htmlOn November 14, the "out of control car" incident in Chaozhou Tesla triggered heated discussions across the Internet, and whether the brake issue became the focus.
Tesla has caused controversy, but this time 2 deaths and 3 injuries are particularly amazing.
A company is always in a "out of control" storm, which is unusual, but the police have not yet come out of the results, so they have to wait and talk about it.
However, I think such disputes are not just a question of whether the brake is "out of control". It has several key points that are very important to manufacturers and users. The number of points such as
has not yet been closed, and it is particularly significant in the world's first death incident of autonomous driving hitting people.
Let’s first talk about the incident that year. If you really care about yourself, be sure to be patient and see the bottom.
Raphaela Vasquez is Maryland . It seems that there is a great psychological shadow because of various misfortunes.
These are not the focus of consideration in the country, but in the United States. It may sometimes help to get rid of sin, and sometimes it may become a basis for crime. I think these introductions are not optional in this case, they are also one of the key points.
Vasquez grew up in loneliness and abuse, and later he finally had a boyfriend and was taken to prison.
She was actually locked up with a male prisoner, so she was physically and mentally damaged. She once said: "The prison really messed up me, and it took me a long time to recover."
Vasquez later used dogs as his partner and chose some jobs that rarely deal with people. When she was working in the technology field, she once thought: "People are worried that robots will take over the world and our jobs? I hope they do this, I am like a robot. "
In 2015, Vasquez decided to force herself to go to the crowd. She signed up for Uber driving and gradually relieved her square phobia at work.
In 2017, she passed the Uber autonomous driving department examination and after training, she became an autonomous driving tester.
is responsible for operating and testing fully automatic cars, and opening up the road for future unmanned driving.
The key point of the technology is that when the car is automatically driving, both hands hover on the steering wheel and feet hover on the brake, ready to take over the car at any time. It is necessary to react quickly, but it cannot easily touch key parts, resulting in taking over control.
Vasquez, who likes new technology, is very satisfied with this lone job. She said: "It refreshes me, just like I start over."
This job actually makes her colleagues very satisfied because its hourly salary is $20 to $24, which is the middle class salary.
It has many benefits, free lunch, and a considerable degree of freedom and trust. You just need to report regularly, and you can arrange your own rest in order to maintain your agility.
You will even feel like you have become a part of history and are proud of it.
Vasquez is even more satisfied afterwards. Because in the first few months, two people were on the road together, one was responsible for observing the road conditions and controlling the car, and the other was responsible for monitoring the computer to see if the system accurately detected various situations - but later, there was only one person in .
The reason is said to be because the technology is getting better and better, but some people say it is to save money. Anyway, some people are worried and opposed, and "no need so many people."
Vasquez of course likes to work alone and interact simply. So she is low-key and serious, cherishes this job very much, and gets a bonus at the end of 2017.
This is to be said by her training manager: "She really cares about making sure she's done."
And at the end of that year, Uber also began to advocate that it travel 84,000 miles a week. And it has increased its efforts and started running 40 automatic cars in Arizona , with up to 8 shifts per day.
Vasquez continued on week after week before March 18, 2018, and never had any problems.She has also walked that route more than 70 times. So why did she have an accident that day?
Vasquez set off that night in a gray Volvo equipped with a camera and a lidar sensor.
She successfully completed the first loop and then continued the loop.
At 9:58 pm, Vasquez entered a desolate section of road where four signs warned pedestrians not to cross the road. The Uber system was already driving in a fully automatic state for 19 minutes.
Then, this system begins to magic.
It recorded the object 5.6 seconds ahead on that road, without warning at all.
It is "braining" there.
What is that? The computer has no idea.
It is evaluated first as a vehicle, and then another.
The car has been away from 2.6 seconds, and it is still confused. It now feels that it is a bicycle.
but 1.5 seconds later, it hesitated in the "other" and the bicycle room.
It also decided to go around, but it didn't.
It didn't remember to issue a warning until 0.2 seconds before the impact. At this time, the car was driving at 39 miles per hour.
Vasquez grabbed the steering wheel and quickly braked - but it was too late.
So the woman riding a bicycle suddenly came out of the shadow and crossed the road illegally, Elaine Herzberg, became the first person in the world to be killed by an autonomous car, and Vasquez, became the first self-car operator in the world to be killed.
