Uber Establishes Oversight Board for Self-driving Development

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
uber establishes oversight board for self driving development

Uber has formed an independent board tasked with overseeing its autonomous vehicle program. As outsiders, they’ll have no official authority within the company. But the six-member group will have direct access to executive years, and will be using them to advise the business on how best to test and deploy new technologies.

Dubbed the Self-Driving Safety and Responsibility Board, the group was formed after one of Uber’s test vehicles struck and killed a pedestrian in March 2018. An external review commissioned by the company following the incident recommended the board’s formation, with support from the NHTSA.

According to Automotive News, the committee’s makeup was recently finalized:

Board members include Shailen Bhatt, president of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America; Adrian Lund, former president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Victoria Nneji, robotics fellow and assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University.

Also on the board is physician and former NHTSA chief Jeffrey Runge, now president of Biologue Inc., a North Carolina biodefense and medical preparedness consulting firm.

Rounding out the panel are two members who bring an aviation-minded perspective that Uber wanted on the board: David Carbaugh, former chief pilot of flight operations safety at Boeing, and George Snyder, president of GHS Aviation Group.

Roughly a year ago, the law firm LeClairRyan issued a report recommending Uber adopt some of the practices in place at the Federal Aviation Administration — as it has a few autonomous protocols already on the books. Among the tools the ride-hailing business adopted was a new way for employees to submit safety concerns, modeled from the Aviation Safety Reporting Program.

While Uber definitely wants to ensure safer testing in the future, this is also a bit of damage control. Shortly before the fatal crash in Tempe, AZ, from March of 2018, manager Robbie Miller had tried to tell the company its test mules were underperforming. In an email to his superiors, Miller reported that the firm’s AVs were “routinely in accidents resulting in damage” while expressed fears over the preparedness of the company’s safety drivers.

“We believe that this panel of outside industry experts will offer valuable independent advice as Uber ATG leads the safe development and deployment of self-driving technology,” Uber said in a statement. It also noted that board findings and recommendations will not be made public. While we’d prefer having a pipeline into those discussions, it’s understandable the business doesn’t want to air its dirty laundry.

[Image: MikeDotta/Shutterstock]

Join the conversation
4 of 8 comments
  • R Henry R Henry on Oct 31, 2019

    As Wozniak and others have admitted, Level 5 autonomy is a pipe dream in today's technological environment. Neither sufficient software nor hardware exists, in even in conceptual form, to achieve Level 5. Uber can seat all the bright lights it wants on whatever advisory board it decides to create, but they cannot change technological reality.

  • Dal20402 Dal20402 on Oct 31, 2019

    The Uber accident did more to damage the image of robot cars than any other thing that has happened. The reason for the damage was not so much that the accident happened as that it was so clearly the result of shoddy cost-cutting efforts and lack of attention to safety. This is too little, too late. I trust that Waymo has safety in mind. I won't trust Uber about that for years, if ever.

    • See 1 previous
    • Dal20402 Dal20402 on Nov 01, 2019

      @brn Had either (1) the Uber car's safety systems been as good as the stock Volvo systems that were disabled or (2) the safety driver been paying attention instead of on her phone, the crash would have been avoided. (The car's log showed that the stock system recognized her and, had it been functional, would have initiated a braking event.) Pedestrians are not always of sound mind and are not always going to do predictable things. Robot cars need to avoid them if physically possible. In this instance it was easily physically possible - full panic braking wouldn't have even been necessary.

  • Johnds Years ago I pulled over a vehicle from either Manitoba or Ontario in North Dakota for speeding. The license plates and drivers license did not come up on my dispatchers computer. The only option was to call their government. Being that it was 2 am, that wasn’t possible so they were given a warning.
  • BEPLA My own theory/question on the Mark VI:Had Lincoln used the longer sedan wheelbase on the coupe - by leaning the windshield back and pushing the dashboard & steering wheel rearward a bit - not built a sedan - and engineered the car for frameless side windows (those framed windows are clunky, look cheap, and add too many vertical lines in comparison to the previous Marks) - Would the VI have remained an attractive, aspirational object of desire?
  • VoGhost Another ICEbox? Pass. Where are you going to fill your oil addiction when all the gas stations disappear for lack of demand? I want a pickup that I can actually use for a few decades.
  • Art Vandelay Best? PCH from Ventura to somewhere near Lompoc. Most Famous? Route Irish
  • GT Ross The black wheel fad cannot die soon enough for me.