Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)

16263646668

Posts

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.

    I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.

    competition is supposed to exist.

    any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
    it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
    given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.

    so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.





    this is surreal.

    The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).

    Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.

    And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.

    ?
    There is an entire profession dedicated to buying the best fit insurance for people.


    tsmvengy
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.

    I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.

    competition is supposed to exist.

    any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
    it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
    given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.

    so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.





    this is surreal.

    The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).

    Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.

    And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.

    ?
    There is an entire profession dedicated to buying the best fit insurance for people.

    Yes. Which means you're paying someone to figure it out for you. Not exactly the classical free market model at that point.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    HefflingJulius
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.

    I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.

    competition is supposed to exist.

    any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
    it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
    given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.

    so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.





    this is surreal.

    The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).

    Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.

    And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.

    ok but like

    look at the personal car insurance market as it exists today?

    there's already pretty heavy price-based competition

    like every car insurance commercial is basically "WE WILL PUT MONEY IN YOUR POCKET SWITCH TO USSSSSS"

    if the costs for the Insurers went down dramatically because they have few claims to pay out, maybe the premium brands will try and pocket it but your Geicos and Progressives will keep offering their crappy service at the lowest price point they can manage.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    AstaerethCauldtsmvengy
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.

    I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.

    competition is supposed to exist.

    any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
    it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
    given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.

    so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.





    this is surreal.

    The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).

    Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.

    And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.

    ok but like

    look at the personal car insurance market as it exists today?

    there's already pretty heavy price-based competition

    like every car insurance commercial is basically "WE WILL PUT MONEY IN YOUR POCKET SWITCH TO USSSSSS"

    if the costs for the Insurers went down dramatically because they have few claims to pay out, maybe the premium brands will try and pocket it but your Geicos and Progressives will keep offering their crappy service at the lowest price point they can manage.

    it's also important to note, this AV insurance will be a pretty much totally new product than insuring a driver.

    there shouldn't be much stickyness to its price

    This machine kills threads.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.

    I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.

    competition is supposed to exist.

    any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
    it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
    given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.

    so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.





    this is surreal.

    The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).

    Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.

    And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.

    ok but like

    look at the personal car insurance market as it exists today?

    there's already pretty heavy price-based competition

    like every car insurance commercial is basically "WE WILL PUT MONEY IN YOUR POCKET SWITCH TO USSSSSS"

    if the costs for the Insurers went down dramatically because they have few claims to pay out, maybe the premium brands will try and pocket it but your Geicos and Progressives will keep offering their crappy service at the lowest price point they can manage.

    If everyone says that, some of them must be lying.
    Possibly all of them.
    Or atleast only telling truth in a very complicated and technical sense that is pretty much lying.

    Or they are shitty insurances that are not worth the paper they would have been printed on before everything went electronic.

    Julius
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Insurance is pretty much the MOST regulated industry there is (I work in it, fyi).
    Corps will absorb insurance at the corporate level for a few reasons:
    1. Large commercial entities get deeper discounts and have more options around structures. Most likely they'll go with some high deductible (think 1m+) plan with reinsurance to cover any catastrophe.
    2. Corp level let's them go lease or finance captive to goose margins/force "new every x"
    3. Variant risk profiles won't exist for anything but comprehensive as all drivers will effectively be the same and it's more about weather events/break-ins. That's lumpy and not terribly profitable as it just increases your exposure to major weather events (as flooding of cars is covered vs flooding of houses through nfip)

    Large insurers know that the sun will likely set on personal auto in about 15-20 years (will take that long for refinement and replacement). Smart ones are finding new revenue streams. That said, all these sensors have ratcheted up small accident costs, so it's already somewhat draining.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    CA Supreme Court rules that gig workers are employees:
    In a unanimous decision yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent contractors seeking employee status from a last-mile delivery service in a case that could have wide ramifications for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Instacart, and other companies buoyed by the sweat of the gig economy.

    First filed in April of 2005, the suit alleged that drivers for Dynamex had been misclassified as independent contractors. Starting in 2004, drivers were required to provide their own vehicles—and pay for all the incurred costs that came with that, like gas, maintenance, insurance, and tolls—while being “generally expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges [...] and/or the customer’s decals to their vehicles when making deliveries for the customer.” Those customers included companies like Home Depot, Office Depot, and Amazon.