This accident attracted the attention of the whole world because of its special nature. It reflects the following key points:
first, Uber system did not make accurate judgments, respond in time, and warn in time. Uber previously published a message saying that this system is very superior, there is nothing undetectable, and the night has no effect.
Second, the victim is responsible.
Third, when the police collected evidence, they found that Vasquez had only taken over once during his driving.
The entire running time of the car was 43 minutes. Within 21 minutes and 48 seconds before the accident, she looked downwards in the right knee 166 times, a total of 6 minutes and 47 seconds.
She looked down for 26 seconds on the road section of the accident, sometimes laughing.
She looked down for 5.3 seconds before the impact, and did not look up until half a second before the impact.
Therefore, after this video was exposed, Vasquez was scolded and besieged, and was considered to have an unshirkable responsibility.
and even her colleagues exclaimed: What exactly was she looking at in those 5.3 seconds?
But although part of Vasquez's description does not match the video, she really didn't watch any mobile phone during that period. She was just listening to the show.
and this is allowed.
Fourth, The key points in this case are whether it is artificial or technical responsibility, that is, operator problems or system problems, which can be avoided or inevitable.
At first, the police believed that according to the speed, brightness, line of sight, and the time when the victim suddenly appeared was correct, and the operator was not distracted and there was no time. This is what all excludes.
But then, because some locals posted a test video, it said that it was avoidable, so the problem returned to its original place.
Next, Uber admitted that there were safety issues, but also believed that operators could avoid it if they operated according to regulations. After various tests and arguments, the relevant parties of believed that this was true. So Vasquez finally became the main responsible person and would face the charge of manslaughter.
However, this conclusion has long been formed. The case has been tried for a long time, but it has not been closed for the past four years. The trial court not only changed, but also announced not long ago that it could only continue to wait because it was too complicated.
Vasquez is so poor that he even sells dogs. His life is a mess. What are you doing? You'll be happy whether you're dead or alive! Although Vasquez has always refused to accept a plea agreement, he must have an innocence.
So what is the complexity of this case? This is actually the key point we are going to talk about now.
More than 38,000 people die in car accidents in the United States every year, most of which are caused by human errors. Such as sleepy, drunkenness, anger, inattention, etc. Machines were originally born to make up for human shortcomings.
Uber's 2018 event is undoubtedly a disaster for the autonomous driving industry, which is like Uber employees said: "Oh my God, we finally killed people! This will be a setback for the entire industry."
So people in the relevant industries, as well as the public, are anxiously waiting for a result to see how the law will define the first death caused by autonomous vehicles.
This attracted worldwide attention is one of the reasons why the US court has been unable to pronounce the verdict. As for the others, they are the following points:
Key points 1:
Humans will experience burnout, distraction, etc., which is inevitable.
No matter how automatic the Uber system is, it also requires an operator during the testing phase. and the operator is human.
So, is it normal for an operator to have some problem during work? Should the company have predictions? Should a person be removed? Should there be no supervision?
A manager of Uber once said: "This level of laissez-faire is risky." So is Uber really not responsible?
Keypoint 2:
Work for a long time in autonomous driving mode and without a second pair of eyes on the car, it is difficult for the operator to resist the temptation of the mobile phone. Vasquez did not go directly to look at his phone like some employees, which is standard enough. You are originally autonomous driving.
But that's not the most important thing.
The technology has been improved a lot now, and now operators can even watch videos. Many cars are combined with automatic and artificial. But does this mean that the problem will not happen?
Uber employees also thought so before the accident, and this is related to a particularly important concept: "The typical impact of automation complacency" .
means that humans will over trust and rely on technology during the automation process. Anyone will be relaxed and complacent in a long period of safe operation, so that they have no time to deal with it when there is a crash.
The longer the operator of Uber works, the more trust the system, the easier it is to be distracted.
Vasquez must have this reason. As she mentioned earlier, since she especially cherishes and likes this job, this shows that this issue is particularly amazing.
So semi-automatic or fully automatic at the current stage, is it a good or a bad thing? How many people fall into this complacency and cause accidents? How many people have noticed this problem? The better the technology of
, the less likely it is for operators to pay attention to it. However, when a certain technology is still in the learning stage, it inevitably means that there will be collapse. This is the most significant paradox in modern society.
So, is this possible and should be predicted? Is Uber responsible?
Keypoint 3:
Uber system obviously has a big loophole in this accident, but everyone has seen that the ultimate responsibility of is concentrated on the individual.
