Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 06 2019, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-switch-off-and-start-it-again dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337

In review of fatal Arizona crash, U.S. agency says Uber software had flaws

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An Uber self-driving test vehicle that struck and killed an Arizona woman in 2018 had software flaws, the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday as it disclosed the company’s autonomous test vehicles were involved in 37 crashes over the prior 18 months.

NTSB may use the findings from the first fatal self-driving car accident to make recommendations that could impact how the entire industry addresses self-driving software issues or to regulators about how to oversee the industry.

The board will meet Nov. 19 to determine the probable cause of the March 2018 accident in Tempe, Arizona that killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she was walking a bicycle across a street at night.

In a report released ahead of the meeting, the NTSB said the Uber Technologies Inc vehicle had failed to properly identify her as a pedestrian crossing a street.

That accident prompted significant safety concerns about the nascent self-driving car industry, which is working to get vehicles into commercial use.

In the aftermath of the crash, Uber suspended all testing and did not resume until December in Pennsylvania with revised software and significant new restrictions and safeguards,

A spokeswoman for Uber's self-driving car effort, Sarah Abboud, said the company regretted the crash that killed Herzberg and noted it has “adopted critical program improvements to further prioritize safety. We deeply value the thoroughness of the NTSB's investigation into the crash and look forward to reviewing their recommendations.”

The NTSB reported at least two prior crashes in which Uber test vehicles may not have identified roadway hazards. The NTSB said between September 2016 and March 2018, there were 37 crashes of Uber vehicles in autonomous mode, including 33 that involved another vehicle striking test vehicles.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:08AM (26 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:08AM (#917078)

    Namely, not looking for oncoming traffic while crossing the street. Stupid is as stupid does.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=3, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:33AM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:33AM (#917089)

    Sorry, I don't buy this (although the mods are at +4 so I might be in the minority). Peds have the right of way on any urban street (not on limited access freeways, etc, of course). The UBER had plenty of time to see the victim and either slow down or stop to avoid her, but it didn't.
    * If the factory automatic braking system on the car hadn't been disabled by the UBER developers this would have been a second line of defense.
    * If the check driver hadn't been distracted (by work or a game??) there is the third line of defense.

    Someone should be getting charged with a crime for this.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:44AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:44AM (#917093)

      Snotnose is an old crotchety geezer who blames the victim now, but when Snotnose is dying, he will blame God instead of accepting personal responsibility for his life. Modded up because SoylentNews is old crotchety geezers.

      • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:58AM (3 children)

        by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:58AM (#917100)

        Snotnose is an old crotchety geezer who blames the victim now, but when Snotnose is dying, he will blame God instead of accepting personal responsibility for his life.

        True on the OCG, not true on blaming $diety cuz I don't believe in $diety.

        I can promise you one thing though. I won't be killed by a car while crossing the street. Why? BECAUSE I FUCKING LOOK FOR CARS, DUMASS!

        --
        Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:10AM (#917104)

          I can't wait to read in the obituaries all about how Snotnose was killed by a speeding car.

          CARS MOVE FAST, DUMBFUCK.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:23AM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:23AM (#917109)

          ... I don't believe in $diety.

          Oh boy, you're in trouble when Osiris weighs your heart.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @07:07AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @07:07AM (#917240) Journal

          BECAUSE I FUCKING LOOK FOR CARS, DUMASS!

          Shirley, you don't mean... really?
          Just how on Earth did you get a job as a parking attendant? (large grin)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:55AM (2 children)

      by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:55AM (#917099)

      Peds have the right of way on any urban street (not on limited access freeways, etc, of course).

      Don't really give a flying fuck. 200 lb pedestrian at 2 MPH vs 2000 lb car at 40 MPH means the pedestrian loses. Don't care if they had the right of way or not. Hell, lets put that on their tombstone: "She had the right of way".

      If you cross a street and don't look for oncoming traffic then you are just waiting to be Darwinned.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:17AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:17AM (#917106)

        Yep. We're going to put it on your tombstone. "He had the right of way."

