EEVblog #1088 - Uber Autonomous Car Accident Report - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 04:29:32 am
content: The NTSB today released the report into the fatal Uber Autonomous car accident.TLDR;The RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras DID detect and classify pedestrian bicycle correctly.The system DID determine that emergency braking was required.But Uber disabled the systems emergency braking feature in autonomous mode.Uber also disabled Volvo's inbuilt safety systems.There is also no system to alert the driver that the system detected an emergency breaking scenario.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 04:58:23 am
content: Just adding my comment from YouTube:QuoteSomebody should be held responsible for this legally so the family can at least get closure(not just money). The family settled but AZ can still charge whoever they find deserves it.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 05:07:45 am
content: FYI Bicycle vs personToyota's current safety system, TSS-P, has pedestrian braking. In the next version, TSS-P2.0, starting in 2019, has pedestrian AND bicycle braking. Are bicycles harder to detect than people? I have no idea.

author: Decoman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 05:12:24 am
content: I wonder if any reflective material on the bike or person at night time might confuse the autonomous car software.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 05:40:12 am
content: Quote from: Decoman on May 25, 2018, 05:12:24 amAlien spaceship flying above might confuse autonomous car software, and I might get pregnant.The fact is car DID detect pedestrian just fine, but emergency breaking was deemed too inconvenient at design stage.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 06:26:21 am
content: After reading that report, I have no issue with the operator. None at all. She was doing what she had been instructed to do and the fact that she did react is a credit to her.The fundamental issue with the "operator intervention" requirement for emergency braking is that the operator had been instructed to keep tabs on the autonomous systems monitor and make annotations for later review. Having been directed away from watching the road, their situational awareness had been severely compromised.Regaining that awareness was a process that would have required time. From lifting one's head up from the monitor, the first stage is for their eyes to adjust to the lighting conditions and to focus. Then the scene is "taken in" - the human process of understanding the image presented by the eyes. Only then is it possible for the human to identify issues and be able to take action ... and that process also takes time.All of this may only take a second or two, but that's all the time that was needed for this to end tragically.Uber has much to answer for, IMO.1. By allocating the system monitor task to the operator, they have compromised that person's ability to act in an emergency situation.2. By not providing a warning to the operator of a potential problem, Uber denied the operator the opportunity to look up and gain situational awareness before the critical period.3. By disabling the manufacturer's automatic braking system, Uber added a significant element of risk, especially considering their own software's ability to do so had been disabled. This is, perhaps, the single most bizarre action since I would imagine it added NO value to the data collected. If the Volvo's braking system engaged, then I would love to see that in the data and compare it against the Uber system's assessments. This is just inexcusable.The technology would appear to be capable ... it's the idiots running it that are making bad choices.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 09:06:52 am
content: Why did uber not integrate the Volvo systems into its own in order to avoid collisions. As it is the car was set up to have a collision. It may well be worse than that the reason the driver was looking down was the diagnostic system bleeped due to detecting an unknown ahead, so she does what she is told to do, Takes her eyes off the road. Looks like Uber decided to cheap out, dis able the Volvos system rather than tie them in and not have a co driver to keep an eye on diagnostic systems etc. A fatality was inevitable at some point. There is a manager level person somewhere in Uber who should be doing time inside.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 09:47:23 am
content: $10k question still lingers imo.Who is liable and will they press charges? If this was a human driver, someone would be in deep crap. Eyes off the road and fatality....Should be interesting to see the reports from the recent tesla autopilot crashes when they come out as well.

author: Tom George
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 09:55:55 am
content: Hi,FROM YouTube reply..If the "SYSTEM" relies on the operator to intervene, why doesn't the operator just drive the car all the time and for safety sake forget about "Autonomous" systems.The only way an Autonomous system can work is if there is an Autonomous only road, not lane but road. That is obstacle/pedestrian free?The fact that the Volvo system was disabled is puzzling, the system must work otherwise Volvo would not have fitted it to their cars.Why didn't the UBER system use it as a secondary/primary detection system.Question, WHY didn't the pedestrian see the car(Headlights)? There didn't appear to be any other vehicles or obstacles in the way to obstruct her view.﻿Tom..

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 10:02:48 am
content: Quote from: Tom George on May 25, 2018, 09:55:55 amWhat do you expect from someone high on methamphetamine and cannabis?

