8 ms·

I think it’s useful not to label this person’s job “driver”, but instead “fall guy”. Their job is to sit around all day doing absolutely nothing. But in the rar

I think it’s useful not to label this person’s job “driver”, but instead “fall guy”. Their job is to sit around all day doing absolutely nothing. But in the rare event where the car fails, they need to suddenly become alert and fix it, or take the blame for the machine’s failure. I think it’s less accurate to describe this transaction as a form of labor, but instead as an indemnity, an assumption of liability, paid for via a wage. For train conductors with a similar challenge, a solution has been invented requiring them to pass various visual attention challenges that detect if they aren’t alert. Such systems weren’t present here. The system wasn’t designed to work - it was designed to protect Uber by shifting the blame for failure.

zkms 6y ago
> I think it’s useful not to label this person’s job “driver”, but instead “fall guy”. Or "sacrificial part" -- designed to break first to protect the rest of the system. The NTSB report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1903.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...) is an interesting read, by the way.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Corporate equivalent of ablative armor then?
_jal 6y ago
This is exactly right. This job is a wage against a (very nasty) lottery ticket, to sit there to absorb the legal fallout for decisions made far away.
Aeolun 6y ago
It is hard to imagine they weren’t aware that their job involved doing nothing (but pay attention to the road). I’d be inclined to give them a pass if they were looking at the road and just inattentive (because that’s expected, like you say), but I find it hard to sympathize with someone watching a show on their phone, explicitly ignoring their one job.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Stepping back, I also find it hard to sympathize with someone watching a show on their phone. But there are two parties to this crime, and only one of them is being charged. Uber is responsible for creating this situation - I doubt this "backup driver" watches videos while driving her own car - yet has managed to escape liability. Hence why it's appropriate to describe her as a "fall gal".
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  Yeah, the problem isn’t that they weren’t paying attention, or that they weren’t even trying, but that they where intentionally NOT paying attention. That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook. If I were on a jury, I’d likely say Uber was guilty of manslaughter (barring a real look at the evidence).
  - akira2501 6y ago
    > That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook There is exceptional negligence on their part. The fact that vehicle was just blithely travelling the posted speed limit, even at night, even though the speed violated it's assured clear ahead ability, is a damning point. The vehicle will operate unsafely in it's default configuration.
    - rdlecler1 6y ago
      And for that reason you have a driver there who should have taken over.
      - modo_mario 6y ago
        Did this person know he should have taken over when the car was respecting the speedlimit but still going faster than it should have been going? I go the speedlimit at night as well. But here in Belgium where there's so much street-lighting it might as well be day How much slower was the car supposed to go for it's sensors and was it all the guys responsibility even if he knew Uber apparently disabled the auto-braking due to issues and didn't pause roadtests?
derwiki 6y ago
Their job is definitely not to sit around and do nothing. Self-driving cars regularly disengage from autonomy (e.g. emergency vehicle, construction zone, erratic bicyclist) and the safety driver needs to be ready at all times. Safety drivers also undergo extensive training around this.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  I believe the normal behavior of self-driving cars in these situations is for the car to brake to avoid hitting the obstacle, so the safety driver has ample time to take over and navigate the situation. Didn’t Uber disable the auto-braking because it was oversensitive, choosing not to pause road tests until that issue was fixed?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Uber disabled the OEM (Volvo) auto-braking but not the Uber braking algorithms. IMO, that’s largely a red herring as they could have equally well chosen to base their platform on a car that didn’t originally have a factory auto-braking system.
hinkley 6y ago
We know that you can pay someone as much as you want but you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event. Except, as you say, by giving them some continuous skin in the game, even if it’s illusory. This person was being paid to pay attention, which is hard enough to get right. What happens when the person owns the car, and is just commuting? And there are millions of them, not just one person? Mayhem, if it’s a variant on this system instead of something much more sophisticated.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event. How about starting by simply removing their phone? Isn't that easy? The driver was looking at her phone at the time when she was supposed to be looking at the road. This is a simple violation. The phone should have been banned and the driver fired after a first violation. I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem. If she couldn't handle the job, she shouldn't have worked there.
  - ocbyc 6y ago
    I believe it was "his" phone at the time.
  - thedrbrian 6y ago
    > I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem Those people are known as drivers and they’re doing more than just looking at the road. The driving/feedback from the controls is keeping them engaged.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      That's all fine, but we also have decades of experience designing systems for exactly this - they are called train drivers. Driving a train can be the most boring job in the universe, in ways that driving a truck isn't - there is very little feedback from the controls, you can be going for hours in a straight line without any need for input or change of speed - so locomotive controls are designed to require constant positive input to keep the driver engaged. This should be the same - the system should require the backup driver to keep confirming/selecting something on the dash, even if it's inconsequential to the operation of the system.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
No it is not; there is no legislation in place that shifts the burden onto technology. The technology is assistive, and the driver is the end responsible. Would you blame an airplane's autopilot if it crashes? We still have two pilots even though 99% of the time the thing is on autopilot. She's a test driver, she did not pay attention, and she killed someone. At best, her employer should help and compensate her, given how it was a workplace, on-the-clock accident.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > Would you blame an airplane's autopilot if it crashes? If the plane crashed due to an autopilot error, yes, absolutely.
AlexandrB 6y ago
This is exactly right, and probably the way that liability will shake out with self-driving vehicles in general since it's in the manufacturer's best interest for it to be that way. "Here's your self-driving car with a 20 page EULA/ToS. Oh, but if it's in self-driving mode and something goes wrong it's not our fault, you must respond (within seconds) and fix it yourself."

zkms 6y ago

> I think it’s useful not to label this person’s job “driver”, but instead “fall guy”. Or "sacrificial part" -- designed to break first to protect the rest of the system. The NTSB report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1903.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...) is an interesting read, by the way.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Corporate equivalent of ablative armor then?

