Uber Eager to Restart Autonomous Testing, This Time With Two Safety Drivers

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Are two safety drivers better than one when it comes to the testing of self-driving cars? Uber Technologies feels it is, declaring as much to Pennsylvania’s road regulator. The company has filed an application with the state’s department of transportation to resume testing of autonomous Volvos, eight months after a fatal collision with a pedestrian on a darkened Arizona highway.

Uber stopped all autonomous testing in the wake of the March 18th collision, with the Arizona program dismantled for good. In Pittsburgh, the company hopes to show it learned from the safety lapses revealed in the accident investigation. These Volvos now have two fail-safes on board. Is it enough to restore the public’s trust?

In its preliminary report on the events leading up to the death of 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, the National Transportation Safety Board revealed that the self-driving XC90 “saw” the victim 6 seconds before the collision, but didn’t try to stop. It was also revealed that the safety driver was streaming a reality show on her phone, glancing away from the road in the seconds leading up to the crash. (The driver claims she was monitoring a seperate screen used to display vehicle functions). It was ultimately the safety driver who applied the brakes, but only after the collision.

Unlike the Arizona vehicles, Uber said the Pittsburgh fleet will not have their manufacturer-supplied automatic emergency braking system disabled to make things smoother for the autonomous drive system fitted to the Volvos. Uber was accused of dumbing down the safety of its test vehicles to avoid jerky, unnecessary braking. While the Tempe, Arizona Volvo recognized the looming victim, sources claim Uber’s drive system was programmed to ignore “false positives.” The elimination of the car’s factory AEB system made the situation all the more dangerous.

Then there’s the human element. With two safety drivers on board, Uber seems to feel that at least one pair of eyes will be on the road ahead at any given time. That’s a better setup than before, but in these Wild West early days of autonomous driving, nothing’s foolproof.

“Our goal is to really work to regain that trust and to work to help move the entire industry forward,” Noah Zych, Uber’s head of system safety for self-driving cars, told the Associated Press. “We think the right thing to do is to be open and transparent about the things that we are doing.”

Following the Tempe crash, Uber brought aboard former NTSB chair Christopher Hart to perform a review and change the company’s “safety culture.” In a lengthy report attached to Friday’s DOT application, Uber said it has introduced more rigorous training for safety drivers, among other initiatives. Pennsylvania officials have until Nov. 13 to approve or reject the application.

[Image: Uber Technologies]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 10 comments
  • W126 W126 on Nov 06, 2018

    I guess next time Uber kills someone they can just doctor the video again to make it look it is pitch black and that no human driver could have avoided the collision. No one in the media or the police department will question a video even though it is put out by Uber, because video is regarded as infallible. Uber will then pay a "big" seven figure settlement to the family, which is a drop in the bucket for them, and they can repeat this process to their heart's content. Just goes to show you can be the shittiest company around and not give a damn about your customers, their safety, or their privacy, but people will happily give you their money as long as you enable their laziness and have a nifty app. I guess calling a cab is just so much more arduous than using uber.

  • Gedrven Gedrven on Nov 06, 2018

    So let me get this straight: the way to improve the safety of a system supervised by one person staring down into their smartphone is to have two people staring into their smartphones? Or better yet, yakking with and otherwise distracting each other as their gizmobile plows into cyclists and concrete dividers, or panic stops for no apparent reason?

  • KOKing Unless you're an employee (or even if you are) does anyone care where physically any company is headquartered? Until I saw this story pop up, I'd forgotten that GM used to be in the 'Cadillac Building' until whenever it was they moved into RenCen (and that RenCen wasn't even built for GM). It's not like GM moved to Bermuda or something for a tax shelter (and I dunno maybe they ARE incorporated there legally?)
  • Fred It just makes me question GM's management. Do they save rent money? What about the cost of the move? Don't forget they have to change addresses on their forms. New phone numbers? Lost hours?
  • SilverHawk It's amazing how the domestic manufacturers have made themselves irrelevant in the minds of American consumers. Someday, they'll teach this level of brand disassociation in marketing classes as an example of what "not to do". Our auto interests once revolved around these brands. Now, nobody cares, and nobody should care. Where did I put the keys to my Studebaker?
  • El scotto Will it get GM one mile closer to the Gates of Hades? This is a company that told their life long employees not to sell their stock until the day of bankruptcy.
  • 28-Cars-Later I'm curious, is the Maverick in "EV mode" when its towing?"There's still car-like handling -- no punishment because you're driving a truck." That's because its not a truck, its akin to the earlier Ranchero - a literal car-truck hybrid now with an available gasoline hybrid drivetrain (that's actually hilarious and awesome, hybrid-hybrid FTW).
Next