SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to this article on MSN:
Police in Tempe, Arizona said evidence showed the "safety" driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber was distracted and streaming a television show on her phone right up until about the time of a fatal accident in March, deeming the crash that rocked the nascent industry "entirely avoidable."
A 318-page report from the Tempe Police Department, released late on Thursday in response to a public records request, said the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, repeatedly looked down and not at the road, glancing up just a half second before the car hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing the street at night.
According to the report, Vasquez could face charges of vehicle manslaughter. Police said that, based on testing, the crash was "deemed entirely avoidable" if Vasquez had been paying attention.
Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming television shows and movies, which showed Vasquez's account was playing the television talent show "The Voice" the night of the crash for about 42 minutes, ending at 9:59 p.m., which "coincides with the approximate time of the collision," the report says.
It is not clear if Vasquez will be charged, and police submitted their findings to county prosecutors, who will make the determination.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:00PM (8 children)
Nothing can be. However, make light of that as you may, you can't escape this:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/uber-arizona-self-driving-report/index.html [cnn.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:21PM (6 children)
I remember reading that, but I don't know the reasoning. I speculate that Uber did not want false-positives to cause the car to brake suddenly, for no good reason, and increase the chance of a rear-end collision.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:11PM (2 children)
Of all the collisions you can have, the rear end collision is the only one that wouldn't be the fault of Uber. Drivers are required to maintain sufficient space ahead of them that they can stop in case the car ahead of them slams on their brakes or otherwise comes to a stop.
Being rearended is also the kind of collision for which a typical car has the best protection for the driver and the passengers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @07:23PM (1 child)
Say what?
If uber disabled the forward collision avoidance system, it most certainly would be their fault.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @10:37PM
Woooosh?
I read g-parent as saying, "If Uber left their version of automatic-braking on, the Uber car might stop semi-randomly (false alarm) and GET rear ended by some other car following too closely". At least in most cases, that would be the fault of the following car (driven by some unsuspecting person who wasn't expecting the Uber AV to stop at that time).
Separate thought:
The big mistake (imo) was that Uber didn't leave the Volvo e-brake system active, that system has already been debugged and probably would have saved the woman pushing the bicycle.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @07:21PM (2 children)
False positives really are not a problem with these systems.
This is well proven technology, available for a decade on high end cars, and now filtering down to almost every brand.
Subaru, Honda, Chevy, Ford, Standard equipment in most cases.
On my 2012 vintage car, I've seen maybe 4 false positives, all from metal plates (Construction plates) covering the roadway, but only at the bottom of a down-grade. An alarm sounds, the dash flashes BRAKE, but before the automatic brakes kick in the system realizes its error, and does not brake, and extinguishes the Brake alarm.
In actual danger situations my car does break authoritatively. My car detects brake requirement at least two cars ahead, even if the car immediately ahead does not brake. It braked for deer on a night so rainy and dark I couldn't see squat.
Again, Mine is old-ish tech - 2012. More modern systems are even better at this.
False positives, for all intents and purposes, just don't happen. Turning this off on a car you will be carrying paying passengers is just insanely irresponsible.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:15PM (1 child)
How so? I was an engineer on safety critical systems and false positives were treated as nearly as big of a failure as false negatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:07AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:36PM
Yeah, hacking is a thing so we really shouldn't be sending out millions of potential death machines.