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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.