    With no guarantee on the type or number of deliveries they’d be making, shouldering all the liability, and facing termination at any time for any reason, life for Dynamex workers seems both grim and totally ordinary in the landscape of gig work. They were converted from employees to this new, more precarious classification “after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company,” the ruling states, creating a deeply lopsided power dynamic.

    In Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s words:
    Such incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its employees [...] When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification.

    This will hopefully shake up the gig economy.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusPolaritieBeef AvengerFencingsaxAstaerethLord_AsmodeusMan in the MistskimeMrMisterdiscriderEtiowsaIncenjucarHefflingknitdanAegisshrykeMoridin889wanderingHarry DresdenthatassemblyguyMatevCalica
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    CA Supreme Court rules that gig workers are employees:
    In a unanimous decision yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent contractors seeking employee status from a last-mile delivery service in a case that could have wide ramifications for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Instacart, and other companies buoyed by the sweat of the gig economy.

    First filed in April of 2005, the suit alleged that drivers for Dynamex had been misclassified as independent contractors. Starting in 2004, drivers were required to provide their own vehicles—and pay for all the incurred costs that came with that, like gas, maintenance, insurance, and tolls—while being “generally expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges [...] and/or the customer’s decals to their vehicles when making deliveries for the customer.” Those customers included companies like Home Depot, Office Depot, and Amazon.

    With no guarantee on the type or number of deliveries they’d be making, shouldering all the liability, and facing termination at any time for any reason, life for Dynamex workers seems both grim and totally ordinary in the landscape of gig work. They were converted from employees to this new, more precarious classification “after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company,” the ruling states, creating a deeply lopsided power dynamic.

    In Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s words:
    Such incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its employees [...] When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification.

    This will hopefully shake up the gig economy.

    Isn't this also going to have a fairly substantial effect on UPS and Fedex?

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    CA Supreme Court rules that gig workers are employees:
    In a unanimous decision yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent contractors seeking employee status from a last-mile delivery service in a case that could have wide ramifications for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Instacart, and other companies buoyed by the sweat of the gig economy.

    First filed in April of 2005, the suit alleged that drivers for Dynamex had been misclassified as independent contractors. Starting in 2004, drivers were required to provide their own vehicles—and pay for all the incurred costs that came with that, like gas, maintenance, insurance, and tolls—while being “generally expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges [...] and/or the customer’s decals to their vehicles when making deliveries for the customer.” Those customers included companies like Home Depot, Office Depot, and Amazon.

    With no guarantee on the type or number of deliveries they’d be making, shouldering all the liability, and facing termination at any time for any reason, life for Dynamex workers seems both grim and totally ordinary in the landscape of gig work. They were converted from employees to this new, more precarious classification “after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company,” the ruling states, creating a deeply lopsided power dynamic.

    In Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s words:
    Such incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its employees [...] When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification.

    This will hopefully shake up the gig economy.

    Isn't this also going to have a fairly substantial effect on UPS and Fedex?

    UPS drivers are employees, and unionized.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    FencingsaxCptKemzikElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusEncMoridin889ExtreaminatusRchanenMatev
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    CA Supreme Court rules that gig workers are employees:
    In a unanimous decision yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent contractors seeking employee status from a last-mile delivery service in a case that could have wide ramifications for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Instacart, and other companies buoyed by the sweat of the gig economy.

    First filed in April of 2005, the suit alleged that drivers for Dynamex had been misclassified as independent contractors. Starting in 2004, drivers were required to provide their own vehicles—and pay for all the incurred costs that came with that, like gas, maintenance, insurance, and tolls—while being “generally expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges [...] and/or the customer’s decals to their vehicles when making deliveries for the customer.” Those customers included companies like Home Depot, Office Depot, and Amazon.

    With no guarantee on the type or number of deliveries they’d be making, shouldering all the liability, and facing termination at any time for any reason, life for Dynamex workers seems both grim and totally ordinary in the landscape of gig work. They were converted from employees to this new, more precarious classification “after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company,” the ruling states, creating a deeply lopsided power dynamic.

