
Self-Driving Uber in Crash Wasn’t Programmed to Spot Jaywalkers - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/self-driving-uber-in-crash-wasn-t-programmed-to-spot-jaywalkers
======
baroffoos
What I remember seeing at the time is that it was programed specifically to
ignore them since it is unable to detect if an object on the side of the road
is just a stationary postbox or a person about to jump out.

To be able to safely handle pedestrians the self driving car would have to
limit itself to much slower speeds or place fences around every road. I guess
we will find out in a few years which option was preferable.

~~~
sk_2013
This raises a second question to me- as a motorcyclist, other drivers can be
somewhat of a problem because you look like a pedestrian from the waist up,
and they aren't mentally looking for pedestrians.

A self-driving car could have similar (albeit not the same) issues.

~~~
mygo
As a motorcyclist you would be on the road. If they run into objects already
on the road, then that’s a problem, and I’d be concerned for your safety and
the safety of bicyclists.

------
jmpman
There’s a small shrine where the accident happened. I pass it daily on my
commute. It should be much larger.

~~~
BurningFrog
I bet you can add to it...

~~~
AimForTheBushes
Not trying to be insensitive but it is a peculiar death and a first.

------
farhanhubble
There are no details in this article but I can't imagine building a car that
does not have a prediction system that constantly updates the car's belief
about where other objects in the environment are going to be every few
milliseconds. Calling it "Was not programmed to detect jaywalkers" makes it
sound like it was the victim's fault only. If the car couldn't detect humans
and other moving objects and plan its course accordingly it was a a dumb
waypoint follower programmed to look at traffic lights only. It could have run
into something or someone else if traffic light detection didn't work
correctly even once.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Well, that's Uber.

The company that doesn't give a fuck if they maim or kill you. That is unless
it turns into a PR issue.

------
0zymandias
Given the questionable behavior of Uber on the ground, I would definitely not
want an Uber taxi flying anywhere near my house.

------
ilaksh
They need to do a complete verification of releases on core requirements.

My understanding is that the vehicle that killed the pedestrian was configured
in a way that allowed it to fail in a very basic way.

What they need is a way to ensure that the actual vehicle configuration is
translated fully to the simulator, and to run through a set of basic scenarios
with every release configuration. The equivalent of end-to-end tests that run
as part of a continuous integration process.

I assume they have something like that, but some configuration aspect is not
properly integrated into the simulation tests, or they sometimes skip the full
test suite. Or somehow their test suite did not include jaywalkers.

That is what needs to be in place, and there should be employees of an actual
federal agency verifying that process, not people who are in any way paid by
Uber.

That actually should be applied to all self-driving companies. And down the
line, there should be government-run simulations that verify releases pass
basic scenarios. Which is going to be very difficult to build, but the
government can get funding through taxes or something from the self-driving
car companies. They could even mandate that Google and Tesla provide their
simulation software to the federal government, and create interfaces that are
compatible, and make every release run through both simulators.

------
elil17
The key point here should be that the safety driver was on their phone and not
looking at the road

~~~
baroffoos
Of course they were. Almost no one is capable of staying totally focused on a
task they have no input in and is incredibly unstimulating. Even if they were
looking at the road their thoughts would be "Oh, someone is crossing the road.
The car will slow down for this. Oh shit it didn't and now its too late"

The car either drives itself with no user input required at all or it needs
constant user input.

~~~
cameldrv
Like most accidents, there were multiple factors:

1\. Uber tests immature self-driving software on public roads. 2\. Uber
reduced number of safety drivers from 2 to 1. 3\. Uber hired a convicted felon
(attempted armed robbery) to do this job. 4\. Single, convicted felon safety
driver is watching Hulu instead of looking out the window.

Sure, being a safety driver is a boring job, but there are lots of boring jobs
that require careful attention, and people manage to do them.

It's not reasonable to expect the general public to reliably monitor their
self driving car, but it is very reasonable to expect a professional safety
driver in a prototype car to not watch Hulu.

~~~
journalctl
What does having attempted armed robbery have to do with this?

