassed the car's stock functionality I am sure they had their own braking system that was supposed to stop for cars, pedestrians, cyclists etc. It didnt function currently at that time
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I still haven't heard a good reason for them to not have also been running Volvo's system in parallel. Considering that the system is clearly not so hair trigger that humans hate it it shouldn't hobble their AI and it seems like all upside and no downside to me.
- davidhyde 6y ago
  > "Uber had disconnected the Volvo's factory-installed crash avoidance system. While the Uber vehicle's autonomous system did detect Herzberg before the impact, the vehicle — and Uber — relied on Vasquez to take action if an emergency arose." The Uber software can detect an imminent collision but relies on the backup driver to act on it. For everything else the car is designed to drive itself. This is why "automation complacency" should not be ignored.
SilasX 6y ago
This. Keep in mind, they rotate lifeguards every 15 minutes, specifically because it's boring and hard to hold attention. It was negligent of Uber not to have some kind of countermeasure like this, even if the driver takes some responsibility.
foobar1962 6y ago
> I’m not trying to cover for the driver as they were clearly at fault. What was the fault? Not paying attention, or driving the car into the pedestrian? The is the case that decides the law. Glad it's not me.

cyrux004 6y ago

For a development vehicle,I am assuming they bypassed the car's stock functionality I am sure they had their own braking system that was supposed to stop for cars, pedestrians, cyclists etc. It didnt function currently at that time

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I still haven't heard a good reason for them to not have also been running Volvo's system in parallel. Considering that the system is clearly not so hair trigger that humans hate it it shouldn't hobble their AI and it seems like all upside and no downside to me.
davidhyde 6y ago
> "Uber had disconnected the Volvo's factory-installed crash avoidance system. While the Uber vehicle's autonomous system did detect Herzberg before the impact, the vehicle — and Uber — relied on Vasquez to take action if an emergency arose." The Uber software can detect an imminent collision but relies on the backup driver to act on it. For everything else the car is designed to drive itself. This is why "automation complacency" should not be ignored.

SilasX 6y ago

This. Keep in mind, they rotate lifeguards every 15 minutes, specifically because it's boring and hard to hold attention. It was negligent of Uber not to have some kind of countermeasure like this, even if the driver takes some responsibility.

foobar1962 6y ago

> I’m not trying to cover for the driver as they were clearly at fault. What was the fault? Not paying attention, or driving the car into the pedestrian? The is the case that decides the law. Glad it's not me.