Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 245 posts

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#101

Post by heisenbit »

tptacek wrote: post #37

Is it harder to stay attentive in an autonomous car than it is as a normal driver?

Yes and you have to compensate for this considering lives are at stake. One needs to carefully select personal and supervise said personal closely. The fundamentals are not rocket science more like railroad age science e.g. the dead man switch. There is no way for Uber to plead ignorance as there are plenty of studies on the topic in the airline industry.

1) the person needs to be qualified as a true test driver (experienced auto engineer, professional driver with sufficient experience)

2) physical fitness, especially ability to stay awake and documented measured reaction times

3) strict rules on distractions, random checks

4) engineering measures for staying alert (sounds, tasks etc.)

5) limits on driving times, documented work logs and much more

and plenty more. Someone in Uber should have had the tasks making sure the tests are done as safe as possible. That person would have needed the qualifications and authority to affect the test execution.

The biggest problem is imho. that Uber does not have to produce self driving technology but only needs to be seen as working on the leading edge of it to sustain their financial storyline.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#102

Post by galieos_ghost »

maym86 wrote: post #32
fabian2k wrote: post #19

> Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona There can certainly be arguments about whether the kind of miles driven are equivalent…

Uber's competitive advantage has always been its willingness to engage in unethical behavior. No surprise here. They were forced out if California because their system didn't work so they just put it on roads in Arizona instead and killed someone. Edit: grammar

They weren't forced out, they just didn't want to comply because they would have to report incidents which would show how far behind competitors they are, which would kill their valuation

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#103

Post by chrsstrm »

hunter23 wrote: post #63

This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it w…

When does the next batch of YC applications open up? I'd like to introduce TestTrack - Autonomous vehicle certification as a service. State (and federal) governments collaborate with us to develop a certification plan that AV makers must pass before being allowed to operate in their state. With a plan in hand, AV makers and state reps meet at one of our regional test tracks to implement the custom tests. Obstacle avoidance, braking distance, driving in snow, heat, rain, all the scenarios. If you can dream up a test, we can make it happen. Once satisfied the tests have passed, we certify the vehicle and its software. We create a signing key and sign the software, which is then allowed to be deployed to the maker's vehicles. The state is given a device that they can use to audit a vehicle's software during routine checks and of course during the investigation of any incidents. We're still working on our pricing tiers and we might reconsider the name.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#104

Post by spaceribs »

simmanian wrote: post #96
spaceribs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.

This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the…

Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that.

My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#105

Post by empath75 »

rjvir wrote: post #61
fabian2k wrote: post #19

> Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona There can certainly be arguments about whether the kind of miles driven are equivalent…

It's interesting how so many techies initially had the knee-jerk reaction of "well, despite this accident, I bet these Uber autonomous cars are still safer than humans". It seems like all information available to us suggests the polar opposite.

I believe it about google. I don’t trust uber at all. Or Tesla for that matter.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#106

Post by amadeusw »

danso wrote: post #4

> As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who operate in California, which requires such disclosures: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/... Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” c…

I don't see Uber on the list, what brand are they under?

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#107

Post by TillE »

> When Mr. Khosrowshahi took over as Uber’s chief executive, he had considered shutting down the self-driving car operations

As I thought, it seems extremely likely that Uber is going to cancel the project now. Ethically there would have to be some kind of meticulous safety audit which would put them even further behind the competition. Even if they wanted to continue, there's hardly any point.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#108

Post by curiousDog »

danso wrote: post #66
greydata wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they got a permit after the last cutoff date, they'll show up in the next one most likely.

This is correct (AFAIK). Uber did operate AVs in San Francisco around 2016, but they did so while openly refusing to apply for permits [0], which would have then required them to disclose. They pulled their AVs at the end of 2016 and moved them to Arizona. Only recently, did Uber apply properly to have cars in SF, and apparently it's only been so far to give rides to Uber employees [1]. Also of note from [1]: apparen…

Wow, they have a complete disregard for safety and just care about their stupid valuation. This isn’t even a case of “hacking” for innovation. The company seems to be rotten to th core with everyone just salivating to profit from the IPO.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#109

Post by rgbrenner »

spaceribs wrote: post #104
simmanian wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all. Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night. I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the…

Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank you for that. My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.

But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test their reaction.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#110

Post by danso »

amadeusw wrote: post #106
danso wrote: post #4

> As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who operate in California, which requires such disclosures: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/... Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” c…

I don't see Uber on the list, what brand are they under?

Last year they had not been in operation long enough to require disclosure.
Post reply on HN