Uber Settles with Family and Nvidia Halts Self-Driving Testing

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,194
Uber has quickly settled with the family of the pedestrian that was killed by a Uber self-driving car in Arizona on March the 18th. According to Nvidia the car was using Nvidia GPUs as part of the self-driving system, but wasn't running the DRIVE program developed by Nvidia. Nvidia has announced they are halting self-driving tests in North America and plan to wait and see what the investigation discovers. Also, the NTSB is investigating the accident, but it could be many months before they release their findings. With this level of scrutiny it makes sense to me that Nvidia would want to hold back a bit to see what's happening and Uber's quick settlement may reflect serious issues with their implementation.

Uber Technologies has reached a settlement with the family of the woman killed earlier this month in Tempe, Ariz., after one of the company's self-driving test vehicles struck her as she was crossing a street.

On the hardware side of matters, NVIDIA is confirming that the Uber vehicle was using NVIDIA GPUs, but that it wasn’t using the company’s DRIVE platform.

Chipmaker Nvidia Corp said on Tuesday it has suspended self-driving tests across the globe, a week after an Uber Technologies Inc autonomous vehicle struck and killed a woman crossing a street in Arizona.
 
I'm surprised Uber had to settle. They didn't do anything wrong other than doing absolutely no vetting, hiring a convicted felon to be their safety driver, and then let her text behind the wheel instead of paying attention. Seems like a pretty honest string of mistakes anyone could make.
 
I wonder what your homeless aunt is worth.
At least 1.5x a Stormy payment.;)
 
Well, they may as well admit they screwed up. No one settles that fast unless they know they are going to lose their shirts in a civil suit.

Be interesting to see what fines they (Uber) get hit with.

Sure hope the details come out.
 
The driver in the car should have been held accountable not Uber on this one

Driver should now be able to sue family for emotional distress caused by someone jaywalking in all black through an area with no light.
 
shad0w4life said:
The driver in the car should have been held accountable not Uber on this one

Driver should now be able to sue family for emotional distress caused by someone jaywalking in all black through an area with no light.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have mattered if they were in a crosswalk wearing a 50,000 lumen vest full of LED's. The driver was on her cell phone and not looking anywhere near the road.

3d68a9abef5b28d0.jpg
 
Last edited:
shad0w4life said:
The driver in the car should have been held accountable not Uber on this one

Driver should now be able to sue family for emotional distress caused by someone jaywalking in all black through an area with no light.
Click to expand...

Uber was absolutely in the wrong, putting a car on the street which could not have avoided the accident to begin with. The state was also wrong in allowing Uber to test without properly providing protocols the car had to meet before deployment.

The driver failed, no doubt, but that does not absolve Uber for irresponsibly testing a vehicle which had zero chance of dealing with this situation.
 
Am I the only person that thinks that no level of monitoring (or even if it was under full human control) could have reacted fast enough to save the woman crossing in an unlit area? Even the most experienced drivers reaction times are longer than she had between first stopping the pedestrian and the time of impact,
 
Seventyfive said:
It wouldn't have mattered if they were in a crosswalk wearing a 50,000 lumen vest full of LED's. The driver was on her cell phone and not looking anywhere near the road.

View attachment 62850
Click to expand...

That is not the driver. The driver is in a rack in the trunk. That is a basically a system monitor. The people in AV cars for testing are there for when the computer breaks, NOT TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. That's true of all AVs. It simply isn't possible for the "safety driver" to react quickly enough to prevent an accident.
 
DracoDan said:
Am I the only person that thinks that no level of monitoring (or even if it was under full human control) could have reacted fast enough to save the woman crossing in an unlit area? Even the most experienced drivers reaction times are longer than she had between first stopping the pedestrian and the time of impact,
Click to expand...


The video footage of the accident shows that the camera probably had a glare filter on it, the actual street itself is fairly well lit and a driver, or in the case a laser ranging collision avoidance system, would have had plenty of time to come to a stop.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
 
DracoDan said:
Am I the only person that thinks that no level of monitoring (or even if it was under full human control) could have reacted fast enough to save the woman crossing in an unlit area? Even the most experienced drivers reaction times are longer than she had between first stopping the pedestrian and the time of impact,
Click to expand...

it wasn't unlit, uber's AV system was simply shit. The human in the car isn't a driver, but a system monitor. Anyone thinking a safety driver is going to be able to react fast enough when the computer fubars to prevent an accident is fooling themselves.
 
