Arizona Governor Bans Uber From Autonomous-Testing Over "Unquestionable" Safety Concerns

A week after the  first pedestrian death caused by an autonomous vehicle, AP reports that Arizona's Governor has suspended Uber's license to test self-driving cars on public roads in the state.

AP reports that Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey told the company in a letter Monday that video footage of the crash raised safety concerns.

He called the crash "an unquestionable failure" to comply with safety expectations.

In a letter sent to Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi and shared with Reuters, Governor Doug Ducey said he found a video released by police of the crash “disturbing and alarming, and it raises many questions about the ability of Uber to continue testing in Arizona.”

The move comes days after The New York Times reported that the company's own documents showed the testing program was rife with issues. The documents showed trouble with driving through construction zones and requiring far more human intervention than competing companies.

Experts have told The Associated Press that the company's technology should have detected the pedestrian in time to avoid the crash.

This ban comes hours after Amnon Shashua, the co-founder of Israeli start-up Mobileye, said on Monday its computer vision system would have detected the pedestrian who was killed in Arizona by a self-driving Uber vehicle, and called for a concerted move to validate the safety of autonomous vehicles.

In a blog post, Shashua also criticized “new entrants” in the self-driving field that have not gone through the years of development necessary to ensure safety in the vehicles.

Now Is the Time for Substantive Conversations about Safety for Autonomous Vehicles

Society expects autonomous vehicles to be held to a higher standard than human drivers. Following the tragic death of Elaine Herzberg after being hit last week by a self-driving Uber car operating in autonomous mode in Arizona, it feels like the right moment to make a few observations around the meaning of safety with respect to sensing and decision-making.

First, the challenge of interpreting sensor information. The video released by the police seems to demonstrate that even the most basic building block of an autonomous vehicle system, the ability to detect and classify objects, is a challenging task. Yet this capability is at the core of today’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), which include features such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) and lane keeping support. It is the high-accuracy sensing systems inside ADAS that are saving lives today, proven over billions of miles driven. It is this same technology that is required, before tackling even tougher challenges, as a foundational element of fully autonomous vehicles of the future.

To demonstrate the power and sophistication of today’s ADAS technology, we ran our software on a video feed coming from a TV monitor running the police video of the incident. Despite the suboptimal conditions, where much of the high dynamic range data that would be present in the actual scene was likely lost, clear detection was achieved approximately one second before impact. The images below show three snapshots with bounding box detections on the bicycle and Ms. Herzberg. The detections come from two separate sources: pattern recognition, which generates the bounding boxes, and a “free-space” detection module, which generates the horizontal graph where the red color section indicates a “road user” is present above the line. A third module separates objects from the roadway using structure from motion – in technical terms: “plane + parallax.” This validates the 3D presence of the detected object that had a low confidence as depicted by “fcvValid: Low,” which is displayed in the upper left side of the screen. This low confidence occurred because of the missing information normally available in a production vehicle and the low-quality imaging setup from taking a video of a video from a dash-cam that was subjected to some unknown downsampling.

Images from a video feed watching a TV monitor showing the clip released by the police. The overlaid graphics show the Mobileye ADAS system response. The green and white bounding boxes are outputs from the bicycle and pedestrian detection modules.  The horizontal graph shows the boundary between the roadway and physical obstacles, which we call “free-space”.

The software being used for this experiment is the same as included in today’s ADAS-equipped vehicles, which have been proven over billions of miles in the hands of consumers.

Recent developments in artificial intelligence, like deep neural networks, have led many to believe that it is now easy to develop a highly accurate object detection system and that the decade-plus experience of incumbent computer vision experts should be discounted.

This dynamic has led to many new entrants in the field. While these techniques are helpful, the legacy of identifying and closing hundreds of corner cases, annotating data sets of tens of millions of miles, and going through challenging preproduction validation tests on dozens of production ADAS programs, cannot be skipped. Experience counts, particularly in safety-critical areas.

The second observation is about transparency. Everyone says that “safety is our most important consideration,” but we believe that to gain public trust, we must be more transparent about the meaning of this statement. As I stated in October, when Mobileye released the formal model of Responsible Sensitive Safety (RSS), decision-making must comply with the common sense of human judgement. We laid out a mathematical formalism of common sense notions such as “dangerous situation” and “proper response” and built a system to mathematically guarantee compliance to these definitions.

The third observation is about redundancy. True redundancy of the perception system must rely on independent sources of information: camera, radar and LIDAR. Fusing them together is good for comfort of driving but is bad for safety. At Mobileye, to really show that we obtain true redundancy, we build a separate end-to-end camera-only system and a separate LIDAR and radar-only system.

More incidents like the one last week could do further harm to already fragile consumer trust and spur reactive regulation that could stifle this important work. As I stated during the introduction of RSS, I firmly believe the time to have a meaningful discussion on a safety validation framework for fully autonomous vehicles is now. We invite automakers, technology companies in the field, regulators and other interested parties to convene so we can solve these important issues together.


