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: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 11 2019, @04:21PM
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:
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.