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 11:39:38 am
content: The ultimate "fault" is clearly with the unfortunate victim of this crash (high on drugs, not paying attention, and crossing where specifically prohibited)BUT,The point of autonomous systems is to try to mitigate even such extreme circumstances (drugged up pedestrian wanders into the road) and so it's right to look at the failures in the automation.Unfortunately, the leading edge of the bonnet is a very stiff structure, and despite "showing little damage" can easily result in fatal head injuries (especially for shorter victims) at a surprisingly low speed.I should point out that the EEVblogbraking(not breaking!) analysis uses a figure of 0.77g, which is actually very low for a typical modern car on a dry road surface. The typical figure for fully developed threshold braking would be around 1.1g and can be up to 1.4g for transient events (before the mass transfer due to the deccel results in less optimum normal load distribution).If the system had effectively "lifted off" at the 6.5 sec mark (typically around 0.05g) and then swapped to full retard at 1.3 secs, remembering it would have had plenty of time to already "pre arm" the brake system (ie applied a gentle pre-application pressure to push the brake pads out to the discs and stiffen the system so that full braking can be developed almost immediately (~75ms)It's also worth pointing out that Davids analysis is imo, wrong, as he hasn't considered the fact that we have a time to impact measured at a constant speed, and hence in the distance domain, as you decelerate it takes "Longer" to travel a distance, and hence you then have more time to brake (and hence a 2.55 sec stopping "time"isavailable!We know there was 1.3 seconds advanced warning and that the car did not slow before hitting the victim, and so the critical distance was 1.3 sec x 43mph (19.2 m/s) = 24.98m prior to the impact point. (we'll call it 25m). if we take a worst cased and delay the application of braking by 100ms (a long time for modern ABS system) we have (25 - ( 0.1 * 19.2)) = 23m left to stop, under fully developed threshold braking. And at 1 g, it takes just 18m (and 1.95 sec to stop completely from 43mph) ie, we stop 7 meters (more than one whole car length) away from the pedestrian!In fact, with 23m to stop from 43mph, we can brake at your original -7.5m/s level and still juuuust stop before we hit them!(this phenomena also explains why, when emergency braking a car, you need to stop hard as early as possible, to give you the most amount of time in which to stop. Most human drivers crash into stuff that they could have in fact actually avoided if they had threshold braked immediately, rather than just got gently on the brakes to start with, and then only braked hard when they realised they needed too, but by then it's too late..... Modern braking systems include a "brake assist" system for this very reason, that actually applies additional pedal force immediately on a rapid lift of the throttle and detection of brake pedal movement. Some drivers angrily complain this makes the car feel like it over reacted, however, what they miss is just how angry and annoyed they would be to spend the next few months in hospital (or on a charge of manslaughter) after actually crashing because they didn't brake hard enough.......)

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 11:47:43 am
content: XC-90, dry tarmac, 62mph to zero in 36mEquivalent to 1.08g average decel. (not clear if that distance shown in that video includes the reaction and application time, clearly the reaction time should be very short as the driver is ready and armed to stop, but unless they are left foot braking, the application time should be valid. We can't tell however if it is 36m from the point the vehicle starts to slow or 36m from where the driver reacts.Still, shows how good at stopping modern brakes and tyres really are. (most modern hi-silica compound tyres now generate around 0.85g even on wet roads)

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 12:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on May 25, 2018, 10:02:48 amWhere does it say that the cyclist was high on drugs. And did the car have its lih=ghts on at the time of the collision.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 12:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 25, 2018, 12:11:21 pmIn the preliminary NTSB report. Second section from the end.https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

author: GerryBags
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 12:31:01 pm
content: It seems crazy to me that there is not much more regulation of companies taking safety risks on public roads while they are actively trying to reduce the number of jobs for people. In a world of full employment it makes sense to free up people from menial tasks, but we don't have full employment anywhere and driving is NOT a menial task. A study that came out last year found that the levels of concentration required for driving were far higher, and used much more of the brain's capacity, than previously thought.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 12:32:09 pm
content: That underexposed dash cam video Uber (and the police!) released was pure misdirection. As many other youtubers have demonstrated; the lighting conditions were perfectly normal at the time of the accident. All sensors seem to have detected the pedestrian/bike. We were meant to believe the safety driver was looking down at her phone but instead it turns out she was looking at the diagnostics screen as she had been instructed to do, and whoever released the video must have known that. Clearly they were trying to put all the blame the safety driver! Unbelievable.Apparently they used to have two safety drivers in every car; one driving and one looking at the diagnostics, tagging 'interesting' events. Recently they had switched to only one safety driver, presumably to get more testing done in time for a VIP demo.Even if they say they completely relied on the safety drivers to brake (which is pretty jaw dropping, isn't this supposed to be self driving?), they couldat leasthave the car give some sort of audible alert to warn the operators they might have to brake. That is just inexcusable.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 12:37:03 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on May 25, 2018, 11:39:38 amThis could have easily been a child chasing after a ball and running out in to the road.So a druggie getting mowed down by an distracted driver is ok? Does this change if its a child then?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 01:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on May 25, 2018, 12:19:55 pmIt only says the tests showed positive it does not state the pedestrian was off their head or even just a bit intoxicated. Tests are so sensitive now that just being exposed to fumes will show on the person.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 01:46:40 pm
content: I fail to see why it really matters.This is a case that any reasonable alert driver would have had plenty of time to stop or maneuver preventing this accident. Had this person walked out between parked cars feet from a moving car, ok. That's not the case here.It also doesn't compute IMO that the ped crossed in the middle of the road, outside of a legal cross walk therefore its the peds fault. By that logic, its fine then for me to watch Dave's latest video going down the road and its open season on jay walkers? Might as well get a cattle guard installed on my car then. Would it then be distasteful to put stickers on the hood for each ped mowed down to serve as a warning for would be jay walkers?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 01:53:38 pm
content: Lets not get distracted with these arguments.The purpose of this discussion is related to the engineering and the decisions in relation to that, not the other stuff.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 01:55:51 pm
content: Would think the liability issue is very related to engineering decisions made with these products...