~~~
cameldrv
Because the job is boring yet safety critical, you need someone who is
conscientious. You need someone who follows the rules and tries their best to
live up to their responsibilities. Committing an armed robbery is basically
the exact opposite of this.

You see the result. It's not that she was looking out the window and zoned out
and started daydreaming accidentally. She deliberately made the choice to
watch TV on her phone. The car was not legal nor safe to drive without a
safety driver monitoring, but she was incapable of providing any monitoring
because she was watching TV.

~~~
journalctl
So what about all of the careless, lazy people I’ve worked with over the years
who _didn’t_ have armed robbery convictions? Maybe a past crime isn’t a good
predictor of future work ability.

~~~
cameldrv
I didn’t say “hire everyone who isn’t an armed robber.” I said “don’t hire
armed robbers for this job.” Unfortunately past crimes can be good predictors
of future work unreliability.

------
spamizbad
Self-driving car companies really need to perform more testing outside of "car
culture" areas. Jaywalking is super common in Chicago. This vehicle would
probably rack up a vehicular homicide charge within 30 minutes here.

------
scosman
A lot of non self-driving cars already handle this situation well as a safety
feature, despite the responsibility being the driver's. It seems like any AV
should have this as a baseline requirement.

[https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cars-make-
progres...](https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cars-make-progress-in-
pedestrian-detection/)

------
iamleppert
So amusing that in place of real process and systems they point to a vague
mission statement.

Can’t say I haven’t seen this kind of lazy management before.

------
gok
This isn't really accurate; according the report it was not programmed to
_stop_ for jaywalkers because it was causing too many false positives. The
Volvo's built in pedestrian detector had also been disabled. The test driver
was evidently not aware of this.

------
rolltiide
Embarrassing and really bad, also the state could have a unit test, Nevada has
one for all of its gambling games so there is precedent of a state granting a
license based on that arbitrary higher threshold

~~~
elil17
It's not necessarily possible to write unit tests for a complex system like an
autonomous vehicle

~~~
serioussecurity
Back testing however is possible. You could collect all recorded data from all
driverless orgs, and require any new deploy be run over it. Plus a simulation.

For example, creating a standards body that collected this data and certified
and release could be done by industry.

------
chrisseaton
‘Jaywalkers’ is such an offensive concept. ‘People trying to cross a road.’
Someone told me you can actually be ticketed for crossing a road in the US? In
the UK it is always the fault of the car driver if they hit a pedestrian as
pedestrians are more vulnerable (code rule 204, but doesn’t apply to
motorways.)

~~~
cactus2093
Those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Yes in the US you can be
ticketed for jaywalking, but at least in my experience it's more used on busy
highways, where you are also endangering drivers who may have to swerve to
avoid you. At least within cities I haven't seen it used when crossing a small
street when no cars are coming, but it may be different in different places.

Not sure about drivers being at fault, but fault in an accident is a weird
concept anyway. For the most part, if you get hit by a car the driver isn't
going to suffer serious consequences (they probably won't be convicted of
manslaughter, for instance).

But, this whole car centered system we have is pretty screwed up there's no
denying that. Something like 50,000 people die in car accidents every year in
the US and it's just business as usual.

~~~
BurningFrog
Jaywalking is one of many things cop _can_ arrest people for if they want to
harass them.

------
romwell
Jesus, the language they use. Jaywalkers are _people_.

Uber's self-driving car wasn't programmed to _not hit people_.

The fact that the person was in front of the machine at a part of the road
that the machine didn't know to be a pedestrian crossing is irrelevant here.

FWIW, that person could've been a construction worker, and would've been hit
by Uber just the same.

Human drivers aren't taught to look out for people _only_ at pedestrian
intersections. Those are the places where drivers have to be _extra cautious_
because the people are _more likely_ to cross the road there. But people (and
animals, and other drivers) could be anywhere on the road.

Imagine this thinking applied to other machinery:

"I'm sorry, we only made a machine that doesn't kill people wearing blue
pants. That person wore a skirt, so our machine was rightfully confused. We've
made many improvements since".