    In Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s words:
    Such incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its employees [...] When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification.

    This will hopefully shake up the gig economy.

    Isn't this also going to have a fairly substantial effect on UPS and Fedex?

    UPS drivers are employees, and unionized.

    Woops, I was pretty sure fedex wasn't so I took a guess on UPS.

  • KetarKetar My autocomplete is a tad agressive today.Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    CA Supreme Court rules that gig workers are employees:
    In a unanimous decision yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent contractors seeking employee status from a last-mile delivery service in a case that could have wide ramifications for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Instacart, and other companies buoyed by the sweat of the gig economy.

    First filed in April of 2005, the suit alleged that drivers for Dynamex had been misclassified as independent contractors. Starting in 2004, drivers were required to provide their own vehicles—and pay for all the incurred costs that came with that, like gas, maintenance, insurance, and tolls—while being “generally expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges [...] and/or the customer’s decals to their vehicles when making deliveries for the customer.” Those customers included companies like Home Depot, Office Depot, and Amazon.

    With no guarantee on the type or number of deliveries they’d be making, shouldering all the liability, and facing termination at any time for any reason, life for Dynamex workers seems both grim and totally ordinary in the landscape of gig work. They were converted from employees to this new, more precarious classification “after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company,” the ruling states, creating a deeply lopsided power dynamic.

    In Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s words:
    Such incentives include the unfair competitive advantage the business may obtain over competitors that properly classify similar workers as employees and that thereby assume the fiscal and other responsibilities and burdens that an employer owes to its employees [...] When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification.

    This will hopefully shake up the gig economy.

    Isn't this also going to have a fairly substantial effect on UPS and Fedex?

    I did a Christmas season as a seasonal package handler for FedEx a while ago, and was an employee while doing so albeit a temporary one. All of their drivers and year-round package handlers are employees. Have they changed something in more recent years to resemble gig work?

    Fencingsax
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I guess I was off. I thought Fedex ground used contractors for last mile type stuff.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Nah, drivers are generally unionized.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Fedex ground definitely still uses independent contractors

    it's hard to tell exactly how much, there are a lot of news articles and no concrete info in a quick search. they were sued by some of their drivers a while back to get reclassified and they settled for a few hundred mill... I wonder if they've been transitioning to a more employee-based model?

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    Doodmann
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I guess I was off. I thought Fedex ground used contractors for last mile type stuff.

    No. Amazon themselves have been doing so as of late, with the results being what you would expect.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    DoodmannMoridin889
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Does this apply only to CA drivers? Or all Uber drivers because the company is CA-based?

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Only to CA drivers. You operate under the labor laws of the state you’re employed in.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • KetarKetar My autocomplete is a tad agressive today.Registered User regular
    No matter how low my expectations get, Uber always manages to live down to them.
    State regulators are investigating whether Uber has illegally jacked up rates with surge pricing in violation of state law — a claim Uber is contesting, saying it has followed the letter of the law. The incident now under a state spotlight took place during a nor’easter in early March. Gov. Charlie Baker declared a state of emergency March 3-6.
    ...
    DPU said it sent Uber and other so-called transportation network companies a notice when the state of emergency was declared, telling them to suspend surge pricing. Uber declined to say whether it received the notice.
    ...
    Uber is disputing the notion its actions were in violation of state law, saying it is not prohibited from surge pricing during states of emergency. The company says the law only keeps it from raising the “base rate” during states of emergency, which it says is separate from surge pricing fees. When surge is active, a rider is charged an additional multiple of the fare, two or 2.5 times, for example, which is listed as a separate add-on to the total bill.
    ...
    “The intent was to avoid circumstances where companies would be jacking up prices during a state of emergency,” said state Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, who wrote the original bill. “The intent of the legislation was to avoid any company taking advantage of the consumer during a state of emergency.”

    kimeGnome-InterruptushippofantSleepLord_AsmodeusMan in the MistsSmrtnikFencingsaxmilskiMoridin889Heffling
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Horrible former Uber exec continues to be horrible person:
    Eric Alexander, a former top executive with Uber, has sent a complaint to his former employer alleging he was wrongfully terminated last year, Recode reports. Recode’s sources say Alexander sent a draft complaint letter to Uber offices, claiming that he was not only wrongfully fired, but also unfairly targeted internally by company executives.