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 01:58:35 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 25, 2018, 12:37:03 pmNo. it would, by the letter of the law (assuming the driver wasn't speeding, or driving without due care and attention etc) still be the child's fault.Our road system (At least in the uk where i live) gives right of way to the vehicle unless specifically contra-indicated (ie signed pedestrian crossings etc)No one is saying it is "ok to be run down by a driver", just that the system is quite clear, in that the vehicle has right of way. if you run out in front of a car (for what ever reason) then that is your choice and by definition your "fault"And whilst a "Good" driver, should drive in such a fashion as to be able to avoid, or at least mitigate the effects of an errant object in their path, the fact of the matter is that through distraction, boredom or poor skill (usually observational failures) human drivers often don't react until too late. As perfectly proven by this incident, where the "safety" driver, despite being there for one primary purpose (and being paid to be there, ie, as their job) failed to prevent the accident. (in this case, it seems that failure wasn't directly their fault, as the system was in-sufficient to allow them to react in a timely fashion. ie lack of warning etc)So to identify a "primary" fault, we have to look at the one single action that would have with 100% certainty prevented the eventual death, and that can clearly be seen to be the initial victims act of walking into the road (where specifically prohibited remember) without either looking, or after making a poor decision (ie failed to appreciate the speed of the oncoming car ). Any other mitigating action, that could have possibly prevented or mitigated the eventual result, but that you can't say would have 100% certainly prevented it ie the car driving slower, the driver paying more attention, cannot be therefore be the primary fault/cause. (it becomes a contributory factor)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:01:16 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 25, 2018, 01:55:51 pmWe could say that about Uber's decision to disable the Volvo braking system - but that is NOT why I mentioned it.I mentioned it because it was a very bad decision that served no real engineering benefit and increased risk of undesirable impact. The liability discussion happens in a different room - one with far less engineers.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on May 25, 2018, 01:58:35 pmQuick check, that seems to be the case here as well. If that is the case in NV, and it likely is, they prob won't file any charges.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:17:01 pm
content: And there's the flip side ....While Uber may not have trouble with the law ... they certainly have set themselves up for a bucketload of criticism from the engineering fraternity.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:21:03 pm
content: Quote from: Tom George on May 25, 2018, 09:55:55 amAs as i know, the Uber autonomous system is not "factory supported" by Volvo. Ie, whilst they demonstrate the system in a volvo car, i don't believe the system is being developed in conjunction with the OEM, as such, they will not have access to the system design information for the OE system, and hence probably have to disable it when their system is operating to avoid the two systems clashing with each other. I don't know the entry point for the Uber autonomy to the volvo mechatronics (ie steering, brakes and driver demand) but you'd imagine they have effectively re-created the signal path that the OE system uses (most probably on the Flexray data bus) to allow their system to issue commands to the vehicle subsystems.

author: grythumn
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:32:45 pm
content: Also, Uber was trying to create their own self-driving platform. If you integrate it with the safety features of a specific make, model, and year of vehicle, you're going to have to redo that work every few years as the OEM updates their systems, and are locked into a very small subset of available vehicles.They were definitely reckless in switching to a single operator before they had their own autobraking system properly tuned and tested, however.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 02:38:36 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 25, 2018, 02:17:01 pmThey may have sealed their AV program's fate seeing how fast states once friendly to their testing on roadways are turning direction. This thing should have been on controlled test tracks until it could at least stop for itself. Maybe we will see some basic DOT qualification tests for AV before they are deemed "road ready". Blows the mind something so early in its development would be on the public roads with little if any oversight.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 04:04:41 pm
content: How did disabling the emergency braking (not "breaking") and forcing the safety person to look down at a screen seem like a good idea toanybodywith two neurons to rub together?What they need is something like a red light and/or beeper to indicate when the car thinks something is wrong and a button to push to confirm/dismiss it.If the person in charge confirms a hazard then emergency braking is initiated.If the person dismisses the hazard then presumably the data gathered can be used to improve the AI. If they neither confirm/deny it then nothing happens.This keeps the person's eyes on the road and gives fastest possible reaction time (a button is much faster than a pedal).There could be some sort of HUD to indicate where the car thinks the hazard is but most of the time it would probably be used for the "dismiss" case so the person can know what the car was seeing.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 05:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on May 25, 2018, 11:39:38 amThere was a related news story on NBC news last night. It is the height of SUVs that is killing people.https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pedestrian-fatalities-and-suv-accidents-on-the-rise-report-finds-1241371715959?cid=eml_nnn_20180524

