Member Info for johnchucka

https://www.techspot.com/news/77278-waymo-self-driving-vehicle-involved-nn-fatal-crash.html

https://uk.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/vw-taps-baidus-apollo-platform-to-develop-selfdriving-cars-in-china-1366848

Baidu displays auto drive car, AI eye doctor at forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=mTK6pUh1YCc

Whatif18,
I don't think so.

Whatif18,

My understanding is the Lytx System only records distracted driving clips if the driving behaviour ie swerving or moves out of lane, so a driver that stays in lane and looks at his/her phone will be the Edge cases they miss and could give Uber and in turn regulators false confidence that the Mission Specialists are indeed following protocol. Where Uber are vulnerable and where I agree with Phil Koopman is that there is still a big hole in the strategy as they are not seeing the full distraction/risk picture . One has to ask why they are intentionally doing this. They are not stupid people but they are on one hand talking about 'public trust' and it's importance for the future growth of the industry etc yet in the next breath offer a solution that is better than the original but still creates unnecessary vulnerability to the Public and the associated magnified reputational damage that will follow any further accidents, which will also make the regulators look inadequate/ negligent imo.

With the BdMS available I would judge Uber's application vulnerable to charges of Corporate Negligence.

I'm not aware of any other company that does Real Time monitoring but of course their may be some out there.

Phil Koopman Uber ATG Safety Report

https://safeautonomy.blogspot.com/2018/11/uber-atg-safety-report.html

I'd like to see metrics that track the effectiveness of Mission Specialists. Nobody is perfect, but I'd be happier having data about how often they get distracted to see whether the break schedule and monitoring are working as intended. This should be something all companies do, since in the end they are putting the public at risk. The effectiveness of Mission Specialists who have been assigned a difficult job is their stated way to mitigate that risk -- but we have no insight as to whether that approach is really working until a crash is in the news.

' I can't start drinking at 8:30 am :)'

That made me smile Sebs. I can certainly relate to that.

We all need a good update Ken.

The Lytx system looks like it will be able to pick up the signs that the driver is distracted or fatigued by recording erratic driving such as moving out of lane but will not detect the driver looking at Tablet or phone or micro sleeping if they stay in lane. The system is useful for reviewing and improving driver behaviour but looks to me as I have said previously not capable of preventing a repeat of the March 18 incident.

I am wondering if a co-pilot may end up providing more of a distraction.

https://www.lytx.com/en-us/fleet-services/program-enhancements/activevision-fleet-safety-alerts

It would be interesting to hear from Semicast on this as his analysis suggested 100% of market. Is Semicast still this bullish ? and what's his opinion on the Uber application and how this is likely to reflect on other applications and the uptake of BdMS.

https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/ResearchandTesting/Autonomous%20_Vehicles/Documents/PennDOT%20HAV%20Testing%20Guidance.pdf

(2) Measures to prevent driver fatigue/inattentiveness/carelessness, including but not limited to: (a) Distracted Driving avoidance techniques (b) Fatigue and Wellness Awareness

Semi-autonomous systems pose a challenge to manufacturers, because the risk of them being pushed too far is high.

https://www.caradvice.com.au/699131/autopilot-driver-reactions-study/

Tesla;

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-to-Tesla-Don-t-call-it-9636056.php?utm_campaign=twitter-mobile&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social

“Tesla is reviewing the draft regulations and will provide input to the DMV as appropriate,” a Tesla spokewoman replied, in an emailed statement. “Autopilot makes driving safer and less stressful, and we have always been clear that it does not make a car autonomous any more than its namesake makes an aircraft autonomous.”

Tesla has come under pressure before to change the Autopilot name. Consumer Reports in July argued that the company should stop using that name, saying it could lull drivers in a false sense of safety.
“It’s really a driver-assist technology, and it was being advertised as Autopilot — that was outrageous,” said John Simpson with Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group that has been critical of Tesla’s Autopilot deployment. “The advertising regs are exactly what’s required.”

