
Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash - paulashbourne
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html
======
hunter23
This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license
to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross
negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer
vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their
LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car
to speed 3 mph over the limit when it was dark conditions (that's when you are
supposed to slow down due to decreased visiblity). I would then:

* Construct a test to be able to operate under day and night conditions. Periodically audit each operator to confirm they can pass this. This is essentially equivalent of a driving test but would be a controlled environment that simulates real cities. Maybe have robot humans to simulate pedestrians and obviously have other cars on the road. * Require that operators test X miles of specific scenarios (city driving, highway, etc.) each month and audit their # of disengagements in each of these scenarios. When it his a threshold, their license is revoked and they need to go back to the lab. They should also submit videos of clips for all disengagements. * Require all operators to have video on their safety operators and submit records of % of the time the operator has eyes on the road along with videos. Regulators can revoke license if they see issues with the the operator not paying attention.

We can't rely on a corporation to safely controlling their experiments, the
regulators need to step up here. was uber doing anything for example, to make
sure the operator was watching the road? The operator is looking down for most
of the time during the crash video.

~~~
spaceribs
This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that
were built to defeat a test, not reality.

Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions
that resulted in the fatal crash.

~~~
simmanian
This is simply not true. The dashcam footage released by Tempe police does not
depict the driving conditions at the site of the accident accurately at all.
Check out [1] for the actual driving conditions at night.

I'm not usually the one to talk about conspiracy, but Tempe police had no
legal responsibility to release the footage since the investigation is still
ongoing. Couple this with the statement released by the Tempe chief of police
defending Uber, I'm inclined to believe Uber and some state government
officials are working together to sway the public opinion and minimize damage.
At the end of the day, the victim is painted as an idiot who practically
committed suicide. This is gross injustice.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0)

~~~
spaceribs
Well, I do feel like I've been had after that and a few other videos, so thank
you for that.

My point though, is that I don't want self driving cars to defeat simulations
or tests, I want self driving cars that can react to real driving conditions.

~~~
rgbrenner
But how else do you imagine scenarios like these are tested? Normally there
aren't a lot of people willing to jump randomly out in front of cars to test
their reaction.

~~~
spaceribs
I really don't know. Even with all the hours of recorded road time by
Google/Uber used as a testbed for proper driving conditions, most machine
learning systems still suffer from figuring out ways of cheating[1], and in
those cases it could be fatal.

[1] "The program even learns how to take advantage of bugs and glitches, like
timing jumps so that Mario begins falling again at the exact time that he
makes contact with a Goomba. Mario's invincible when he's falling, so the
touch kills the Goomba, not Mario, and it gives him a further jump boost."
[http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-
solved](http://www.wired.co.uk/article/super-mario-solved)

~~~
rgbrenner
That's a problem for the test design. Maybe we can develop an approach that
uses more randomness to test these systems.

But I dont see how you can avoid having a simulation. These events are just
too rare to wait until they occur in real life.

------
fabian2k
> Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests
> on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600
> miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out
> of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles
> per “intervention” in Arizona

There can certainly be arguments about whether the kind of miles driven are
equivalent here, but with more than two order of magnitude difference it
hardly matters. I expected Uber to trail behind the top a bit, but I didn't
expect that kind of huge difference.

This looked bad from the start for Uber, and it's only getting worse. I can
understand that tests on public roads are necessary to actually achieve the
goal of autonomous driving. But that step should come after sufficient tests
in controlled environments that indicate that you got the basics down.

~~~
danso
> _As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per
> “intervention” in Arizona_

To be fair, Uber is not necessarily acting badly -- especially since AZ
doesn't appear to care either way -- having the safety driver is ostensibly
supposed to make the AV at least as safe as if it were a regular human-driven
car. I hope during the investigation we find out whether Uber made it clear to
its human drivers that they had to be at least as alert as if they were
driving a normal car.

~~~
johnmaguire2013
As a human driver, when do you know to take control of the vehicle and start
stopping? At 100 feet? 200 feet? 300 feet (a football field?)

A quick Google[1] suggests the average stopping distance of a human traveling
35mph is 95 feet (including reaction time.) The promise of autonomous is 60
feet. If the human decides to stop at 60 feet, it's too late. If they stop
before that, how do they know if the vehicle is working properly?