Travolta said:
I’m sorry, that’s not a woman. At all. It has a mustache and a flavor saver.
Click to expand...

I was about to correct everyone saying that is a man, but then I looked up the info again. Turns out it is a man who became a woman. So.....
 
Thing is, the whole self-driving car thing was ALWAYS going to end this way.

Despite (and possibly BECAUSE of monumental hubris), eventually someone would die. Large sums would change hands, and the industry would recoil from the prospect like a child who burned its hand.
 
aaronspink said:
it wasn't unlit, uber's AV system was simply shit. The human in the car isn't a driver, but a system monitor. Anyone thinking a safety driver is going to be able to react fast enough when the computer fubars to prevent an accident is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

Maybe this time, he or she (still deciding) would have been able to avoid the collision. The intersection looks to be very well lit, and I'm thinking the pedestrian could have been seen by an attentive driver. Said driver might have been able to react in time. Also thinking Uber is at fault due to the record fast settlement. I'm guessing that payout must have been ungodly amounts of money. I believe this computer fubar could have been avoided by attentive driver. All that remains is determine the proper sex of the 'safety' driver. I will identify as binary named Pat.
 
aaronspink said:
That is not the driver. The driver is in a rack in the trunk. That is a basically a system monitor. The people in AV cars for testing are there for when the computer breaks, NOT TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. That's true of all AVs. It simply isn't possible for the "safety driver" to react quickly enough to prevent an accident.
Click to expand...


You are correct. That Uber employee in the car wasn't texting or whatever. They normally use two employees at a time, one to monitor the system, one to enter data into a laptop. The employee stated that lately they had been making a lot of runs with only a single person to do everything. That employee was looking at the system info and doing data entry into the laptop, not fucking off with his phone. Or at least that is what they are supposed to be doing, and I wouldn't be able to say one way or the other for certain so I have no reason to say otherwise.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Maybe this time, he or she (still deciding) would have been able to avoid the collision. The intersection looks to be very well lit, and I'm thinking the pedestrian could have been seen by an attentive driver. Said driver might have been able to react in time. Also thinking Uber is at fault due to the record fast settlement. I'm guessing that payout must have been ungodly amounts of money. I believe this computer fubar could have been avoided by attentive driver. All that remains is determine the proper sex of the 'safety' driver. I will identify as binary named Pat.
Click to expand...

EVEN IF, the driver was hands on wheel or near it, the driver is going to assume that the AV software is going to handle it. By the time the driver with hands on wheel would realize that the computer isn't stopping, it would already be too late to intervene. Not to mention that it is literally impossible to maintain that level of hypervigilance for any period of time.
 
DracoDan said:
Am I the only person that thinks that no level of monitoring (or even if it was under full human control) could have reacted fast enough to save the woman crossing in an unlit area? Even the most experienced drivers reaction times are longer than she had between first stopping the pedestrian and the time of impact,
Click to expand...


No, not at all. I think the pedestrian that was killed was fully visible before they even entered the roadway, much less as she crossed a couple of lanes to wind up in front of the Uber car. I think, had this not been an Uber vehicle, that the accident was completely avoidable. I drive Phoenix frequently and I know how these roads are lit at night, the video is not representative of the actual lighting conditions.

I think the pedestrian was legally at fault for jaywalking.

I think, from what has been reported, that the Uber vehicle failed completely.

I think that the Uber employee was doing her job as defined, that it was bad luck for the pedestrian, different timing could have made a difference at 38 MPH, cars can stop pretty damned fast. But I can't hold the employee at fault in this.

Arizona, my State, initially had almost no controls in place regarding this testing. But a month or so ago, Governor Ducey did make some good changes. Likely not enough.

