SoylentNews

The NTSB has released a preliminary report on the Uber pedestrian accident in Arizona. This is being reported widely, but it took a little digging to find the actual report, which is linked from the NTSB press release at: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx [ntsb.gov] The PDF report, 3-1/2 pages with several illustrations, can be downloaded directly with https://goo.gl/2C6ZCH [goo.gl]
From the second page of the report:

Uber had equipped the test vehicle with a developmental self-driving system. The system consisted of
forward- and side-facing cameras, radars, LIDAR, navigation sensors, and a computing and data storage
unit integrated into the vehicle. 1 Uber had also equipped the vehicle with an aftermarket camera system
that was mounted in the windshield and rear window and that provided additional front and rear videos,
along with an inward-facing view of the vehicle operator. In total, 10 camera views were recorded over
the course of the entire trip.
The self-driving system relies on an underlying map that establishes speed limits and permissible lanes
of travel. The system has two distinct control modes: computer control and manual control. The operator
can engage computer control by first enabling, then engaging the system in a sequence similar to
activating cruise control. The operator can transition from computer control to manual control by
providing input to the steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator pedal, a disengage button, or a disable
button.
The vehicle was factory equipped with several advanced driver assistance functions by Volvo Cars, the
original manufacturer. The systems included a collision avoidance function with automatic emergency
braking, known as City Safety, as well as functions for detecting driver alertness and road sign
information. All these Volvo functions are disabled when the test vehicle is operated in computer control
but are operational when the vehicle is operated in manual control.
According to Uber, the developmental self-driving system relies on an attentive operator to intervene if
the system fails to perform appropriately during testing. In addition, the operator is responsible for
monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and
tagging events of interest for subsequent review.
On the night of the crash, the operator departed Uber’s garage with the vehicle at 9:14 p.m. to run an
established test route. At the time of the crash, the vehicle was traveling on its second loop of the test
route and had been in computer control since 9:39 p.m. (i.e., for the preceding 19 minutes).
According to data obtained from the self-driving system, the system first registered radar and LIDAR
observations of the pedestrian about 6 seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph.
As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian
as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path.
At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver
was needed to mitigate a collision (see figure 2). 2 According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are
not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle
behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to
alert the operator.

Original Submission