1\.
[http://www.brakingdistances.com/35Mph](http://www.brakingdistances.com/35Mph)

~~~
khc
You don't need a complete stop to turn a fatality to a minor injury

------
danso
> _As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per
> “intervention” in Arizona_

For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who
operate in California, which requires such disclosures:

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2018/02/01/disengagement-
report-2017-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/amp/)

Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the
link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” can vary

~~~
googlemike
Something to note - a mile is a mile here. I can buy an off the shelf tesla
and have it do laps on my neighborhood street until the cows come home, this
is not the same kind of mile as downtown SF in peak traffic.

~~~
cnfsdgradstdnt
I don't think majority of those miles are in SF. I expect most would be in CA
suburban towns like mountain view where for the past few years I'd see a waymo
car basically Everytime I drove for more than 10 minutes

~~~
maym86
The conditions under which Uber failed are similar to those in Mountain View
if there was no traffic (which there rarely is). I suspect Google's car would
not have had the same issues.

~~~
cnfsdgradstdnt
I agree

------
40acres
This is totally not surprising. Everything we know about Uber leads me to
believe that they would try to shortcut this projects development. Shame on
Arizona officials for being so lax with such a sensitive policy.

------
aresant
I just don't fully understand why Uber is attempting to compete at the
technology level.

The most important components, like the Lidar systems, are all third party and
non-exclusive.

And the likely current market leader in the tech - Waymo - has made many
indications that they see their largest opportunity as providing the
technology through partnerships.

Heck there's even been noise recently that Uber IS trying to license Waymo's
tech (1)

And then you have major auto manufacturers are also pouring BILLIONS into the
space because guess what - they still want to sell cars without having to pay
a Waymo tax!

Today Uber owns 70 - 80% of the current US ride sharing market and are in ~700
other international cities (2).

And they have thousands of employees that act as local stewards of ride
sharing etc, real infrastructure on the ground & politically that should give
them some cushion to sort things out.

So yes, maybe Uber's valuation would take a hit if they relied on Waymo, or an
auto manufacturer.

But maybe Travis' infamous quote about "I have to be tied for first at the
least." needs another look or revision at this point? (3)

Maybe it's ok for Waymo to be first in a field of their own if it means not
killing fucking pedestrians?

(1) [https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/05/uber-waymo-
partnership-f...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/05/uber-waymo-partnership-
following-lawsuit/)

(2) [http://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-
statistics/](http://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/)

(3) [http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-
on-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-
driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8)

~~~
jpao79
I agree - Uber's definitely not going to fare well. Maybe Travis'
thinking/realization was that Uber is just an app and maybe the major auto
manufacturers will realize that and not want to pay the Uber Tax and just put
their cars out on the road using their own in-house hailing app? Also prior to
the accidents - it was great free media coverage for the future IPO when
talking with investors and recruiting smart engineers.

~~~
jameslevy
> their own in-housing hailing app

This is _very likely_ to be the plan.

~~~
baking
There is no way you can justify the expense of development unless it is the
plan. You can't make that much money selling self-driving as a very expensive
(and finicky) option. Ride-sharing puts cars on the road, rolls them out
regionally, and maximizes the utilization.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Uber as a service. Some company will build it and run the backend for most car
companies, branded for each one.

------
cozzyd
I thought the conventional wisdom was that the only way Uber can become
profitable was through autonomous vehicles. It sounds like they're very
unlikely to succeed at that...

Arizona should consider improving their regulations to try to avoid additional
fatalities.

~~~
habosa
They could always buy from someone else ... but uber seems to have extreme
competitor paranoia when it comes to buying any services.

I think they also spent $500M to make their own maps when you could use any of
the popular mapping APIs out there.

~~~
baking
Whoever is first to market will compete directly against Uber. There is no
point in selling autonomous cars to Uber.

~~~
rgbrenner
Not necessarily. There are a lot of reasons for a car manufacturer not to
enter the transportation market:

They have no history of operating in that market. It's a major undertaking to
compete across the globe. The other transportation companies will now be their
competitor, and will refuse to buy their cars. They may not be successful
because of marketing, positioning, etc.

If they refrain from that.. they can sell their cars to Uber, Lyft, et al..
which we already know the manufacturer is good at. They can sell their cars to
multiple transportation companies that can offer varying levels of premium
features; differentiate themselves with marketing; etc. And they can sell a
large number of cars to Uber more immediately, since Uber is already in so
many cities. They also won't need to deal with cab regulators in each city,
etc.

Manufacturers sell their cars to dealerships who stock their cars on their lot
until they sell.. this lets the manufacturer turn over inventory faster. If
they built a transportation network, they would need to maintain those assets
on their books.

If it were simple, I think we would see more manufacturers operating rent a
car services. But we don't.