And I do think it is entirely unreasonable to expect a "safety driver" to remain alert and ready to take over at a moment's notice while not remaining actively engaged manually driving. Human beings just don't do that, it's ridiculous to think that they can. You could put a Marine behind the wheel and he could maintain the utmost readiness and still fail given the circumstances or time.

No, you are not alone.
 
Master_shake_ said:
look a pedestrian without any situational awareness.

I. AM. SHOCKED.
Click to expand...


Agreed, no grown adult should ever think that they could walk into a roadway in such a manner and expect to survive.

If she did, what's next, jumping out of airplanes?
 
lcpiper said:
Agreed, no grown adult should ever think that they could walk into a roadway in such a manner and expect to survive.

If she did, what's next, jumping out of airplanes?
Click to expand...

Well I believe you mean "sane" adult, which in this case, there's a fair case to be be made for her not being so considering she was homeless. Nevertheless, she was already across two lanes before being struck in the third by the Uber, so in spite of her mental state, there still appears that there should have been sufficient time for a reaction from the onboard system.
 
aaronspink said:
EVEN IF, the driver was hands on wheel or near it, the driver is going to assume that the AV software is going to handle it. By the time the driver with hands on wheel would realize that the computer isn't stopping, it would already be too late to intervene. Not to mention that it is literally impossible to maintain that level of hypervigilance for any period of time.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with this but I do think it could be done. It would likely require shift changes and perhaps even two people in the car.

lcpiper said:
I think that the Uber employee was doing her job as defined, that it was bad luck for the pedestrian, different timing could have made a difference at 38 MPH, cars can stop pretty damned fast. But I can't hold the employee at fault in this.

And I do think it is entirely unreasonable to expect a "safety driver" to remain alert and ready to take over at a moment's notice while not remaining actively engaged manually driving. Human beings just don't do that, it's ridiculous to think that they can. You could put a Marine behind the wheel and he could maintain the utmost readiness and still fail given the circumstances or time.

No, you are not alone.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that unreasonable. Even as a passenger speaking to a driver, I'm excessively aware of what's happening with the road. And I can't do shit about it. And I don't blame him/her either as long as their job definition isn't to try to intervene when the car fecks up.
 
Seventyfive said:
.
Click to expand...


Is this kind of person we will all be at the mercy of for the next 20 years as they guinea pig test autonomous vehicles ? As companies chase the bottom line will the lowest common denominator be chosen for economic reasons ?
 
Last edited:
Shotglass01 said:
I don't really disagree with this but I do think it could be done. It would likely require shift changes and perhaps even two people in the car.



I don't think it is that unreasonable. Even as a passenger speaking to a driver, I'm excessively aware of what's happening with the road. And I can't do shit about it. And I don't blame him/her either as long as their job definition isn't to try to intervene when the car fecks up.
Click to expand...


Their job description is data entry, and if the car system fails, to move it off the roadway. They are not "safety drivers", they are not required or expected to seize control of the vehicle in an accident. Safety drivers are not a requirement under the Arizona guidlines for autonomous vehicle testing. No employee is required to be in the vehicles at all, as long as they have a method to move the vehicle out of the roadway in the even of a system failure.

All of this should be completely clear to most people by now, it's been reported enough.

Of course you are free to have your own opinion about it.
 
lcpiper said:
Their job description is data entry, and if the car system fails, to move it off the roadway. They are not "safety drivers", they are not required or expected to seize control of the vehicle in an accident. Safety drivers are not a requirement under the Arizona guidlines for autonomous vehicle testing. No employee is required to be in the vehicles at all, as long as they have a method to move the vehicle out of the roadway in the even of a system failure.

All of this should be completely clear to most people by now, it's been reported enough.

Of course you are free to have your own opinion about it.
Click to expand...

No explanation necessary. I know. I'm simply saying that I don't think it is impossible or unreasonable to have someone at the helm ready to take over. Maybe it doesn't work but maybe it could be a safety valve. I'm under Ducey's reign as well. You're not the only snowflake in AZ. :p
 
Shotglass01 said:
No explanation necessary. I know. I'm simply saying that I don't think it is impossible or unreasonable to have someone at the helm ready to take over. Maybe it doesn't work but maybe it could be a safety valve. I'm under Ducey's reign as well. You're not the only snowflake in AZ. :p
Click to expand...

