Uber’s new “Safety Case” is Grossly Negligent Hype that will lead to Thousands of Unnecessary Casualties

Today Eric Meyhofer, Head of Uber’s Advanced Technology Group, started another round of false confidence propaganda by releasing it’s “Safety Case” through his Medium article;

Laying the groundwork for self-driving vehicle safety

- https://medium.com/@UberATG/trailblazing-a-safe-path-forward-e02f5f9ef0cc

What follows is the response I posted on his Medium article.

Unfortunately, this is reckless, misleading hype of the worse kind. It reads like this process is safe and tenable. When it is nothing of the sort. It produces massive false confidence which cannot be tolerated. Making an untenable process that kills people for no reason as safe as possible is not an accomplishment.

The FACT of the matter is the process Uber and most AV makers use, public shadow and safety driving, can literally never yield anything close to a true autonomous vehicle, has killed for no reason and will kill many, many more needlessly. (Elaine Herzberg being the first.)

It is impossible to drive the one trillion miles or spend over $300B to stumble and restumble on all the scenarios necessary to complete the effort. In addition, the process harms people for no reason. This occurs two ways. The first is through handover or fall back. A process that cannot be made safe for most complex scenarios, by any monitoring and notification system, because they cannot provide the time to regain proper situational awareness and do the right thing the right way, especially in time critical scenarios. The other dangerous area is training the systems to handle accident scenarios. In order do that AV makers will have to run thousands of accident scenarios thousands of times. that will cause thousands of injuries and deaths. The solution is to use aerospace/DoD simulation technology and systems/safety engineering to replace 99.9% of the public shadow and safety driving. (Not gaming engine-based systems as they have significant real-time and model fidelity flaws in complex scenarios).

(Eric — You have a DoD simulation engineer on staff initials RF. I have to hope he is telling you, or would tell you if you asked, what I am saying here. If he is LISTEN to him. If not, then something is amiss. I will be glad to prove all of this to you.)

More in my articles here

Using the Real World is better than Proper Simulation for Autonomous Vehicle Development — NONSENSE

- https://medium.com/@imispgh/using-the-real-world-is-better-than-proper-simulation-for-autonomous-vehicle-development-nonsense-90cde4ccc0ce

All the Autonomous Vehicle makers combined would not get remotely close to L4

- https://medium.com/@imispgh/all-the-autonomous-vehicle-makers-combined-would-not-get-remotely-close-to-l4-ae7aba922a36

Common Misconceptions about Aerospace/DoD/FAA Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles

- https://medium.com/@imispgh/common-misconceptions-about-aerospace-dod-faa-simulation-for-autonomous-vehicles-2b3ad84b0aa1

SAE Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Magazine-End Public Shadow Driving

My name is Michael DeKort — I am a former system engineer, engineering and program manager for Lockheed Martin. I worked in aircraft simulation, the software engineering manager for all of NORAD, the Aegis Weapon System, and on C4ISR for DHS.

Key Industry Participation

- Lead — SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving SAE Model and Simulation Task

- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force

- Expert — DIN/SAE International Alliance for Mobility Testing & Standardization (IAMTS) group to create sensor simulation specs

- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines

- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee (AI&ASPC)

- Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 Efforts

My company is Dactle

We are building an aerospace/DoD/FAA level D, full L4/5 simulation-based testing and AI system with an end-state scenario matrix to address several of the critical issues in the AV/OEM industry I mentioned in my articles below. This includes replacing 99.9% of public shadow and safety driving. As well as dealing with significant real-time, model fidelity and loading/scaling issues caused by using gaming engines and other architectures. (Issues Unity will confirm. We are now working together. We are also working with UAV companies). If not remedied these issues will lead to false confidence and performance differences between what the Plan believes will happen and what actually happens. If someone would like to see a demo or discuss this further please let me know.

Systems Engineer, Engineering/Program Management -- DoD/Aerospace/IT - Autonomous Systems Air & Ground, FAA Simulation, UAM, V2X, C4ISR, Cybersecurity

Systems Engineer, Engineering/Program Management -- DoD/Aerospace/IT - Autonomous Systems Air & Ground, FAA Simulation, UAM, V2X, C4ISR, Cybersecurity