Uber in fatal crash detected pedestrian but had emergency braking disabled

[pnwmom]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by muriel_volestrangler (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: TechCrunch

The initial report by the National Transportation Safety Board on the fatal self-driving Uber crash in March confirms that the car detected the pedestrian as early as 6 seconds before the crash, but did not slow or stop because its emergency braking systems were deliberately disabled.

Uber told the NTSB that "emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior," in other words, to ensure a smooth ride. "The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator." It's not clear why the emergency braking capability even exists if it is disabled while the car is in operation. The Volvo model's built-in safety systems -- collision avoidance and emergency braking, among other things -- are also disabled while in autonomous mode.

It appears that in an emergency situation like this this "self-driving car" is no better, or substantially worse, than many normal cars already on the road.

It's hard to understand the logic of this decision. An emergency is exactly the situation when the self-driving car, and not the driver, should be taking action. Its long-range sensors can detect problems accurately from much farther away, while its 360-degree awareness and route planning allow it to make safe maneuvers that a human would not be able to do in time. Humans, even when their full attention is on the road, are not the best at catching these things; relying only on them in the most dire circumstances that require quick response times and precise maneuvering seems an incomprehensible and deeply irresponsible decision.

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/24/uber-in-fatal-crash-detected-pedestrian-but-had-emergency-braking-disabled/

---

The vehicle detected the pedestrian when she was 378 feet away -- but it didn't warn the back-up driver. And at 80 feet away, the Uber "decided" that emergency braking was necessary -- but the braking had been disabled.

Bad decision.

[Demonaut]

1. The Volvo system was disabled, the uber system did not react as it was designed to do

[FrodosNewPet]

13. 'False positives' pose challenge for autonomous vehicles, says Clyde & Co

‘False positives’ pose challenge for autonomous vehicles, says Clyde & Co

https://www.reinsurancene.ws/false-positives-pose-challenge-for-autonomous-vehicles-says-clyde-co/

23rd May 2018 - Author: Matt Sheehan

~ snip ~

Nigel Brook, a partner at Clyde & Co, said: “An autonomous vehicle has to interpret its changing surroundings so as to navigate roads while avoiding collisions. But can the AV’s systems rapidly distinguish between a ‘false positive’ such as plastic bags blown by the wind from a real threat?

“If the systems are too ‘neurotic’, the ride will be jerky and uncomfortable; too relaxed, and the car could fail to react to real danger. This is one of the fundamental challenges faced by all AV developers, not just Uber.”

~ snip ~

Commenting on the challenge of interpreting data, Brook added: “There are lots of things humans find very easy and machines find very hard – such as picking one type of object out of a bucket containing multiple objects.

“Through years of experience, our brains develop an impressive ability to process images and work out what is happening without any conscious thought. Machines struggle in this regard – and this is where the real challenge lies.”

~ snip ~

[RockRaven]

2. Not to be glib

but disabling an emergency braking system seems like the exact opposite of the whole point of an autonomous vehicle.

[pnwmom]

3. That was my reaction. n/t

[keithbvadu2]

4. Not a problem with the car... human decision

Don't blame the back-up driver... it's the testing folks that made this decision.

[pnwmom]

5. Not the testing folks, necessarily. Maybe the marketing people.

Someone determined that having emergency braking engaged made the car ride less smoothly. And then someone decided that driving more smoothly was a more important goal than driving more safely.

[eggplant]

6. The irony is that "normal" cars now feature automated emergency braking.

So regardless of their excuses, the technology is considered reasonable in the market.

[Midnight Writer]

7. If the vehicle detected her 378 feet away, why would "emergency braking" be involved?

That is longer than a football field. A leisurely slowing would suffice.

[JI7]

8. shouldn't that be a requirement for self driving cars ?

[joshcryer]

9. As usual, human error is the root cause.

The Uber driver, who wasn't even watching the road and the Uber engineers who disabled the braking.

[pnwmom]

10. But the research has already been done showing that humans can only pay attention

for short periods of time in a vehicle they're not supposed to be driving most of the time.

They need to build vehicles that work with actual human beings, and actual human beings aren't very good at suddenly taking over in an emergency when a self-driving car has a problem.

[joshcryer]

11. Quite difficult to pay attention to the road when you have a smart phone.

The information draw is very great.

[pnwmom]

12. I bet it's more than that. Even without cell phones

it would be hard to sustain attention for long periods of time where you weren't supposed to be doing anything else. Your mind just starts to wander . . .

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Locking - duplicate thread

of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142066497 . Please continue discussion there. Thanks.