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 05:46:38 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 25, 2018, 01:53:38 pmI agree. If Uber had enabled the emergency braking then probably a life would have been saved.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 06:00:13 pm
content: If they still had loads of false object detections, enabling it may have caused loads of rear end collisions as well. Alpha testing on public roads is simply insane.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 07:02:15 pm
content: They could at the very least have enabled an alarm of some sort. Something that beeps if the car believes it is about to hit something. That would have been enough to avoid this accident.Also, in this case the car should have known there was no other car behind it, so emergency braking would be safe even if it was a false positive.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 10:11:06 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on May 25, 2018, 06:00:13 pmThis. Not only do pedestrians need to be predictable, but EVERYTHING needs to be predictable to eliminate collisions. Unless you make the environment 100% predictable there are going to be collisions. FACT. This means making it impossible for a person (or anything else) to break the rules and be where they're not expected to be (ie wandering around in the street). Unless we are ready to make sealed "roadway tubes" or something then this isn't a reality. Expect ANY type of vehicle, autonomous or not, to hit things that break the rules.I stand by what I said last time, which is that there is no way to make anything 100% safe and so you should stop expecting perfection. Even if you make cars that won't EVER go over 5mph in the name of safety, that's still not slow enough to react to EVERY situation. 44mph collisions will routinely kill people. 20mph collisions will routinely kill people. 10mph collisions will routinely kill people. People moving at 0mph tipping over on their bicycles routinely get concussions if they hit their heads without a helmet and some actually do die. We did not evolve to be hit by metal objects weighing 4000+lbs moving at any speed, but having those objects around is not something that's ever going away so we better get used to the consequences and respect the rules that reduce the likelihood of collisions.Thinking in this case that a "beeping" sound to alert the driver would have helped is insane. As a driver, unless you are already focused on the act of driving, responding to an alert after being in the middle of another task is going to take seconds not ms to evaluate the situation and take an action. This is why reading text messages is so damn dangerous in a car. People can't context switch quickly. Stop reacting to this situation with your gut emotional respose and start thinking critically like engineers.One thing I didn't see was clear, but I also didn't carefully read everything. When they say "emergency braking system" are they referring to the factory system built into the Volvo or are they talking about an add-on system that the Uber people installed as part of their autonomous package?And again.... The measure of autonomous cars is NOT that they NEVER kill people. It's if they kill fewer people than non-autonomous cars do. If that's the case then it's worth having autonomous cars even without 100% perfectly perfect perfection.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 10:56:09 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 25, 2018, 10:11:06 pmUtter nonsense. You have to be prepared for the driver in front of you braking for apparantly no good reason at all times. Because of that in most countries you are at fault when you drive your car into the rear of the car in front of you: you can't see what the driver in front of you is seeing.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2018, 11:45:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 25, 2018, 10:56:09 pmA good reason -> new car (that is what the person who stopped in front of me got - no reason and no witnesses ) They said a bicycle (there were none). The could have hallucinated and it was still my fault. I just turned my head to check cross traffic (none). I totaled their 94 BMW and I am still driving my dented 2000 Tacoma. My guess I was doing 20 mph.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 12:15:34 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 25, 2018, 10:56:09 pmI agree you need to be prepared for the driver ahead of you to brake. But the thing being missed is that is actually quite likely and therefore predictable and more importantly you don't expect them to reach zero speed instantly. The car ahead didn't drop a brick wall that you have to avoid hitting. A "safe following distance" is such that you can react to the predictable situations such as the car ahead braking. They have a stopping distance similar as you, so what you are reacting to is their action of braking. This is predictably something a car does and in this case if you have "a safe following distance" you both brake and you both decelerate together and don't collide. "A safe following distance" is different if the car ahead of you is a Lamborghini and you are in a Suburban, but these are things you can work out on the fly and don't violate the rules. A semi-truck won't magically have the stopping distance of the Lamborghini.Being meat computers, we tend to be not very good at this consideration, and often ignore it in the name of "predictability" but typical rear end collisions between decent autonomous cars should be essentially non-existant since it's expecting that's something a car may do. It's predictable. Cases like this are where autonomous cars will in the total save lives. Autonomous cars don't have to take their attention from the car ahead of them to check cross traffic and that extra reaction time makes a difference.Based on what you claimed about liability of rear end accidents, what happens in a huge rear end pile up where for whatever reason cars keep slamming into the stationary wrecked car ahead of them in a line? Does everyone just pay the insurance of the person in front of them but also get paid by the guy behind? I guess that ends up with everyone in the middle having no liability with only the last guy paying and the lead car who gets off free?There is no "safe following distance" for someone that 100% doesn't belong where they are and walks out in front of the vehicle. You can't predict they are going to do that since they broke the agreed upon rules of how things can predictably act in the road. You also can't predict they aren't going to do that either, just like you can't predict with a high likelihood that the car in the lane next to you won't swerve and push you into a ditch. Which is my point about there being no "safe" speed to avoid all collisions in all cases. All you can do is trust everyone else on the road will follow the rules and act predictably.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 02:38:25 am
content: Autonomous vehicle testing must be performed on public roads at some point - otherwise they're not autonomous vehicles. If kept to a dedicated carriageway, they are nothing more than guided vehicles and their application is limited to even less than that of a tram.The fact is that the Uber technology DID detect the situation as, I have no doubt, would the Volvo system. The error was not in the tech - but in the implementation decisions.To minimise the risk of unwanted rear end collisions, why not simply put a big fat sign on the rear of the vehicle under test warning of the possibility of unexpected stopping? Or is that too low tech?