Twee Surgeon Darkman17 Mon, 03/26/2018 - 21:22 Permalink

Pedestrians always have the right of way under any circumstances. If you are driving a Vehicle/Vessel on the public highway you have volunteered to enter into a contract with the State and all Licenses are under Commercial law or the Law of the Sea.

A pedestrian or any traveler has the right of way on the highway before the vessel under your command. You are the Captain and will be held to account for Injury or Loss under Statutory Law as it stands in every State at this time. They did it with Cars and next, they are doing it with Firearms.…   Homes and property are next under Agenda 21.

In reply to by Darkman17

JustPastPeacefield Twee Surgeon Mon, 03/26/2018 - 23:18 Permalink

Although the peds always have ROW, I've also noticed that entitlement mentality creeping in.

For whatever weird reason, it's being encouraged recklessly. People used to stop at the curb, look around, wait for safe conditions, and then walk out into the street. I mean, even if you have the 'walk' signal, you still look both ways if you know what's good for you. Look both ways before crossing, isn't that the most basic thing we were all taught?

Now, they walk right out without so much as looking. Head high up in the air ... it's my right! I'm a pedestrian. You have to stop. All those neon green signs and such. Giving people the green light to be reckless.

While I'm sure they think they're improving safety with this new pedestrian ROW push, how many injuries/deaths are they actually causing with this new thing? And who's bright idea was it anyway? Some uber-hack in DC no doubt. 


In reply to by Twee Surgeon

NiggaPleeze Darkman17 Mon, 03/26/2018 - 21:39 Permalink

ArsTechnica, which is one of the top "geek" (tech) sites, has done a devastating take-down of the snuff video released by Uber.  See… .

In particular, the Uber video was, by all looks, deliberately darkened to make it difficult to see the pedestrian (though even with that dim video, the driver should have seen the pedestrian and stopped).  Other drivers have since driven down the exact stretch of road at night and made videos which show quite good visibility on that stretch of road.

Moreover, all cars have headlights which are designed to provide a safe stopping distance traveling at 55 mph, for a "slow reacting" human driver.  The Uber was traveling at < 40 mph.  Hence, even if there had been no background light at all, the Uber would have had plenty of time to stop (even assuming it used only visible light for obstacle detection).

If the Uber video was tampered with, Uber must be criminally prosecuted for tampering with evidence.

In reply to by Darkman17

ClickNLook cheka Mon, 03/26/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

Why Hogg rode a bike and didn’t take Uber like Cruz?

And how come he was interviewing kids in a closet in the school the same day at 9:30 am, before shooting took place?……


Unless, his father told him to leave, so he wouldn’t get accidentally shot...


Cruz, though, had set a fire alarm at school, found and assembled the hidden before rifle, put on gear and mask and started shooting, all under 2 minutes. Like a robot. Scary...

In reply to by cheka

NiggaPleeze Mazzy Mon, 03/26/2018 - 21:24 Permalink


Not really true.  Uber viciously exploits its employee drivers, paying them around $3-4/hr, far below minimum wage.  For example, in Chicago, fare is about $0.95 / mile.  Operating your own vehicle costs about $0.50 / mile.  Now assuming you commute to work 10 miles each way, the Uber will cost you about $20 / day and your own car about $10 / day - but, that's not including parking.  In many cases you will pay over $10 parking per day.  So the price ends up being about equivalent.

The real upshot with Uber though is when you're going out drinking, or traveling, or if you are young and live in a city where you don't need to drive often.  Many people in SF, NY, Boston, etc. don't have cars - parking alone, if you arrange for it on both ends (home and work), can be > $1,000 per month, and mass transit is often the fastest method of transportation.  Therefore not owning a car, but taking an Uber to go shopping or to the airport once in a while, is far cheaper.

So the economics really depend on your circumstances. 

In reply to by Mazzy

rejected Mon, 03/26/2018 - 21:49 Permalink

"decision-making must comply with the common sense of human judgement"

This will never happen with the primitive technology of today. Line by line executing computers are simply glorified adding machines. Everything the compute is broken down to adding,,, even subtraction is adding.

The arrogance of Man thinking he is a god and can create a sentient, self aware machine will eventually be his undoing. Imitating these qualities is not the same.

Bunga Bunga RyeWhiskey Mon, 03/26/2018 - 23:05 Permalink

Uber paid Khosrowshahi $200 mln to become their CEO. For that money you could have hired and paid 100 US-based engineers for ten years. Now, that 1,000 man years of engineering are missing, comes with a price tag. Building cars is something that cannot be done by try-and-error with imported tech-workers like it is daily business in the Silicon Valley. Wall St wants to make the quick profit with Uber, so this governor needs some "briefing" from them.

In reply to by RyeWhiskey

I am Groot Tue, 03/27/2018 - 02:15 Permalink

Shoot, I think they should put thousands of autonomous Ubers on the road to run over the Tide Pod eaters. They're too stupid to look both ways before crossing the street.