    Uber fired Alexander after news broke in 2017 that he and then-CEO Travis Kalanick reviewed the medical records of an Indian passenger who was raped by her Uber driver in 2014. Alexander and Kalanick reportedly questioned if competitor Ola planted the story to damage Uber’s reputation. Uber was already embroiled in multiple, overlapping scandals relating to sexism and both Alexander and Kalanick left the company later that year.

    Note that he doesn't dispute the veracity of the story.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ZxerolZxerol Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    So the NTSB released a preliminary report on the Uber self-driving fatality incident. Arstechnica has a summary.
    At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision. According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.
    Dashcam footage of the driver looking down at her lap has prompted a lot of speculation that she was looking at a smartphone. But the driver told the NTSB that she was actually looking down at a touchscreen that was used to monitor the self-driving car software.

    "The operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review," the report said.

    So, in autonomous mode, the car turns off emergency braking and relies on human intervention. Said human is required to look down onto a touchscreen to do their job. The system does not alert this human that yo, shit is FUBAR, help me out brosinski.

    They've created a testing environment where a person has to look away from the road but still is responsible to take over control in case of a traffic anomaly. Good job, well done.

    I'm sure that'll help their case in resuming tests back in Pittsburgh, ahahahaha.

    Zxerol on
    SleepmilskiKetarAngelHedgiePolaritieGnome-InterruptusPhoenix-DAimElvenshaeMoridin889Lord_AsmodeuswanderingMortiousHefflingkimeFencingsaxMan in the MistsEtiowsashrykeknitdanthatassemblyguyTNTrooperZekSmrtnikSealTynnanDaenrisMatevCalica
  • milskimilski Their Will comes, at last, to Earth, to the Neath, as a storm crosses the sea. Registered User regular
    I'm not even surprised.

    High, cold, eternal, immobile, minuscule. You endure; you burn.
    SleepkimeMan in the MistsshrykeTynnanIncenjucar
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    That they felt they had to disable emergency braking maneuvers suggests to me that they're getting a ton of false positives in regular driving, which would otherwise cause dangerously erratic driving. This, in turn, implies that their detection system is badly flawed and insufficient for autonomous driving, and nowhere near ready for road-testing.

    Also, a driver's reaction time is ~1-2 seconds, so that was just death there for detection to occur 1.3 seconds before impact, even if they had a better alert system. Annnd it's still doubtful whether even an automated system could have sufficiently decelerated/turned the car to significantly mitigate the collision in 1.3 seconds too, so again, a problematic detection system that can't possibly be deployed as a product without major overhaul. They are not at a fine-tuning stage here.

    hippofant on
    mrondeauLaOsZxerolmilskiKetarKnight_PolaritieGnizmoMvrckGnome-InterruptusPhoenix-DMoridin889Lord_AsmodeusHefflingMortiouskimeKetBraFencingsaxEtiowsashrykeMan in the MistsZekKayne Red RobeRchanen
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    I wonder what the Volvo system that they disabled to install their stuff would have done.

    The summaries I've seen aren't super clear if the 1.3 seconds is Uber's software or the Volvo system.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    hippofant wrote: »
    That they felt they had to disable emergency braking maneuvers suggests to me that they're getting a ton of false positives in regular driving, which would otherwise cause dangerously erratic driving. This, in turn, implies that their detection system is badly flawed and insufficient for autonomous driving, and nowhere near ready for road-testing.

    Also, a driver's reaction time is ~1-2 seconds, so that was just death there for detection to occur 1.3 seconds before impact, even if they had a better alert system. Annnd it's still doubtful whether even an automated system could have sufficiently decelerated/turned the car to significantly mitigate the collision in 1.3 seconds too, so again, a problematic detection system that can't possibly be deployed as a product without major overhaul. They are not at a fine-tuning stage here.

    The NTSB report has a bit more.
    According to data obtained from the self-driving system, the system first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about 6 seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph. As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path

    At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision (see figure 2) According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

    The system sat there and went duuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr for 4.5s before deciding it needed to emergency brake - which it couldn't do.