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 03:37:21 am
content: Why wouldn't we expect an AV to pass a min competency test before public road testing? This thing was a train wreck waiting to happen in its current state. Seems more than reasonable to expect an AV to have equal safety features as modern cars as a very min to hit the open road.Its the wild west right now in AV land and these guys pushed well beyond reasonable limits imo.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 06:22:19 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on May 25, 2018, 11:45:04 pmSpeaking as someone who has been rear ended at least half a dozen times and still suffers the effects of neck and back injury, you should have been watching where you were going. There is really no excuse for rear ending someone, if you are in forward motion you need to be looking forward. If you have to look away for a few milliseconds then you are responsible for ensuring that you are far enough away that the distance will not close in that time frame should they stop unexpectedly.It doesn't matter if there was a bicycle or they just decided to slam on their brakes on a whim. You are 100% responsible for maintaining safe distance and not hitting them. In over 20 years of driving several hundred thousand miles I've never even bumped someone, not once.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 06:12:18 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on May 26, 2018, 02:38:25 amHow about also using that build in warning siren installed on all cars (aka THE CAR HORN) for warning of approach or potential collision? Not saying it should go off all the time, but I think it would be prudent to warn a detected pedestrian or other car that a car is approaching. They way they at least have a chance to get out of the way if the car can't stop fast enough. It would also alert the person behind that the car ahead just slammed the brakes.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 06:42:31 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 26, 2018, 12:15:34 amProbably. It depends on what the insurance companies work out together.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 06:49:05 pm
content: I wonder if the "driver" was looking down because the autonomy had just flashed up a warning? The report says the system spotted the potential for a collision 6.5 sec before it occurred, which means that there would have been time for the driver to notice any warning on the display, but maybe with just their eyes not yet being able to see the hazard, and hence looking down at the display, unfortunately then preventing them from taking manual avoiding action?The std Volvo system has a HUD and warning LEDS that flash at the bottom of the windscreen when it detects the onset of a potential collision (when it's trajectory projection logic suggests a future collision has reached a certain level of probability.

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 07:45:25 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 26, 2018, 12:15:34 amA story. Once, I was driving in the third lane out of a 4 lane carriageway - just before it splits into 2+2 for a junction. Ahead of me was a White Van. I was following it leaving a safe distance, when......the van engine seized. Almighty cloud of blue smoke from the back end of the van. A mixture of diesel, rubber, and bits of engine (but not lubricating oil. Clearly no lubricating oil). The thing just stopped in the middle of the road with traffic passing either side.I didn't hit it - I had left plenty of room to stop in an emergency. I always do now. Always. Even if it annoys the heck out of the Perfect Drivers.

author: abraxa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 09:19:14 pm
content: From what I understand, it was a management decision - not an engineering one. Management dictated that the engineers must get something working quickly so that they can display success to the CEO/CTO. Combining that with the silicon valley mind set of "technology will save us" and the economic mantra of share holder value leading all business decisions, it's easy to see how someone could be ignorant enough to actually go through with such a plan.Uber is known to be completely reckless in its business decisions, even outright hostile towards other countries' governments. This incident appears to fit right into the mind set the company's mangement demonstrated world wide.Other companies working on that technology (automotive OEMs and tier-1 suppliers) know of the potential fallout from this kind of disaster because it can easily shift public opinion, directly transforming into lost sales. Because of this, they act very carefully and low-key. Uber however wants to be anything but low key. I just hope the US government will punish them for it and prevent them from doing further damage to the industry.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 09:35:21 pm
content: Quote from: abraxa on May 26, 2018, 09:19:14 pmWell these engineers are still reckless IMHO.If management told me to compromise life safety systems, I would walk. Not going to be their pawn when the $hit runs downhill.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 10:56:18 pm
content: It is clearly a marketing problem. Uber is trying to sell a Level 2 driver assistance system as Level 3 self driving. At level 2, you need to pay attention at all times, this is one of those system, because it doesn't break for you. Tesla does the same, calling it an autopilot, while you need to keep your hand on the wheel and be ready for anything.Meanwhile, Audi announced, that they take 100% responsibility, if their proper Level 3 cars would cause an accident. Volvo states that nobody will die in their cars in 2 years (clearly, only if you are not trying or you are not tampering with the software like Uber). The motoring industry is changing again. I wouldnt be surprised, if the USA car industry would go through the same collapse as the British some time ago.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2018, 08:05:30 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 26, 2018, 10:56:18 pmBut what does that mean?In a hypothetical case where an autonomous car (assume no manual controls at all) drives down the road, then suddenly veers off into a sidewalk and plows into a crowd, who goes to jail? The last guy that made a contribution to the software, the guy that installed the sensor, the management that gave the green light, all of them?Or does "responsibility" mean that the company just pays some settlement money to the families of the dead and carries on?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2018, 10:00:07 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 26, 2018, 10:56:18 pmThey don't actually make one yet, so...Quote from: NANDBlog on May 26, 2018, 10:56:18 pmThey've been saying that since about 2010 (that nobody will dieina Volvo after 2020). It's clearly impossible to garantee - you might hit a concrete post at 120mph.Quote from: Domagoj T on May 27, 2018, 08:05:30 amNone of them, clearly.Quote from: Domagoj T on May 27, 2018, 08:05:30 amMaybe not even that.There's no way these cars will be allowed out en masse without some new laws limiting their liability. Manufacturers will be lobbying hard right now to make sure they won't be bankrupted by the first major accident.Audi might just be promising to obey the laws (which they have no choice in doing, so this is an empty statement).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2018, 11:50:34 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 27, 2018, 10:00:07 amThe new A8 has Level 3 autonomous driving up to 60kph. It doesn't get into the news because unlike the others it doesn't crash all the time.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2018, 08:10:27 pm
content: There's a difference between that Audi system and the Uber one:The Audi, the system has been designed with a safety rated SIL3 or SIL4 system. Each line of code is reviewed, the overall system design is approved by a certification agency, and the development process is approved, fault injection tests and qualification is done in an extensive way.The uber system has none of that. it's an experimental thing that cannot be sold. Never. Uber does not have the structure and finances to make their autonomous driving safe, with a SIL rating.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2018, 09:39:34 pm
content: Starting on Page 8 are electronic diagrams on a car's electronic systems.Found by searching on SIL which I believe should be ASIL or A-SILhttps://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-Automotive_Application_Guide-ABR-v00_00-EN.pdf?fileId=db3a30431c48a312011c6696b47402cc