"Jaywalker" is a word that was invented to shift the responsibility to victims
of car accidents, and it's still being used that way. It's a deliberate usage
of language to spin a narrative.

~~~
matz1
Jaywalker is the correct term. People who cross at the inappropriate crossing
point.

~~~
braythwayt
Mind your words. “Jaywalking” is not illegal or wrong or even inappropriate in
most jurisdictions. Here in Ontario, it is only illegal if you are crossing
the street near an intersection and deliberately trying to circumvent a light
or other control on pedestrian crossing.

Crossing anywhee else is perfectly legal, and it’s a driver’s responsibility
to avoid pedestrians doing perfectly normal things like crossing the fucking
street.

Nothing inappropriate about crossing the street. What’s inappropriate is
trying to blame the victim and make everyone in the world adjust their
behaviour to coddle a few crooks trying to pump and dump the shares of their
company that doesn't have a viable business model.

What’s inappropriate is deciding to cut costs by only putting one human in the
test car, so they are responsible for monitoring the vehicle and safety,
instead of splitting the job between two or more people, which is standard in
the industry for test vehicles.

Jaywalker is not the correct term.

~~~
matz1
>Mind your words. “Jaywalking” is not illegal or wrong or even inappropriate
in most jurisdictions

Then it should be.

It is also a pedestrians responsibility to avoid cars doing perfectly normal
thing like using the road.

Likewise its inappropriate to blame the car driver and make everyone in the
world adjust their behavior.

~~~
braythwayt
I’m blaming the company. The list of ways they made this happen is a kilometre
long. Are you ignoring all that or unaware of it?

Are you here to be provide the opinion that pedestrians need to dodge
companies doing their alpha testing on public streets?

And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal? I’m sitting in my car. You’re
on foot. Why should I have some almighty right to drive around without looking
for you?

Streets are for all citizens, and crossing streets should be safe for
everyone, even distracted pedestrians. It’s 2019. Crossing the street should
not be a life-or-death proposition.

It’s ridiculous that capitalism gives us battery powered scooters to rent by
the trip, and rockets that can land themselves on a barge, but somehow the
idea that we can make streets safe for cyclists and pedestrians is too
difficult or ideologically impossible.

Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get
this right.

~~~
matz1
>And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal

Because it can endanger the car driver too.

Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver.

Yes thats why designated crossing place is made, to make it safer for the
pedestrians.

>Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get
this right

Sure, from your perspective. But from mine, America is the right one. Even in
America sadly they don't enforce it as much as I like.

~~~
romwell
I sincerely wish you to lose your driver's license, if only for a brief period
of time, so that you could appreciate just how much our infrastructure is
unsuitable for pedestrians.

We barely have _sidewalks_ in most places. And you suggest outlawing
"jaywalking"?

And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime.

Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of
the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them -
gasp - walk to work in SF!).

Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.

~~~
matz1
You are suggesting that pedestrian to be allowed to cross and walk anywhere ?
Who is the entitled now ?

~~~
romwell
I'm saying that your expectations of what pedestrians should do don't align
with the reality of our infrastructure.

Most of the country isn't walkable. Getting around on foot practically means
walking on roadside and crossing where the isn't a pedestrian crossing.

Again, most of suburban streets don't even have sidewalks or pedestrian
crossings.

You seem to be missing that point, which is why I'm suggesting you try getting
around on foot for a month.

~~~
matz1
Right, then use the car.

~~~
romwell
What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive.

Great, simply great.

As I said, that's not an option for:

* people who can't afford a car

* the disabled

* children

* very old people

* etc

You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is _a bit
easier_ for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road.

OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.

~~~
matz1
> What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive.

Or use public transportation.

> people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people

Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car.

If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available
or improve it.

~~~
romwell
>If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available
or improve it.

Well, OK, we are on the same page here.

But they surely _do not_ exist in most of the US, and will not be available
overnight. Until we _have_ that, we should be mindful of people who have to
deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure.

Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you
wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same
applies for children, international students, etc, etc).

=========================================

Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct
sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't
have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both
sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph,
because there was no alternative.

The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for
it.

In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three
times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that.

In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS
by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not
witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have
means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but
no.

There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the
street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the
_main_ is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception.

You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking
directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where
you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian).

So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there
and back (the idea that there _could_ be a bus is laughable, of course there
is no bus), you are SOL.

Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs.

You know that people without cars are _screwed_ , because you'd be very afraid
to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't
be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a _privilege_
that not all of us enjoy.

==============================

PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every
year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving,
and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating.

But at the same time, _not_ having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In
the US today, it is.

~~~
matz1
Like anything in life, you have to adapt or die, the city are build for car,
you either adapt to it or at worse case die.

Why are city build for car ? Apparently enough people/entity whatever want it
to be that way.

Good for you to, to fight for you cause, which is what you should be doing. If
it were me, If I care enough I would petition to have more road and less
sidewalks.

No, I do not expect the situation would be ideal for everyone. You can't never
have a situation where everyone is happy, that is simply impossible.

~~~
romwell
Well, you correctly describe the current state of affairs. Certainly building
cities for cars benefited the people who built them, as well as the automobile
manufacturers.

And while we can't make everyone "happy", we definitely can definitely improve
on things like, dunno, needlessly killing people.

OK, I guess trying to spin "hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit" about
other people isn't going to work here, so how about this:

The less people drive, the better it is for the drivers. Where I live, the
23-minute drive on Hwy 101 becomes up to a 1hr45m drive in the morning hours.
Making the area pedestrian- and transit-friendly would likely cut down the
peak commute time by half, saving car commuters a spare hour or two _each day_
, judging by the experience in LA[1].

PS: "Adapt or die" is a shitty attitude to have, my friend.

A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students,
and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive.

I moved out to grad school in TX, and "adapted": got a car and a license. It
was cheap to live there, I could afford it.

My friend didn't get the chance. He couldn't afford a car on a grad student
stipend in NY. One day, he got hit by a car and died.

I hold the Suffolk County - and people who say words like "adapt or die"
regarding pedestrian deaths - personally responsible for the death of my
friend, a PhD student who could have been working on self-driving cars now.

You must be young to hold this attitude, and I sincerely hope you change it.
There's always a bigger fish. "Adapt or die" is great when it doesn't concern
_you_.

[1][https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-
transp...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-
transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/)

~~~
matz1
>"hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit"

Likewise, maybe you should care just a tiny bit about people who support car
then. You easily dismiss their concern, deemed it as unimportant. Regardless,
I still acknowledge your position, its just fact of life that every issue has
some supporter and hatters.

There are few solution for congestion, build more road, elevated road,
underground road, tunnel. Elon Musk has interesting idea with his boring
company.

"Adapt or die" is not shitty attitude its the reality of life.

>A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students,
and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive

For some people, its just mean you have to work harder/smarter to find the way
to get it.

Whatever solution I purpose, you will just counter it with, what about this
other group of people, an so on.

No I don't have all the solution for all kind people, no one is, at some point
these people have to figure out themselves.

Yes at the very worse case, if you can't adapt you die, thats the reality of
life.

Similarly, there are tons of other situation where current environment is not
what I prefer, nonetheless I have to adapt or I'll die.

------
chimi
This is negligent homicide. Same as would be charged to a person who kills
someone while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In this case, Uber is
under the influence of _greed_.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide)

They should at minimum lose their license to drive as would a human being who
committed the same crime. They should also be "imprisoned" by way of losing
their right to exist in society for a period of 3-15 years like a human being.

This is what happens when we let criminally minded sociopathic corporations
flaunt the law. They flaunt more and more laws until someone dies.

It's wrong and I am not shocked in the least that Uber would let something
like this happen.

This should be an existential crime. How many laws must they break until we
stop them?

~~~
romwell
Paraphrasing: the notion of corporate citizenship should include corporate
prisons.