        Gonna order your tombstone now because with your attitude, you're likely to be dead real soon.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:18AM (11 children)

      by deimtee (3272) on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:18AM (#917107) Journal

      I don't know if it's different in USA, but on Oz roads no-one ever has "right of way". There are many requirements to stop, yield, or give way, but you never have the right to run into someone because they are in your way, and no-one has to get out of your way either.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:54AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:54AM (#917161) Journal
        Right of way merely means you're not at fault in an accident due to just being there.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @04:26AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @04:26AM (#917750)

          No. 'Right of way' means you have the right to move forward.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:40AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @04:40AM (#917760) Journal

            'Right of way' means you have the right to move forward.

            And the "right to move forward" means? It doesn't mean you have a right to step in front of speeding cars or ram someone who pulls out in front of you. It just means that if there is such a collision, the person with the right of way is generally considered to not be at fault.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:47AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:47AM (#917230)

        Sounds like you would have gotten this quiz [news.com.au] wrong. If the three provinces of Australia I checked, each has an extensive page of all the instances when motorists must give way.

        • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:10AM (3 children)

          by deimtee (3272) on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:10AM (#917268) Journal

          Um, no. Did you read my post and that link? There are many instances where you must give way. The article wrongly uses 'right of way' to mean that the other person must yield, but they are not the same thing, and the actual law never says you have right of way.
          There are plenty of cases that went to court where someone went through a red light or stop sign and someone else hit them, and the court apportioned part blame to both.

          My answer would have been legally E, D, C, A, B. But E should be very wary, and D would be an idiot to just walk out on the road after E went past.

          --
          If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:48AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @04:48AM (#917763) Journal

            The article wrongly uses 'right of way' to mean that the other person must yield

            What's wrongly about that?

            There are plenty of cases that went to court where someone went through a red light or stop sign and someone else hit them, and the court apportioned part blame to both.

            Even in places with right of way laws, this often happens. Just because you have a right of way doesn't mean you are driving correctly.

            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday November 08 2019, @05:24AM (1 child)

              by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 08 2019, @05:24AM (#917778) Journal

              It's the difference between a positive and a double negative. There are circumstances where you are explicitly required to stop or yield. There are times when those circumstances do not apply. There are no circumstances where you explicitly have a right to drive forward. You never have the right to proceed into a crash.

              You can be stopped at a red light, if it goes green and you drive into a vehicle that comes through the opposing red, and the police think you should* have seen it coming, you will be at fault and charged.** If the civil (damages) case goes to court and the court thinks you should have seen it coming, you will be considered as at least partially at fault.

              *If they are certain you did see it you will be charged much harder. Probably jail time if there are injuries, and almost totally at fault in the civil case.
              **The other driver will probably be charged too, depending on circumstances. If they had a brake failure, heart attack, medical collapse, etc. they might not.

              --
              If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:54PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @12:54PM (#917844) Journal

                You never have the right to proceed into a crash

                That would be true even for statutes that explicitly have a right of way.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Muad'Dave on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:15PM

        by Muad'Dave (1413) on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:15PM (#917276)

        Virginia is the same way. No one _has_ it, but there are tons of instances in which you must yield it.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Codesmith on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:56PM

        by Codesmith (5811) on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:56PM (#917308)

        Very similar in the province of Ontario in Canada. You may have the right-of-way but hitting anything on the roadway makes it possible for you to be charged, even if you have the right-of-way and are below the speed limit. Note, can be and will be are very different, the police and prosecutors have a lot of leeway.

        I cannot find the article, but a driver was charged with the Highway Traffic Act offence 'Careless Driving' for intentionally striking wild animals crossing the road. Even threating to hit (or pretending that you will hit) pedestrians constitutes grounds for a criminal charge.

        --
        Pro utilitate hominum.
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 08 2019, @09:14PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday November 08 2019, @09:14PM (#918039) Journal

        That is Arizona traffic law as well - one never has right of way, one only has circumstances in which one must yield one's right of way. At least if the law there hasn't changed since I lived there.

        --
        This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:35AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:35AM (#917170) Homepage Journal

    Namely, not looking for oncoming traffic while crossing the street. Stupid is as stupid does.

    She was probably not crossing at an intersection either, which is jwalking (illegal).