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 07:06:57 am
content: At the end of the day, Uber and whoever else that was involved in developing the autonomous driving system, should have let Volvo do what Volvo do best, safety. Leave the emergency features enabled. Volvo cars' systems only intervene at the last possible moment to prevent a collision, they areverygood. They will warn you well before hand but not take control of braking until it's absolutely necessary.Surely at some point during a meeting, someone would have raised some kind of concern when the issue of disabling Volvo's features was brought up.Also, the human driver needed to be paying attention, he failed at the one job he was there to do.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 07:29:35 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 28, 2018, 07:06:57 amI don't doubt someone did - but I believe they may have had a conflict between allowing the Volvo system to control the brakes for emergency situations - and Uber's system for normal braking when driving around. Both these systems would need to be active at the same time.My bet is that there could have been some element of each system's function that made this problematic and the engineers said they would need time to integrate the two ... but the powers that be ordered a time oriented solution rather than a safety oriented one.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 11:13:55 am
content: As i said a few pages back, Without the OEM supporting the project the "entry point" to the mechatronics must be the same point as used by the OE system, and therefore the OE system must be disabled before the Uber one can work!For example, take the trajectory control, it must feed a command to the power steering rack, and so unless Uber have reverse engineered that rack and it's controller or replaced it with their own, either of which would be highly unlikely given the time/cost to do so, then they must be simply replacing the OE signals with their own versions (probably on the Flexray bus). That means you cannot have both systems operational without a clash!

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 09:14:41 pm
content: Well, as per prelm NTSB report UBER is at fault, lets sue.

author: dtweed
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 01, 2018, 11:10:53 pm
content: Your braking performance calculation is based on a false premise.The question is not"How fast will the car be going 1.2 seconds after applying the brakes?"but rather"How fast will the car be going when it reaches the pedestrian?"It turns out that if you do the calculation using your numbers (initial speed = 19.2 m/s, acceleration = -7.55 m/s^2, distance = 25 m), the car never reaches the pedestrian at all! It actually comes to a stop in about 24.4 meters, giving the pedestrian a good scare, but not making contact.

author: EEngo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2018, 12:31:21 pm
content: With these figures you have to keep in mind that the result is very much depending on small time variations. If you include a time for the brake system to apply full brake power of typ 0.1 to 0.2 seconds (as already shown before), a decelleration of -7.55 m/s^2 would not avoid the impact. In accident reconstruction these relations are shown in distance-time-graphs as you can see in the attached figure.At those speeds 0.1 seconds, resp. 2 meters can change the result.But of course, a prompt braking action of the autonomous car system would have reduced the impact velocity very significantly! (in this case and with -7.55 m/s^2, to approx. 15 km/h, see graph)And yes, with good conditions higher decelleration rates are possible, but in real driving situations you would stick below 1g. For the case discussed here, you would have to perform braking tests at the accident scene.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2018, 09:21:45 am
content: Just been reading about a Dutch report on AEB systems (automatic emergency braking) which are mandatory on Dutch trucks. It seems that some the systems cannot see the back of another truck but do see a small post with a reflector on it. One of the comments was the programmers of the systems are focusing too much on object classification rather than object detection, in other words it does not matter if the object in front is a person or a tree or a truck it does not matter if it is not in the data base just stop.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2018, 05:29:47 pm
content: You don't want a truck doing a full emergency stop if it sees a plastic shopping bag blowing across the highway though, or a pothole, shadow, painted marking, wet patch, etc. That could easily cause a serious accident rather than prevent one.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2018, 09:20:36 pm
content: These trucks were not stopping for a stationary tanker in the tests as they had not been programmed into the data base.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2018, 10:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on May 25, 2018, 11:45:04 pmI don't think so. There's a simple rule: if you can't come to a complete stop without hitting the car in front of you if it stops/slows suddenly then YOU are too close. I can't think of an exception. Of course, good luck trying to maintain a safe distance without someone filling that space on a multilane road.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 03:24:45 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on June 03, 2018, 09:20:36 pmThat's obviously an issue, however it supports my view that these sort of assist features should be considered secondary safety features, something that will kick in if the driver fails to act but not something meant to allow the driver to not pay attention. Thus they should err on the side of not slamming on the brakes rather than doing so when not necessary.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 04:10:55 am
content: There have been a few times where I have had management, both my company and the client ask me to do something that I see as likely to result in harm to someone.E.g. I was asked to fit an immobilizer system to a boom lift, with the specification "no hydraulic operation should be possible in this state, neither raise or lower, from basket controls or ground until overridden with a senior management key"Now for clarity, every boom lift under the sun allows you to go down after something goes wrong, for the basket its with the E-stop pulled back out, and from the ground its with the control switch changed,Can anyone see an issue with preventing someone in a basket getting down? So had to go through management that we cannot meet that requirement.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 05:58:57 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on June 04, 2018, 04:10:55 amWhat if they do something idiotic/expensive and you want to keep them up there on display until the boss arrives?(I guess you could have another "foreman" key for that).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 12:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on June 03, 2018, 10:14:36 pmIn theory you're right, however in practise, as you've stated in your last sentence, it's not always practical. Suppose someone overtakes you, then slams their brakes on in front of you? Without witnesses, there's nothing you can do. There was a spate of insurance scams where people would deliberately cause accidents, by suddenly breaking, getting the car behind to crash into them. I'm pretty sure the perpetrators got caught eventually.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 04:32:31 pm
content: That is what dash cams are for.https://youtu.be/SeIPZ5f9nX4

