This seems exceptional for Velodyne to come out with a statement like this directly from a spokesperson. I would expect a supplier to be more restrained before throwing a large (and growing) customer under the bus like this.
This is not exactly throwing Uber under the Bus as they themselves have an interest in being able to tell that story later on: "Our analysis concluded that our algorithms didn't put enough weight on the data coming from the lidar, which worked as intended and should have been weighted higher in these specific circumstances, we will adjust our efforts accordingly and will Donate $largeSum to CarsAgainstHumanity to bribe everyone into forgetting how bad we fucked up."
The responsible thing to do is wait for the results of the investigation.
> “In addition to Lidar, autonomous systems typically have several sensors, including camera and radar to make decisions,” she wrote. “We don’t know what sensors were on the Uber car that evening, if they were working, or how they were being used.”
There's still a ton of variables here besides whether or not the Lidar detecting the pedestrian. Including the other sensors, how the software works, etc. All things out of the scope of Velodynes knowledge.
Velodyne is not saying that they are certain the car should/could have stopped in time or avoided the crash. Their perspective is merely regarding the functionality of Lidar being able to detect the person.
Not to mention we don't even know whether the Lidar malfunctioned yet either...
"Why is it OK for the LIDAR company to make a blanket statement of innocence without proof, but not OK for Uber to do the same?"
This is a disingenuous question. It assumes facts not in evidence, to use the legal aphorism. Velodyne did not "make a blanket statement of innocence without proof". It made a very narrow and defensible claim, namely, that its product, when working properly under the conditions at the time, should have been able to detect the pedestrian. It is obviously true that there are "a ton of other variables" but that is a red herring with respect to the original question.
I agree, if anything I supported this statement with my comment.
The difference is that regardless of the narrowness of their claim, it will have a broader impact on how people judge Uber. Nor do we even know if the Lidar was functioning properly, which is an assumption Velodyne is making when they made their claim.
We simply need more evidence before we can fully judge Uber. And before we can give Velodyne a complete pass in terms of the functionality of their Lidar.
Who knows what other greater context the particular statements were in. After this past election I never trust these types of one-line quotes taken from a larger interview.
The headline could easily have been:
- Uber's Lidar manufacturer just as "baffled" why pedestrian not detected before crash
The airline, the manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the part(s) suppliers, the pilots... will all point at each other. Usually the pilots lose because they don't have any money whether they were at fault or not.
You have to wonder why everyone isn't pointing at the safety driver in this case.
Here's an example of everyone blaming everyone else, and the manufacturer lost despite it not actually being their fault:
I think it makes sense to for Velodyne to get a head of the message before any client throw Velodyne under the bus. If Velodyne takes the hit, all their suppliers have leverage over them. Staying ahead keeps the clients confident in Velodyne products.
Also scale-wise, the market is tiny at this point. Nobody cares the sales from quarter to quarter because whenever self-driving cars hit mainstream, all previous numbers will be scribbles in the margin.
Velodyne has a finger in practically every major self driving car pie slice. It's pretty much heads you lose, tails I win for them (Assumption:nobody can bring a better laser to market).
If they're sure it's not their fault it's a good idea to get that information out before people start questioning LIDAR technology. If Uber leaves they'll lose sales in the short term. If everybody else gets scared away then they're toast.