It's not possible to do what you want. The human brain simply doesn't work that way. You cannot stay hyper vigilant without constant input and output. You can't be messing with driver controls while in an autonomous car. Your hands can't be on the steering wheel. Your feet can't be using the pedals. Nothing like that is possible since it would take the vehicle out of autonomous mode automatically. If that doesn't take the vehicle out automatically, it doesn't work as some sort of safety system. It would be even worse if you could use any of the driving implements while the car stays in autonomous mode simply because they wouldn't be working. None of your output would match the input which would probably screw up the person who is supposed to be the safety. It's basically the same thing as a person who gets motion sickness in a vehicle as a passenger but has no trouble when the driver.
 
Actually, if you pinned me down on it, I'd have to admit that I don't see how someone sitting in the driver seat could fail to grab the wheel and hit the breaks if for no other reason than instinct and self preservation. Of course, the video would show my smiling mug with the same level of total surprise and witless reaction as this persons did in all likelihood. I mean one second I would be typing, and I'm a shitty typist so it does require all my attention, and the next some shithead is pushing their bicycle out in front of my car. Fuck yea I'd be surprised and probably kill them just as dead. No matter how much I pride myself in me driving record and my complete superiority as a driver ...... yea that woman woulda still died if I wouldn't have seen her any sooner.

So if I lived in Phoenix, maybe, out of self preservation, maybe I'd want to wear one of these. Perhaps with an IR bulb.

1180.jpg
 
lcpiper said:
Actually, if you pinned me down on it, I'd have to admit that I don't see how someone sitting in the driver seat could fail to grab the wheel and hit the breaks if for no other reason than instinct and self preservation.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the videos taken from $1000 smart phones show the area as bright as day during the night!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah but the videos taken from $1000 smart phones show the area as bright as day during the night!
Click to expand...

I know that and have said so myself.

My comment is aimed at the part of the discussion about what you can expect from these drivers in an emergency. While watching the video I recognize that the Uber employee, once seeing and identifying the pedestrian, had no time to react. I also know that they are not in the seat to do so.

My comment is meant to convey that had I been in the seat, I probably would have done no better no matter how much a great driver I believe myself to be. But that had I had time to react, instinct would have made me grab the wheel to do something even if I am not supposed to by company policy.

I agree that no one should be put in these cars and expected to remain ready to assume control and avert disaster as if they had been driving the entire time. I think it's unrealistic to expect that of a human. I think this employee was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing when the accident happened, from the "evidence" I have available I couldn't find her at fault, convicted cross-dresser or not, has no bearing whatsoever with me.

I understand that the women was jay walking, that neither the employee nor Uber will likely face charges. I think pulling their cars and conducting an investigation is completely warranted and if the uber cars have been modified in such a way that they should not have been on those roads, Uber's ass would be in the biggest lawsuit of their existence. And I ban Uber from Arizona as well.

The pedestrian that was killed was indeed crossing the street illegally, but if there is a problem with Uber's vehicles that suggests negligence, I hit them with the biggest hammer the State can find because at this moment, from what I have read, the car still failed and failed miserably.

So this is where I am on it.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
Is this kind of person we will all be at the mercy of for the next 20 years as they guinea pig test autonomous vehicles ? As companies chase the bottom line will the lowest common denominator be chosen for economic reasons ?
Click to expand...

Not anymore... i think Uber is going to learn a very very expensive lesson.

aaronspink said:
That is not the driver. The driver is in a rack in the trunk. That is a basically a system monitor. The people in AV cars for testing are there for when the computer breaks, NOT TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. That's true of all AVs. It simply isn't possible for the "safety driver" to react quickly enough to prevent an accident.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if she pushed the brake it would do absolutely nothing? Can you substantiate your statement?

According to a USA Today article: "Uber's test car was in self-driving mode when the accident occurred, but had a safety driver — a person who is supposed to step in and take control if there's a snafu — as is the norm when testing such vehicles, according to Tempe police" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-arizona-woman/438473002/)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top