Uber's ultimate goal is driverless, but it shirked responsibility. believes that technical crashes are inevitable. Since an operator is equipped, the responsibility lies with the operator's violation.
Technology crash is inevitable, that is, technical pessimism, so who dares to use your car?
And why does the public accept this view? Because of public opinion orientation, it is aroused by the most common anxiety and anger of ordinary people and lose judgment.
So what is the reason for the U.S. District Court? because of the interests of .
Uber self-driving car test was taken over by Arizona after being rejected countless times, which is for the sake of the economy.
After that, in order to avoid the question of conflict of interest, the local court transferred the case to Linxian for trial, but Linxian still accepted the original investigation and kicked the hot potato back.
Uber is still right, and there is no problem in the local court and can continue to be tried. However, under the international view, they certainly dare not close the case casually.
And all of this can be attributed to another important concept: moral collapse zone .
means:
An autonomous vehicle is equipped with an operator. The purpose is not to supervise, but to come out to be replaced when problems arise. Then when interests conflict and moral entanglement, the operator will be thrown out as a victim of the system.
When a complex system is not controlled by anyone, even if no one has control, one person must come out to take responsibility after the accident.
does not blame the system and the system designer, but the operator. This is in the interests of the company, and it is the first collapse zone.
Local interests and also need a scapegoat that does not affect the interests. This is the second collapse zone.
The public needs to vent and comfort. As long as you can divert your attention and make the public and judge blame the operator, not the company, even if everything goes well, this is the third collapse zone.
So, we will see that when many accidents occur, the technical and management parties have no problems, and the official conclusions are often no problems, and the only one who has problems is just someone. Either violate the rules or improper operation.
Human error, personal error is usually the best magic weapon.
Keypoint 4:
After the accident, Vasquez's lawyer said that if the prosecution wants to prove her guilt, it must provide evidence to prove that she had "serious negligence". And if she was just general negligence, she would not be guilty.
An Uber employee said that I feel ashamed and uneasy to pick out a lonely frontline employee to judge. We owe Vasquez better supervision and support, and we also put her alone "in a difficult situation".
Pittsburgh manager said: " You can't just blame that person, I mean, it's ridiculous. "; Uber "must know that this will happen. We're also distracted when driving normally."
A triage analyst at Uber said: "Uber has a built-in defense mechanism: to avoid a crash, it keeps someone there. I wonder if I'm secretly involved in this matter, is it the blood on my hands?"
More Uber employees are getting more and more frustrated with the company's leadership. "People say bluntly that is a massive mess, there is moral culpability, and the company needs to change. "
...
Why do these people say that?
Because "collision is the last link in a long list of actions and decisions made by an organization. Unfortunately, the organization does not put safety first."
Because the real meaning of the accident is to improve technology, strengthen security awareness, and prevent more accidents. But Uber pushed an ordinary employee to the trial table. He doesn't even care about ruining her life.
Because any crash in is a product of multiple reasons, and Uber and the prosecutors tend to attribute the responsibility to both human and personal . It is not only unfavorable to technological progress, but also the development of an industry will also leave countless hidden dangers to the safety of the public.
Because this is just a distraction through an inaccurate video presentation. It is neither legal nor reasonable to share responsibility. It creates a confused and confusing world, it is to put an "international accident" and human safety accidents downplay it.
Because the court even wanted to reach a plea agreement with Vasquez, no one was investigated, everyone saved the trouble and everyone was happy. This of course will cause everything to disappear and fall into a wider zone of moral collapse.
Because of the "rational person" in the case of , it should not be Vasquez, but Uber's operator. If it just pursues Vasquez, or even finds out her psychological problems, puts heavy pressure on her experience in prison, it is a murderous act. It will be more unfavorable to the reflection of relevant industries, as well as the understanding and supervision of risks.
Because of Uber's goal, how many kilometers have been running. It emphasizes quantity rather than quality, it only says good but not bad, it only gets investment without thinking about the real future. This kind of shirkishness will create a major environmental problem.
and all of this will cause companies and industries to lose learning opportunities, endangering technological innovation and the future world.
So, is this case complicated?
Is Vasquez a tragic character in this blame game? Is there some universality in
?
A certain car often has "out of control" (technology). Is it just a problem for the driver (person)? Is the problem of
very big?
• END
text/Jiuya
picture/network
