Uber Self-Driv Death: Disabled Pedest Avoidance!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

oil_film_movies

Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
4,666
Location
MN
Anybody know why Uber disabled the Volvo's normal Pedestrian Avoidance and Automatic Braking feature, the same feature that you & I can buy on a Volvo XC90 every day?

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/53/4/4
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

111122334455ture.JPG
 
Because they are trying to hone their own system, so to do so, they must disable any integrated systems that would potentially interfere. This is also why this stuff shouldn't be tested around people, it's like doing paintball training using live ammo.
 
overkill, not only was the standard usual Volvo XC90 turned off, but the system Uber had installed detected and recognized the obstacle person too. Honestly I don't know why someone wouldn't want obstacle avoidance. Unless they were worried about frequent false alarms.

Also, not sure if completely agree with your opinion that the standard Volvo system woud potentially interfere, since there can be a parallel command path to the brakes.

Or, at least the radar plus lidar on the Uber system should have sounded an audio and visual warning to the driver. They also failed to do that. I'm wondering what they could have been thinking. ..... Some journalist needs to hunt down Uber and/or the chief engineer like what Zachary Quinto did when the Uber self driving Volvo he was in ran a red light... https://www.history.com/shows/in-search-of/season-1/episode-4
 
Sure there can be parallel paths, but if the devices operate differently and the Volvo system steps in, you wouldn't know if the "in testing" system was going to step in just after because it was cut off. But generally this sort of testing is done on closed courses and not around general populations.

I agree that the Uber system should have done something. It failed to do anything. This is why it shouldn't have been operated around people. I agree that somebody needs to be hunted down, this was negligence.
 
In the aviation world, the original list of functions a system will perform is reviewed by high-time tech people.

I'm hoping the NTSB will at least outline the chain of custody of the requirements passed down to implement. The usual thing in other software-hardware safety sensitive systems.
In a meeting somewhere, they decided "Hey, let's operate a self-driving car with no braking for obstacles. Just rely on the bored driver to wake up and react suddenly." Good plan, good talk guys.....
 
Does it matter what they were thinking? Hindsight is always 20/20 and that is why these systems should not be allowed on public roads. Most have a false belief that all these autonomous programs are AI and therefore consider all possible inputs and choose the best course of action. It's a view carefully fostered by these companies. It was quite clear in the discussion when the incident first happened. Many came to the defence of Uber stating the the AI must've taken the best course of action and no one should be liable.

A program, even a self learning one, can only perform what it was programmed to perform and at any point in time the software can be altered to modify the response depending on whatever criteria the software engineers deem important.

In this particular case they deemed important to minimize false alarms and overall smoothness of the ride over the actual detection because despite all the sensors and the supposed "AI", their autonomous software still has problems differentiating humans over a trash bag, dog or some other random obstacle and assigning a priority of reaction.

Most drivers do it in milliseconds and instinctively. When we see a bag, we just run over it, it requires no extra thinking or reaction time from us. When we see a human, we don't need to run complicated algorithms to make sure it is actually a human and not a trash bag, it's seamless for us, but not for machines.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Sure there can be parallel paths, but if the devices operate differently and the Volvo system steps in, you wouldn't know if the "in testing" system was going to step in just after because it was cut off.
Just to be clear about what was reported, surprisingly, the Uber system did detect and decide to brake, it just didn't have an actuation path set up, on purpose apparently. Sure the Volvo standard system was off, but the Uber system did detect & identify an obstacle too.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
In the aviation world, the original list of functions a system will perform is reviewed by high-time tech people.

I'm hoping the NTSB will at least outline the chain of custody of the requirements passed down to implement. The usual thing in other software-hardware safety sensitive systems.
In a meeting somewhere, they decided "Hey, let's operate a self-driving car with no braking for obstacles. Just rely on the bored driver to wake up and react suddenly." Good plan, good talk guys.....


Yeah, aviation is a far more strict and far better regulated world is my impression.

My speculation is that the beta test taking place in the Volvo is expected to be portable; work with minimal adaptation in any number of vehicles independent of their onboard safety systems or the lack thereof. If that's the case then there is absolutely no reason for that car to be on the road if you are that early on in the testing. The system should be relatively mature and not interfere with any onboard systems before it is tested on public roads. It sounds to me that they rushed it. It's like Windows 98, the self-driving car version.
 
KrisZ, it does matter, at least to those of us that have been involved with generally accepted ways of certifying safety-critical software.
Also, your trash bag false alarms are something that is already handled quite well by Volvo's own standard, usual Automatic Braking feature. Nissan and many others have this too.

