Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the too-agile-for-safety dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Uber allegedly ignored safety warnings before self-driving fatality

Just days after Uber announced its plans to resume testing of its self-driving taxis, new information reveals that a whistleblower had made the company aware of the technology's safety failures before the incident in Arizona last March, which saw a pedestrian struck and killed by one of Uber's vehicles, and which led to the suspension of all testing activity.

According to The Information, Robbie Miller, a manager in the testing-operations group, sent a cautionary email to a number of Uber's executive and lawyers, warning that the vehicles were "routinely in accidents resulting in damage. This is usually the result of poor behavior of the operator or the AV technology."

It appears the email was prompted by an incident in Pittsburgh, where just a few days before Miller sent the message an Uber prototype swerved completely off the road and onto the sidewalk, where it continued to drive. According to Miller's email, the episode was "essentially ignored" for days, until Miller raised it with other managers. He also noted that towards the end of 2017, it took two weeks for engineers to investigate the logs of a separate Arizona incident, in which an Uber vehicle almost collided with another car.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:31PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:31PM (#773622)

    What you have to do is regulate the industry. It's pretty simple, the safety of society is the purview of government.
    So:
          Government, stop shirking your duty
          Industry, stop whining about Government
    As long as everyone follows the rules it will still be a level playing field (and anyone breaking the rules stands a good chance of getting caught if there is a fatality or two involved).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:00PM (5 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:00PM (#773634) Journal

    I have the following defects with your solution.

        1. The government is bribed not to do its duty.
        2. Industry doesn't want to stop whining about government.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:17PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:17PM (#773647)

      History lesson: When regulation first came to the auto industry, the "big three" in Detroit did everything in their power to resist being regulated. They fought for at least 20 years (depending on how you count). Then, after years of grudging recalls, Detroit got the message, it's cheaper to own up to your mistakes, work out the safety recall and then get on with business. The alternative of years of courts and lawyers wasn't really cost effective, and when details came out it was also bad public relations. Through (approximately) the 1990s and maybe a little longer, there was grudging respect between Detroit and D.C. and safety regulation actually worked quite well.

      Then, the next generation came in (probably on both sides) and it was right back to a contentious relationship.

      My take: Regulate and keep on regulating, eventually people will come around.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:52AM

        by legont (4179) on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:52AM (#773854)

        Regulations are actually helping companies; it just takes time for them to realize. The main reason (there are others) is that without regulations it is always run to the bottom - one has to make cheaper things than the others and cutting corners is the easiest way. Eventually the industry falls. Regulations prevent this by setting a common bottom.

        It's true for everything made by humans and all the exceptions are temporary.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:38AM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:38AM (#773872) Journal

        So, when did "regulation first came to the auto industry,"? You realize that looking back in time, there wasn't a "big three"? It had to be mid-fifties before it was "big three". Jeep, AMC, Rambler, DeSoto, and so many more have gone belly up and/or been bought out. I suppose we can point to some arbitrary regulation, and say, "This is the point at which regulation first came to the auto industry!" At what point in time was that? 1980, maybe?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @05:38PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @05:38PM (#774039)

          > So, when did "regulation first came to the auto industry,"?

          A case could be made for the creation of the US DOT and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.),
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_Traffic_Safety_Administration#History [wikipedia.org]

          In 1964 and 1966, public pressure grew in the United States to increase the safety of cars, culminating with the publishing of Unsafe at Any Speed, by Ralph Nader, an activist lawyer, and "Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society" by the National Academy of Sciences.

          In 1966, Congress held a series of publicized hearings regarding highway safety, passed legislation to make installation of seat belts mandatory, and enacted Pub.L. 89–563, Pub.L. 89–564, and Pub.L. 89–670 which created the U.S. Department of Transportation on October 15, 1966. This legislation created several predecessor agencies which would eventually become NHTSA, including the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National Highway Safety Bureau. Once the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) came into effect, vehicles not certified by the maker or importer as compliant with US safety standards were no longer legal to import into the United States.

          Congress established the NHTSA in 1970 with the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (Title II of Pub.L. 91–605, 84 Stat. 1713, enacted December 31, 1970, at 84 Stat. 1739). In 1972, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub.L. 92–513, 86 Stat. 947, enacted October 20, 1972) expanded NHTSA's scope to include consumer information programs. ...

          Same link mentions an earlier start in Europe on harmonizing auto regulations worldwide.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:30PM (#774122)

            Same AC, responding to myself. The more I thought about this history, this could also be the origins of what I think of as a "nanny mentality" -- the mindset that it is possible to eliminate all risk and make things completely safe. Given the car-centered culture in the USA (possibly even more so in the 1960s than today), this first step of establishing a national Dept of Transportation and the regulatory arm, NHTSA could have been the first step onto the slippery slope?

            Was this the step that led to helicopter parents, kids that aren't allowed to walk home from school and the rest of the "softening of America?"

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:06PM (2 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:06PM (#773681) Journal

    Government, stop shirking your duty

    Tell it to the voters. Oversight is their obligation. They are the only ones that can put the dog out when it craps on the carpet.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:50PM (1 child)

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:50PM (#773702)

      Which is exactly why the government keeps the voters in the dark about everything it can. Whistleblowers are the only way we get any information.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:13AM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:13AM (#773793) Journal

        Whistleblowers are the only way we get any information.

        The more the merrier. It's up to the voters to take the initiative to get at the truth. They shouldn't expect it to be spoon fed, unless they vote for an FOIA with teeth.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:18PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:18PM (#773762)

    Or alternately, remove the corporate veil of immunity. Throw executives in prison. Claw back bonuses and salary. Penalize stock-holders for the crimes of their company.

    Basically, give the people with power some incentive to be responsible, instead of having incentive structures designed to profit them when they cut corners, and protect them from any consequences of the inevitable problems they create.