    If it slammed the brakes 1.3 seconds would have been enough for the car to stop stopped completely. 60 to 0 breaking distance for a XC90 is 130ft. At 40 it will be about 45% of that ~59ft, and ignoring deceleration you travel 76ft in 1.3s at 40mph. And even if it doesn't fully stop getting hit at 5mph is a lot better than 40.

    Whoever was part of disabling the emergency brakes should be up on a negligent homicide charge.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    Phoenix-DmilskiMoridin889shrykethatassemblyguyMan in the MistsTNTrooperKayne Red RobeSmrtnik
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Yeaaaah that is the kind of thing a company and probably individuals need to be held accountable for. If you need to handcuff your program to keep it functioning maybe don't put it on public roads?

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    FencingsaxMan in the MiststsmvengyMatevIncenjucar
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    That they felt they had to disable emergency braking maneuvers suggests to me that they're getting a ton of false positives in regular driving, which would otherwise cause dangerously erratic driving. This, in turn, implies that their detection system is badly flawed and insufficient for autonomous driving, and nowhere near ready for road-testing.

    Also, a driver's reaction time is ~1-2 seconds, so that was just death there for detection to occur 1.3 seconds before impact, even if they had a better alert system. Annnd it's still doubtful whether even an automated system could have sufficiently decelerated/turned the car to significantly mitigate the collision in 1.3 seconds too, so again, a problematic detection system that can't possibly be deployed as a product without major overhaul. They are not at a fine-tuning stage here.

    The NTSB report has a bit more.
    According to data obtained from the self-driving system, the system first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about 6 seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph. As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path

    At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision (see figure 2) According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

    The system sat there and went duuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr for 4.5s before deciding it needed to emergency brake - which it couldn't do.

    If it slammed the brakes 1.3 seconds would have been enough for the car to stop stopped completely. 60 to 0 breaking distance for a XC90 is 130ft. At 40 it will be about 45% of that ~59ft, and ignoring deceleration you travel 76ft in 1.3s at 40mph. And even if it doesn't fully stop getting hit at 5mph is a lot better than 40.

    Whoever was part of disabling the emergency brakes should be up on a negligent homicide charge.

    Is it really? I mean, I see the technical specifications on the car yes, but when you look at braking distances from generic driving advice websites (like https://www.ingenie.com/young-drivers-guide/stopping-distances), the distance is significantly longer, which lines up with what I recall from driver's handbooks and such. Is the discrepancy a mix between overoptimistic manufacturers' testing in ideal scenarios (i.e. your car never achieves the listed MPG) and generic statistics including human failings (i.e. humans don't maximize brake pressure immediately, though thinking distance is accounted for)?

    By my math, 130 feet is still too far to avert collision entirely at 60 MPH. 60 MPH at 1.3 seconds is 114 feet, but you are right that the car would have decelerated significantly in those 114 feet. (Though its inertial force will have decreased slightly less so.)

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    The handbooks are extremely conservative, and on top of that were written at a time when the "average" car was total garbage compared to a modern luxury vehicle.

    Car and Driver's instrumented test had the XC90 going from 70-0 in 167ft.

    thatassemblyguy
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    ....They turned off emergency braking, making it operator operated. Then set up the system to *not alert the operator*

    Uber's self driving car division should be shut down. That kind of bullshit is just...holy shit.

    Phoenix-D on
    Gnome-InterruptusiTunesIsEvilmilskiElvenshaeMoridin889CouscousLord_AsmodeusHefflingMortiouskimePolaritieFencingsaxQuidEtiowsashrykeHarry DresdenthatassemblyguyMan in the MistsZekKayne Red RobeSmrtnikDaenrisMatevhanzoIncenjucarCalica
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    How can anyone be stupid enough to setup that kind of system, while being smart enough to set it up?
    And i bet nobody will be held criminally liable for manslaughter, negligent or otherwise.