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:29:05 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on June 04, 2018, 04:32:31 pmShe made the mistake of telling them she had a dash cam. After my staged accident, I got a dash cam (a Canon A810 camera). If I have another accident I will not disclose it to the other person. I will want the police to see it after their statement.Had I had one, it would have made no difference. They could have said they saw a pink flying saucer but would have made me feel better. In other words someone can slam on their brakes for no reason and if you hit them, it is your fault. A dash cam might discourage them from doing it again.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:48:02 pm
content: https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2018/06/02/self-driving-cars-will-kill-people-heres-why-you-need-to-get-over-it/The analogy to airbag technology is interesting.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:48:20 pm
content: Yes they can slam on their brakes and if you hit them it's your fault, that is a very basic concept that you should understand. I get that it's an issue with multi-lane roads where someone will often move in to fill that space but it doesn't sound like it's the problem here. It is 100% *your* responsibility to maintain a safe following distance. Doesn't matter why they slammed on their brakes, you weren't looking where you were going, you hit them, it was your fault, end of story.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on June 04, 2018, 06:48:20 pmNot yet, I am still paying for it

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:52:11 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on June 04, 2018, 06:29:05 pmYep. Make sure their names and addresses are on a police file before releasing your video.Insurance fraud is a serious offense in most places.Also: It will be seriously funny to see their faces.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:52:42 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on June 04, 2018, 12:49:24 pmI completely agree.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2018, 06:57:35 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on June 04, 2018, 06:48:02 pmI hope BMW are happy to have one of their cars as a stock photo in that story.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2018, 11:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on June 04, 2018, 06:48:20 pmI once had someone sharply cut in front of me, I had no way out and hit their vehicle around the rear door. The driver was of the opinion that it was my fault and that I should have stopped in the 50cm he allowed me for the purpose. In the end, it was concluded that he drove into my path and caused the accident, and had to bear 100% of the costs. My insurance company had a very good lawyer on the case, he argued that the place of impact supported my version and that the other party's explanation of me hitting him from behind in that location was not credible. Win!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2018, 12:39:48 am
content: Dash cams are becoming increasingly appealing. Obviously if someone pulls in front of you that is a different case than hitting someone you are already following behind.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2018, 02:09:33 am
content: Dash cams certainly would help make it very clear what actually happened.If you did have someone jump in front of you, find the centre of the lane and then brake suddenly, a dash cam will show there was not enough time to re-establish a safe following distance.Now there is a question.... How long is a reasonable time to drop back to a safe distance when someone cuts in front? Too short and you would have to jump on the brakes which could cause an accident. Too long and you're leaving yourself open. Either way, the traffic behind you won't like your caution if you make it too obvious.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2018, 04:40:32 pm
content: Quote from: nfmax on May 26, 2018, 07:45:25 pmThree true stories...My first car was, um, interesting. If you coasted up to a roundabout and then put your foot down to accelerate into the gap in traffic - it would drop out of gear leaving you stranded. Oh the joys of a car where the automatic gearbox transmission oil is shared with the dirty engine oilMy second car was also interesting, but in a nicer way. Except when pulling back in after overtaking on the A11 in Thetford forest - the nearside wheel fell off and buried itself in the hedge (fortunately!). I got the RAC out, and we decided there was no damage to the car, so I simply took one nut off each of the other wheels and bolted the wheel back on.Or, when travelling 2s behind another car at 50mph, a female deer decided to run across in that gap.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2018, 05:38:52 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on June 10, 2018, 04:40:32 pm

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 12:17:58 pm
content: Another twist in the tale. The Grauniad is reporting that the driver was watching TV when the accident occurred.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/22/driver-was-streaming-the-voice-when-uber-self-driving-car-crashed-say-police

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 12:47:34 pm
content: Annnd, another proof that autopilots just can't autopilot: if the human fails, the autopilot fails.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 01:26:30 pm
content: Quote from: sibeen on June 22, 2018, 12:17:58 pmThis coming from the same people who went out of their way to defend Uber and released dashcam footage of extraordinarily low quality to 'prove' that nothing could have been done.I'll wait for the NTSB.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 02:00:35 pm
content: Looks like either the police and Uber have decided to scapegoat the driver, or the police and Uber tried to justify the collision in the first instant and now have to back pedal due to the NTSB investigation's findings.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 03:04:21 pm
content: A police report released Thursday would seem to imply that the driver was looking at her mobile phone and only looked up 0.5s before the crash. Wouldn't be surprised if the driver faces charges of vehicle manslaughter. It's illegal in the UK to drive whilst using a mobile phone and it's probably illegal in a lot of other countries. Probably illegal in the state of Arizona as well, but people still do it.https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe-breaking/2018/06/21/uber-self-driving-car-crash-tempe-police-elaine-herzberg/724344002/