_jal 6y ago

This is exactly right. This job is a wage against a (very nasty) lottery ticket, to sit there to absorb the legal fallout for decisions made far away.

Aeolun 6y ago

It is hard to imagine they weren’t aware that their job involved doing nothing (but pay attention to the road). I’d be inclined to give them a pass if they were looking at the road and just inattentive (because that’s expected, like you say), but I find it hard to sympathize with someone watching a show on their phone, explicitly ignoring their one job.

mindslight 6y ago
Stepping back, I also find it hard to sympathize with someone watching a show on their phone. But there are two parties to this crime, and only one of them is being charged. Uber is responsible for creating this situation - I doubt this "backup driver" watches videos while driving her own car - yet has managed to escape liability. Hence why it's appropriate to describe her as a "fall gal".
goodluckchuck 6y ago
Yeah, the problem isn’t that they weren’t paying attention, or that they weren’t even trying, but that they where intentionally NOT paying attention. That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook. If I were on a jury, I’d likely say Uber was guilty of manslaughter (barring a real look at the evidence).
- akira2501 6y ago
  > That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook There is exceptional negligence on their part. The fact that vehicle was just blithely travelling the posted speed limit, even at night, even though the speed violated it's assured clear ahead ability, is a damning point. The vehicle will operate unsafely in it's default configuration.
  - rdlecler1 6y ago
    And for that reason you have a driver there who should have taken over.
    - modo_mario 6y ago
      Did this person know he should have taken over when the car was respecting the speedlimit but still going faster than it should have been going? I go the speedlimit at night as well. But here in Belgium where there's so much street-lighting it might as well be day How much slower was the car supposed to go for it's sensors and was it all the guys responsibility even if he knew Uber apparently disabled the auto-braking due to issues and didn't pause roadtests?

derwiki 6y ago

Their job is definitely not to sit around and do nothing. Self-driving cars regularly disengage from autonomy (e.g. emergency vehicle, construction zone, erratic bicyclist) and the safety driver needs to be ready at all times. Safety drivers also undergo extensive training around this.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I believe the normal behavior of self-driving cars in these situations is for the car to brake to avoid hitting the obstacle, so the safety driver has ample time to take over and navigate the situation. Didn’t Uber disable the auto-braking because it was oversensitive, choosing not to pause road tests until that issue was fixed?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Uber disabled the OEM (Volvo) auto-braking but not the Uber braking algorithms. IMO, that’s largely a red herring as they could have equally well chosen to base their platform on a car that didn’t originally have a factory auto-braking system.

hinkley 6y ago

We know that you can pay someone as much as you want but you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event. Except, as you say, by giving them some continuous skin in the game, even if it’s illusory. This person was being paid to pay attention, which is hard enough to get right. What happens when the person owns the car, and is just commuting? And there are millions of them, not just one person? Mayhem, if it’s a variant on this system instead of something much more sophisticated.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event. How about starting by simply removing their phone? Isn't that easy? The driver was looking at her phone at the time when she was supposed to be looking at the road. This is a simple violation. The phone should have been banned and the driver fired after a first violation. I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem. If she couldn't handle the job, she shouldn't have worked there.
- ocbyc 6y ago
  I believe it was "his" phone at the time.
- thedrbrian 6y ago
  > I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem Those people are known as drivers and they’re doing more than just looking at the road. The driving/feedback from the controls is keeping them engaged.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    That's all fine, but we also have decades of experience designing systems for exactly this - they are called train drivers. Driving a train can be the most boring job in the universe, in ways that driving a truck isn't - there is very little feedback from the controls, you can be going for hours in a straight line without any need for input or change of speed - so locomotive controls are designed to require constant positive input to keep the driver engaged. This should be the same - the system should require the backup driver to keep confirming/selecting something on the dash, even if it's inconsequential to the operation of the system.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

No it is not; there is no legislation in place that shifts the burden onto technology. The technology is assistive, and the driver is the end responsible. Would you blame an airplane's autopilot if it crashes? We still have two pilots even though 99% of the time the thing is on autopilot. She's a test driver, she did not pay attention, and she killed someone. At best, her employer should help and compensate her, given how it was a workplace, on-the-clock accident.

smnrchrds 6y ago
> Would you blame an airplane's autopilot if it crashes? If the plane crashed due to an autopilot error, yes, absolutely.

AlexandrB 6y ago

This is exactly right, and probably the way that liability will shake out with self-driving vehicles in general since it's in the manufacturer's best interest for it to be that way. "Here's your self-driving car with a 20 page EULA/ToS. Oh, but if it's in self-driving mode and something goes wrong it's not our fault, you must respond (within seconds) and fix it yourself."