Uber with Lytx;

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/03/uber-permission-test-self-driving-cars/

Seeing the company was responsible for the first death attributed to self-driving vehicles, it has to go through great lengths to get the DoT's authorization letter. A third-party firm will monitor the safety of back-up drivers in real time and set limits on the hours they can work per day. Uber has also tweaked its self-driving platform so that it can spot objects and people sooner -- and act more quickly, as well -- since an internal review determined that the company has to improve the overall design of its software.

Perhaps they wish to conflate 'real time' with actual 'real time' in the publics mind . Naming the supplier would open up that discussion which they appear to want to avoid . It does seem like a backward step and missed opportunity here and the company trust and safety narrative does not match it's actions if it is Lytx imo.

I assume the regulators will be getting applications from the various companies and will recognise the different systems being proposed for Driver distraction monitoring and at that point may either accept the differences as being able to meet the appropriate regulatory criteria. Without knowing anything about the process it's hard to know how prescriptive the regulator can be within the rules or guidance framework and if they have any powers to prescribe even if they are aware of a superior system.

I assume Uber would have consulted prior to this to assure themselves that their proposal meet regulatory minimum standards.

Chris Menon@Penforjustice

Replying to @paulpingles @semicast_res and 2 others
To clarify, Uber system apparently uses head tracking not eye-tracking. Uber won't disclose who the supplier is but logically can't be Seeing Machines.

Interesting that if indeed Uber have opted for Lytx they are vulnerable to comparative industry observation/ critique and reputational damaged because they have not chosen the most robust actual 'Real time' monitoring system on the market. Once say Apple and Waymo systems are established to be BdMS users then the comparisons will be made and the safety advantages exposed and the Hyperbole that Uber uses to pacify regulators may evaporate and force them to adopt BdMS.

The Lytx system may help reduce many 'edge case' distraction events but the BdMS does it better. It sadly appears Uber have not learnt all the lessons of the March 18 crash in Tempe, Arizona, that killed Elaine Herzberg.

Sounds to me like it could be a Lytx system but from what I've seen that does not offer the same 'real time driver monitoring' as SEE/ BDMS. Lytx offer 'real time' images for post incident review but not the capacity for actual 'real time' intervention that the BDMS offers.

https://driverisk.com/drivecam-lytx/

https://uber.app.box.com/v/UberATGSafetyReport

06.04 page 56.

All of our self driving vehicles are equipped with a third party driver monitoring system. If the system detects distracted driving, an audible alert sounds in the cabin and a notification is simultaneously sent to our remote monitoring team for review and escalation. We have also introduced an audible alert whenever the speed limit is exceeded when the vehicle is operating in manual mode.

The third party monitoring system records acceleration, braking, cornering and tailgating events and sends the data to a specially- trained team for review. The information makes it possible to provide evidence based feedback to mission specialists on their decisions.

Who's of the shelf are Uber using ?..Interesting comment below from Safestocks especially as Semicast suggested SEE would get 100% market and Uber are not commenting to other news outlets like CNN, but this does follow SS previous post of Sept 10.

Chris Menon@Penforjustice aka Safestocks

Replying to @paulpingles @semicast_res and 2 others
Uber tell me it isn't. I think Seeing Machines more likely to be supplying Apple: http://www.safestocks.co.uk/2018/09/10/seeing-machines-wins-apple-for-back-up-driver-monitoring/ …

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving/uber-seeks-ok-to-resume-self-driving-tests-in-pennsylvania-idUSKCN1N71XJ

Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi said in a statement Friday the company “will go back on the road only when we’ve implemented improved processes.”
Uber said it now has real-time third party monitoring of back-up safety drivers, sets limits on time drivers can work per day and has improved training.

Crowbar..

That squares with and sums up my view on events since Aug 6th

https://www.facebook.com/generalmotors/videos/1963239133977876