~~~
sitkack
Both BMW and Mercedes run self service car rentals (ReachNow and Car2Go).

~~~
rgbrenner
and yet those companies dont dominate the rental car market.. and plenty of
other manufacturers sell cars to other rental companies.

Proves my point. Having expertise in building cars, doesn't translate over
into running a transportation company. They're two separate enterprises.

Uber isn't going to go out of business just because someone else produces the
cars.

~~~
ClassyJacket
"and yet those companies dont dominate the rental car market.." this is a fair
point, however I feel there's more to rentals that stands in the way of that,
such as real estate. There's only room for so many car rental places in a
convenient location at an airport, for example.

I'm not saying setting up and running a company like Uber is an easy task, and
I acknowledge that not every company vertically integrates everything they
possibly could, but I don't feel like the hurdles to running a taxi app are as
significant for a car company as they would be for entering other related
markets.

~~~
sitkack
> convenient location

Uber and Lyft don't even have taxi stands, drivers have to come from a much
larger distance than even cabs, yet their usage is some multiple of taxis even
with the inconvenience.

With SDC, having access to monopoly power locations will be less of an issue.
And with Mercedes and BMW already sprinkled throughout an area, cars are
usually close.

I think there is merit in someone having learned all of the issues with
running a transportation company, but it isn't a billion dollar lesson, it is
a low tens of millions of dollar lesson.

But I don't think being first has much merit, I think the margins will quickly
shrink to zero within 5 years of SDCs and we will see a couple major auto
manufactures go bankrupt. Ironic if the self driving car of the future is a
bipedal android that makes any car a self driving car. Turning a 15k Hyundai
electric into an autonomous vehicle.

------
stefan_
Here is the supposed technological marvel, to the point where the NYT has some
infographic showing the various tech whiz bang sensors on that rampaging SUV,
but then someone hands them a 140p dashcam video with half the pixels in any
given frame truncated to pitch black and no one at the Times thinks to
question that particular narrative?

Instead we get a weak story about "pressure building before the CEO visit" and
a bunch of blame on the unknowing scrubs Uber has "test-driving" them.

------
throw7
My takeaway opinion: Sad to see that Khosrowshahi did not end the self driving
program at Uber.

Yes, I know hindsight is 20/20, but that's exactly why an incoming CEO is
brought in. Everyone was saying autonomous vehicles was Uber's only possible
future... he saw the internal reports, he knew his (or should have) talent
(was it "techbros" or computer scientists?).

I feel this is the real inflection point for Uber.

~~~
azernik
I think Uber's essential mistake is to go from "autonomous vehicles are the
only way our business model makes sense" to "we should be building autonomous
vehicles".

Their expertise is in UI, routing algorithms, and business development. There
is nothing in their background that indicates they should have any competitive
advantage in building autonomous vehicles over Google/Waymo, the proverbial
800-pound gorilla of everything AI, or GM/Cruise, with experience in safety-
critical engineering and oodles of capital to throw at the problem.

Sure, base your business model on the eventual development of driverless cars,
but buy the damned things from the professionals, eh?

~~~
inverse_pi
They essentially bought CMU's robotics department which ranks #1 (in terms of
universities) in almost all AI conferences. They also bought part of
UToronto's ML department which is where GHinton was teaching.

------
wepple
“It also appeared that the driver’s hands were not hovering above the steering
wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake
control of the car. ”

Really? Who can sit for even 30 minutes with their arms out in front of them
without getting sore?

------
mnm1
13 miles / intervention. These cars should not have been on the road. Period.
That's pathetic. Uber should be held criminally liable for this. And so should
whomever approved their application in the AZ gov't. Maybe the driver too, if
she knew this statistic. Her manager who sent her out solo for sure. This is
truly outrageous. I'm full support of autonomous vehicle development but not
when there is clearly zero oversight by authorities.

------
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
Uber's valuation seems to hinge on them not only getting AV, but the
combination of getting AVs, beating competitors to it, and having the capital
on hand to build out a large fleet of AVs all without losing too many riders
to other services like lyft.

However fast they were progressing towards real AVs they'll be progressing
slower now. And even then it looks like they are behind their competitors.

If I could short Uber I would.

------
tptacek
Is it harder to stay attentive in an autonomous car than it is as a normal
driver?