    Fencingsax
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited May 2018
    I recall reading somewhere that uber's system at one point required 2 people - one in the driver's seat watching the road, one to monitor the computer. At that point it's not quite as terrible since you'd be guaranteed to have someone watching (at least in theory)

    Phyphor on
    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Gnome-InterruptuskimeCaedwyrMrMisterthatassemblyguyCalica
  • Moridin889Moridin889 Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    How can anyone be stupid enough to setup that kind of system, while being smart enough to set it up?
    And i bet nobody will be held criminally liable for manslaughter, negligent or otherwise.

    Your boss says get this on the road and driving or you don't have a job.

    Bam shortcuts!

    shrykethatassemblyguyLord_AsmodeusSleepMatevIncenjucar
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    How can anyone be stupid enough to setup that kind of system, while being smart enough to set it up?
    And i bet nobody will be held criminally liable for manslaughter, negligent or otherwise.

    Has there been any civil action on that?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    How can anyone be stupid enough to setup that kind of system, while being smart enough to set it up?
    And i bet nobody will be held criminally liable for manslaughter, negligent or otherwise.

    Has there been any civil action on that?
    Probably not, it just came out.
    And not really a civil case imo, that kind of system is an obvious death waiting to happen, making it, and then setting it to drive in traffic should be a cause for a prison sentence.

    furlion
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    I recall reading somewhere that uber's system at one point required 2 people - one in the driver's seat watching the road, one to monitor the computer. At that point it's not quite as terrible since you'd be guaranteed to have someone watching (at least in theory)

    They did have two drivers, and then not long before they killed someone they switched to having only one person.
    https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/former-uber-backup-driver-we-saw-this-coming/556427/

    Also, Uber already settled with the family of the woman they killed.
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/uber-settles-with-family-of-woman-killed-by-self-driving-car-avoids-lawsuit/

    steam_sig.png
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    It's really shocking how negligent this was, and it can clearly be traced directly to numerous corners Uber cut. One driver instead of two to cut costs, while simultaneously increasing reliance on manual intervention. Disable emergency braking because the system is too flakey to be on the road otherwise. Don't bother building any extra notifications to make up for it. Just incredible. There need to be serious consequences for a company that is operated this way.

    Gnome-InterruptusschusskimeAstaerethLord_AsmodeusSmrtnikfurlionFencingsaxMoridin889milski
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    I don't care about the company, i want the executives to serve some manslaughter time.

    steam_sig.png
    furlionTicaldfjamNyysjanLord_AsmodeusMatevIncenjucar
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And the story with the fatal collision continues to be compounded, with evidence that the driver/operator may have been watching The Voice at the time;
    The crash of an Uber self-driving car that killed an Arizona woman in March was “entirely avoidable,” according to police reports released by the Tempe Police Department. Cellphone data obtained by police suggests that the Uber operator was also streaming an episode of reality show The Voice at the time of the fatal incident.

    The documents, released to Gizmodo in response to a public records request, show that Tempe police found that the operator of the Uber autonomous vehicle could likely have avoided the fatal crash, had she been paying attention—but instead she was likely watching a video on her phone. Police also noted that Uber’s vehicles apparently did not alert operators to take over the vehicle during incidents.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    And the story with the fatal collision continues to be compounded, with evidence that the driver/operator may have been watching The Voice at the time;
    The crash of an Uber self-driving car that killed an Arizona woman in March was “entirely avoidable,” according to police reports released by the Tempe Police Department. Cellphone data obtained by police suggests that the Uber operator was also streaming an episode of reality show The Voice at the time of the fatal incident.

    The documents, released to Gizmodo in response to a public records request, show that Tempe police found that the operator of the Uber autonomous vehicle could likely have avoided the fatal crash, had she been paying attention—but instead she was likely watching a video on her phone. Police also noted that Uber’s vehicles apparently did not alert operators to take over the vehicle during incidents.

    So, if they had been distracted by having to monitor the software as previously speculated I would have said that the operator was not particularly at fault but if this is true they should also be charged.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    mrondeauGnome-InterruptusElvenshaeKayne Red RobeFencingsaxMoridin889kime
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    eh She could also have simply been listening. Sometimes i will listen to songs on YouTube with my phone connected to the radio.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Gnome-InterruptusIncenjucarForarCalica
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited June 2018
    WHOOPS. Wrong thread.

    hippofant on
Sign In or Register to comment.