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 08 2019, @09:12PM (3 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday November 08 2019, @09:12PM (#918037) Journal

    Nope. I know that intersection where that accident happened. I used to work there. Looking both ways doesn't cut it for a car rolling at 45. You'll see the car and then you'll be toast before you can leap out of the way..... But a really alert driver could pull a swerve maneuver that would miss the pedestrian.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 08 2019, @09:35PM

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday November 08 2019, @09:35PM (#918047) Journal

      Google map of that area: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tempe,+AZ/@33.4377844,-111.9448791,428m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x872b0898a6aa80e3:0xa2dd4aad392cb41f!8m2!3d33.4255104!4d-111.9400054 [google.com]

      It's weird to look at it twenty five plus years after I worked there. Some things have changed significantly in the area... but the facility I worked at and its buildings and the roads (Washington, Mill, West Center Parkway, Priest Drive, Project Drive) are all there, although the facility has changed a bit too. Nostalgia Lane. I can't even guess how many hundreds of times I drove that area on patrol.

      IIRC it was on Washington just where it curves, west of Mill. The map doesn't show very well that there is a downward slope to the road as it is curving to the West and before Center Parkway, and the net effect is that it is something of a blind curve. There is also a pedestrian walkway to the West as the curve finishes. Anyway, a really dicey place to cross even if you're in that crosswalk.

      --
      This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday November 08 2019, @10:57PM (1 child)

      by Snotnose (1623) on Friday November 08 2019, @10:57PM (#918068)

      I'm gonna have to call horse shit on this. If the road is built for 45 mph traffic then the turns can't be that sharp. Even if Uber was in one of the best handling sports cars of the world then at 45 MPH any pedestrian not stumbling drunk has plenty of time to either see the oncoming car, or hear the damned thing. Face it, if a sports car is doing 45 MPH turns during a time trial there is plenty of both tire and engine noise.

      I don't recall reading the Uber that killed her was doing a time trial in a speedy sports car.

      I seem to have dug my heels in on the pedestrian was at fault here. And ya know what? I think I'm right. She may have had the right of way, the Uber software/hardware may have been faulty, there may have been dodgy lighting at the intersection, the Uber driver may have been swiping left/right on their phone. But what it comes down to is the pedestrian was jaywalking at night, the Uber had it's headlights turned on following all traffic laws. To me the pedestrian is at fault. The Uber driver may have also been at fault, but at least s/he can come out of prison and have a life. The pedestrian that can't be bothered to look both ways, notsomuch.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 11 2019, @04:21PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday November 11 2019, @04:21PM (#918975) Journal

        No, I'll stand a little corrected on it, the accident happened after the curve and drop. (Though yes, that curve and drop is actually too fast for 45. It's not a matter of the turn being sharp but that you just can't see what's coming ahead of you in the spot I was referencing. And I've driven that road so I'll stick to that. The spot where the accident happened is just after that, though.)

        I don't think the pedestrian had the right of way where the accident happened. First, Arizona law never grants a right of way but only directs when a right of way shall be yielded. But second Arizona law only specifically directly that right of way shall be yielded to pedestrians in crosswalks (marked or unmarked). There is a crossing zone in the neighborhood there but the video below shows the victim wasn't in it. The driver could still be at fault, though, because Arizona law says that a driver will exercise due care to avoid striking a pedestrian:

        AZ Rev Stat § 28-794 (2015)
        Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:
        1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.
        2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.
        3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.

        The video shows driver's eyes shows they were not on the road in the moments before the impact. That was not due care in my book. YMMV.

        (Dashcam video [youtube.com] of the accident embedded in a news story. Can be disturbing and discretion is advised).

        ARS 28-701 (I won't quote it) is also the catchall that drivers shall always use "reasonable and prudent" speed and drivers will always control their speed in a way that no collisions shall ever occur with pedestrians, objects, or other vehicles. In other words, it doesn't matter what speed is posted. In the vast majority of cases, including here, if you have a collision you have not driven at reasonable and prudent speed to avoid it.

        So sure, the pedestrian was at fault for picking that spot and then committing to it. The pedestrian could have dropped the bike and jumped out of the way. But no, the neither the driver nor Uber is innocent in this. The driver did what every driver who uses the service will do and that is exactly what they are told not to do - take their attention from the road. And there is no way a computer is ever going to be able to pick a 'reasonable and prudent' speed to avoid a collision. Thus by default the computer controlling the car is in violation.

        More to the point the horrified look on that driver's face shows that what happened here will stay with her the rest of her life. And the pedestrian is still dead.

        --
        This sig for rent.