Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

>Uber made a series of development decisions that contributed to the crash’s cause, the NTSB said...Uber deactivated the automatic emergency braking systems in the Volvo XC90 vehicle and precluded the use of immediate emergency braking, relying instead on the back-up driver.

If the driver committed homicide, it sure sounds like Uber is also guilty of homicide.

View on HN

Not just the Volvo system, but Uber had tuned the object detector to ignore the sparse lidar returns that the car saw 6 seconds before impact. Meyhofer, the head of ATG, fought to tune the car that way because trees cause similar sparse returns and the car had been stopping for trees while testing. The pressure to tune was there because of an impending demo with Uber CEO Dara and Meyhofer stood to gain tens of millions of dollars from the demo. It’s not just homicide but Uber also defrauded their safety drivers.

Eerily similar to how the Challenger tragedy happened

Deactivating this optional feature is somehow worse than buying a car without such feature in the first place? The latter is neither illegal nor immoral.

The safety driver had an actual job to do, he wasn't there "instead" of automatic emergency braking - which is not certified for driverless operation btw. But he was distracted with a phone instead of looking at the road.

The halo effect here is unreal.

The American legal system places much more emphasis on acts you may have committed than omissions, and tends to avoid compelling action.

So yes, in an American court, disabling a proven safety feature is significantly worse than simply purchasing a vehicle without the feature.

The safety driver failed at their job, but the NTSB clearly lays significant blame for that failure on Uber, who should know well that humans are poorly suited to monitoring automated systems, and committed acts and omissions that increased the likelihood of an accident.

This brings to mind the classic Trolley Problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The scenario is notably different, but it does dig into the issues around acts vs omissions and how we perceive them.

She.

> If the driver committed homicide, it sure sounds like Uber is also guilty of homicide.

No; an automatic emergency braking system is not required by law. A capable, attentive driver on the other hand is. Working brakes are as well, but it's eventually up to the driver to engage them.

I think an interesting variation on this is that even if a safety system is not required by law, but is available - then disabling could constitute criminal negligence. Consider what happens if safety equipment on industrial equipment is disabled and injuries result. I'm fairly sure that criminal charges could result for whoever disabled the safety mechanisms (though the there are likely differences between workplace safety criminal law and road safety).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com