Fear of false alarms might have been the motivating factor behind all this it appears though. It's stupid to think there would be too many false alarms, but somebody in charge failed to apply basic common sense, and someone at the NHTSA & NTSB failed to provide common sense injected via oversight. Reviews of common sense in aviation are very routine and methodical.

Decisions to turn off all automatic braking paths (either the Volvo standard one and/or Uber's system's one) was initially made in a meeting somewhere, yet where was the common review process?

It would be good to find out if they now have enabled all the Automatic Braking that Volvo has standard and also any commands originated from the self-driving sensors.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Sure there can be parallel paths, but if the devices operate differently and the Volvo system steps in, you wouldn't know if the "in testing" system was going to step in just after because it was cut off.
Just to be clear about what was reported, surprisingly, the Uber system did detect and decide to brake, it just didn't have an actuation path set up, on purpose apparently. Sure the Volvo standard system was off, but the Uber system did detect & identify an obstacle too.


Ahhh, OK. Then that's an even bigger bugger up than I initially thought. Again, goes back to closed-course operation for whatever testing shenanigans they were up to here.
 
Of course there was a review process, they also had their "test driver", which most likely led them to a false sense of security. You also have to remember that the attitude in silicon valley is quite arrogant. This type of scenario is nothing new for several industries, but they never bothered to learn from all of that experience. But they are the wizards of the high tech world, if they can get alexa to react with you almost like a human being, they can get a car to drive on the road. Typical suit mentality.
 
Typical Uber, they did what they could to skirt the law. They refused to deal with the CA oversight so the AZ governor invited them here and told them to do whatever they wanted. This is the result.
 
Just found something: Uber has turned on the standard Volvo automatic braking as they run around Pennsylvania this time (after being kicked out of AZ)::::
"Another major change by Uber is to re-enable Volvo's factory settings for automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance in its fleet of self-driving cars. That system had been disabled at the time of the crash, even though the vehicle's built-in radar observed the victim six seconds before impact and identified a need to brake. Uber reportedly deactivated the system to avoid a less-smooth driving experience for its safety operators." -- https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607898/uber-self-driving-car-public-roads-driver-monitoring
 
Originally Posted by dishdude
Typical Uber, they did what they could to skirt the law. They refused to deal with the CA oversight so the AZ governor invited them here and told them to do whatever they wanted. This is the result.
Sounds like the journalists have a story to pursue. Luv to see that story told. 60 Minutes? Anderson Cooper, you busy? Thats just putting people at risk unnecessarily.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Uber reportedly deactivated the system to avoid a less-smooth driving experience for its safety operators."[/i]


If that's true, that's wholly unacceptable. The "operator" is sitting on their butt and they WILL tune out, it's the nature of the beast, as they are "along for the ride", something Shannow has talked about in the past. This really sounds like Uber is playing fast and loose with this technology here and should not be allowed to operate on public roads.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by dishdude
Typical Uber, they did what they could to skirt the law. They refused to deal with the CA oversight so the AZ governor invited them here and told them to do whatever they wanted. This is the result.
Sounds like the journalists have a story to pursue. Luv to see that story told. 60 Minutes? Anderson Cooper, you busy? Thats just putting people at risk unnecessarily.

LOL, "Journalists" all have their sights set on another target.

Does anyone remember "the whistles go woooooooo" from years ago? Maybe these self driving cars need an audible exterior warning sound like an ambulance or fire truck.
 
Originally Posted by JamesBond


Does anyone remember "the whistles go woooooooo" from years ago? Maybe these self driving cars need an audible exterior warning sound like an ambulance or fire truck.


bubb rubb?
 
Originally Posted by Rand
Originally Posted by JamesBond


Does anyone remember "the whistles go woooooooo" from years ago? Maybe these self driving cars need an audible exterior warning sound like an ambulance or fire truck.


bubb rubb?

That's only in the morning.
 
The several states have felony statutes that cover this situation, charges like reckless homicide or negligent homicide.
Someone signed off on the implementation that brought about this woman's death.
That person should be brought before a grand jury which can then decide whether they need to stand trial or not.
Felony charges have a reality to them that mere payouts of the equity holder's money don't.
When some arrogant fool is looking at prison, they and their peers come to have a different view of the real stakes.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27

Someone signed off on the implementation that brought about this woman's death.


That person's name is Doug Ducey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top