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2018, 04:51:53 pm
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on June 22, 2018, 03:04:21 pmWell colour me surprised. Who on earth would have ever conceived something like that would happen? Certainly not a software engineer, since they infamously respond to any problem with a car by turning it off and expecting it to have disappeared when they turn it back on.There are two "safe" and one "dangerous" designs.Safe: no automation, driver knows they are in controlSafe: full automation, driver can "switch off" and relaxDangerous: partial automation with shared responsibility and quick responses required. If the driver can't relax, why have the automation in the first place.Military maxim: what is everybodys' responsibility is nobodyd' responsibility.

author: Zzyzx
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 09:56:54 am
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on June 22, 2018, 03:04:21 pmFor those particularly interested, here's the police report:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4551043-18-32694-Redacted-Report.htmlIt even mentions that if the driver had paid attention, she would've been able to stop 42.61 feet before the accident. It also says her eyes were off the road for 6 minutes and 47.2 seconds total of 21 minutes and 48 second drive, or about 3.67 of 11.8 total miles.I do think, though, that it's a bit silly to put humans in a task like this, though. I'm not sure how you expect someone to just watch the road go by for hours upon hours day after day. Not that I'm trying to downplay the driver's responsibility, but I think we still need to focus more on Uber's responsibility, especially getting rid of the second person in the vehicle and disabling emergency breaking without even giving any sort of notification.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 05:21:27 pm
content: Quote from: Zzyzx on June 23, 2018, 09:56:54 amHow did they arrive at that exact number? Amazing precision.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 05:28:26 pm
content: Quote from: Zzyzx on June 23, 2018, 09:56:54 amHow can they know that?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 05:37:01 pm
content: By checking the car interior video, which supposedly was better quality than the dodgy one from the dash camera they released.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 05:37:34 pm
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on June 22, 2018, 03:04:21 pmShe wasn't driving a conventional car under conventional licence conditions. I wonder how well they tied down legal responsibilities and liabilities when they issued the special licences to operate partially tested autonomous cars on the Pheonix roads?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 06:03:41 pm
content: Not very clever on her part, then, I'd guess she knew she was being recorded, didn't she?

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 06:56:05 pm
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on June 22, 2018, 03:04:21 pmOnly if the phone is handheld. Although any driver can be prosecuted for an instance of bad driving which is ostensibly not simple human error but due to engaging in some kind of distraction at the wheel.https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2018, 08:22:05 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on June 23, 2018, 06:56:05 pmThe same is true in the US, despite numerous studies showing that it's the conversation that is distracting, not the act of holding onto the phone.Personally I don't understand why it's so hard to just put the phone away while driving. It wasn't that long ago that the phone was attached to the wall at home and nobody expected everyone to be immediately reachable at all times.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 24, 2018, 07:13:16 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 23, 2018, 08:22:05 pmTimes change - and so do expectations.The daughter of a friend has her world so tied up with instant communication that it comes back to bite her all too often. Whenever others want to communicate with her she can't get "time off". If she doesn't respond within theexpectedtime frame, she gets harangued for ignoring them.I hate to say it, but she made that rod for her own back.I don't run that way. Not in the slightest.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2018, 08:11:20 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 23, 2018, 08:22:05 pmYou need to consider how thingsfail, not just how theywork.It is difficult to safely change gear with a phone in one hand.It is difficult to take quick avoiding action with only one hand on the wheel.Driving conditions in the US are very different to those in Europe.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2018, 08:14:21 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on June 24, 2018, 08:11:20 amAmericans don't change gears.(and (b), nor do Europeans in emergency situations)Quote from: tggzzz on June 24, 2018, 08:11:20 amIt doesn't stop them from stomping on the double-wide brake pedal though.Quote from: tggzzz on June 24, 2018, 08:11:20 amSo are the cars.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2021, 10:20:02 pm
content: I just noticed that Uber sold off its autonomous driving business to Aurora at the end of last year -https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/08/uber-self-driving-car-auroraThey seem to have got $4B for it, so Aurora seems to think Uber's work has real value. Most people are backing away from their crazy claims that autonomous driving is nearly here. I hope this doesn't suck all the financing out of this sector. With more realistic goals and sane time scales I do think this in an important area of R&D.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2021, 02:48:34 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on June 24, 2018, 08:11:20 amThere was a pretty bad crash near our house - in a 20mph zone, a driver managed to plow his BMW into a telephone pole (car was a writeoff). The sheepish looking driver said to me "the snow on the side of the road caught the wheel and steered me into the pole" - utter BS, I thought, looking at the tracks in the snow from the wheels... they led in a straight line into the pole!Pretty sure the (male) driver was not looking where he was going just that little bit too long...

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2021, 06:53:36 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 13, 2021, 10:20:02 pmWeird because I thought the whole long-game point of Uber was to get to the goal of full autonomous driving.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2021, 09:44:47 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on January 14, 2021, 06:53:36 amThey don't need to develop their own system if all the major car manufacturers are already doing it for them.(plus it's less liability if somebody else does it)