~~~
teraflop
Yes. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon; see e.g.
[https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/5/201592-the-
challenges-...](https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/5/201592-the-challenges-
of-partially-automated-driving/fulltext)

> When a navigation system performs well over extended periods, drivers may no
> longer feel they need to pay close attention. Indeed, many psychological
> studies show people have trouble focusing their attention when there is
> little or nothing to attend to. In such situations, they tend to reduce
> their active involvement and simply obey the automation. There is already
> ample evidence drivers disengage from the navigation task when the
> automation is programmed to lead the way. But how pervasive is this? Casner
> and Schooler found even well-trained airline pilots report engaging in
> copious amounts of task-unrelated thought, or "mind wandering," when an
> advanced navigation system is being used and all is nominally going to plan.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
I bet night driving compounds with this.

It may be reasonable to ban night-city autonomous near the beginning of the
technology's public introduction driving, regardless of how well the car can
see at night.

~~~
notahacker
The other reason for banning night-city semiautonomous would be how many
people thought it didn't really matter if they were drunk because they didn't
need to intervene that much anyway...

------
aeleos
Wow, compared to Waymo's 5600 miles per intervention Uber struggling to get to
13 miles per intervention is really a bad sign for them. If it turns out their
cars really weren't ready to be on the road and possibly endangering humans,
this might bring a lot of problems for the company and other self driving
programs.

------
jpao79
Isn't this where a humanoid robot (i.e. some sort of Boston Dynamics type
robot) doing random, erratic stuff might be handy?

Maybe put a bunch of them in a test track area like this one in Concord,
California. Gomentum is Silicon Valley's secretive test track for self-driving
cars:

[https://www.cnet.com/videos/inside-silicon-valleys-
secretive...](https://www.cnet.com/videos/inside-silicon-valleys-secretive-
test-track-for-self-driving-cars/)

~~~
ehsankia
Waymo has their own too:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-2XuKdbMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-2XuKdbMI)

I do agree that there needs to be a minimum requirement you should reach
before being allowed to drive on public roads. Companies should not be alpha
testing with human lives.

~~~
jpao79
Cool - was not aware of that one. At some point during the qualification
process, multiple self driving competing car vendors should be put in the same
test bed at the same time for a month of continuous 24/7 driving.

The test bed should have the 'average moving car density' equivalent to that
of an SF/NYC neighborhood.

Let the robots test themselves and risk their 'lives' first before putting
real human lives in the mix!

------
jessaustin
Wow, some tech investors are taking it on the chin this week. Uber has to pay
its customers now; this self-driving Hail Mary was the only thing supporting
its value. [EDIT:] am I wrong about that? Tell me more!

------
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
The story focuses on the safety drivers not being particularly safe. Uber
apparently has internal cameras and they have to have reasonable CV to attempt
the main task. Why not also try and get some sort of measure of if the safety
driver is actually going to save the situation if it starts going south?

------
TillE
> When Mr. Khosrowshahi took over as Uber’s chief executive, he had considered
> shutting down the self-driving car operations

As I thought, it seems extremely likely that Uber is going to cancel the
project now. Ethically there would have to be some kind of meticulous safety
audit which would put them even further behind the competition. Even if they
wanted to continue, there's hardly any point.

------
poisonarena
but that latest Arizona crash wasn't their fault

------
yalogin
My guess is their code is buggy or not responsive enough to deal with things
at the rate it’s needed. The hardware cannot but report the data to the SoC,
it’s just that their software didn’t process it in time. That should be
apparent in their logs. Is that not asked or probed?

------
AdrianB1
I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very
clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0%
responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people
point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything
like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances.
But how about the pedestrian, didn't she see a car high 2 big headlights
coming? Did expected the car to stop or avoid her? Why everyone blames the
software (and Uber) and not the pedestrian crossing the street like she was
crossing her living room where there are no cars around?

~~~
oneshoe
I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different:

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
cross...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
crossing-50-state-summary.aspx)

The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation.

EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)...
"Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that
are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is
approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute
a danger"

Growing up in AZ I was always told that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right away
- something I always thought was strange.

I do stand correct however.

~~~
mkolodny
The link you shared disagrees with you - it says that in Arizona vehicles
always have the right-of-way outside of crosswalks:

"Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of
a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic
control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two
adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk."

~~~
oneshoe
Looks like I read that first sentence wrong...

"Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that
are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is
approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute
a danger"

Growing up in AZ I was always told that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right away
- something I always thought was strange.

I do stand correct however.

