SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:18AM (11 children)
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.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:54AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @04:26AM (1 child)
No. 'Right of way' means you have the right to move forward.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:40AM
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)
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)
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.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:48AM (2 children)
What's wrongly about that?
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)
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.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:54PM
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
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
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
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.