Interesting Questions Surrounding the “Self-Driving Car” Pedestrian Death in Arizona

31 Mar

Jaywalking is, of course, very common.  It is even the most common way to cross the street in many locations.  Inevitably, many “self-driving car” accidents will involve jaywalking pedestrians.  Because of this reality, and in comparison to traditional levels of safety, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for automatically classifying all such future accidents as caused by the “jaywalking” itself.  In fact, if computer code developers had not already conceded this on their own, we would have seen many more incidents by now.  Clearly, in the case of injuries and deaths to jaywalkers, hindsight investigation into the software and hardware performance of these vehicles should still be required.

In the immediate aftermath of the Arizona incident in which a jaywalking woman was hit and killed by a “self-driving car” as she pushed her bicycle across the road at night – the Tempe Arizona police chief said that vehicle footage suggested the victim herself may have been to blame as she appeared suddenly out of the shadows, and that it would have been difficult to avoid this accident under any mode of operation.  My unofficial (and poorly researched) impression is similar after viewing a snippet of this footage online.  Within just weeks, however, family members of the victim had obtained a financial settlement with Uber (the operator of this vehicle test).  And subsequently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated that the vehicle itself did – in fact – “see” the jaywalker in advance, however, the car’s emergency braking system was intentionally disabled (in this humanly-monitored mode of testing) so as to avoid any unwanted erratic behavior.  And then, more recently, the Tempe police have stated that the driver was in fact streaming a program on HULU around the time of the accident, and that in their opinion the crash would have been “entirely avoidable” had the human driver been paying attention.  ……………. And so, at this preliminary stage we appear to have the following (non official and possibly conflicting) evolutionary discussion as to who is to blame:

  • The victim was at fault – crash was unavoidable by the human driver or autonomous system.
  • The car’s autonomous system saw the victim in advance but did nothing, however, no statements suggesting fault on the part of Uber test designers or the car manufacturer.
  • The human “driver monitor” now said (in the police investigation) to be at fault – in stark contrast to the first impression listed above.

It is interesting to note that the only “purely objective” information within the “evolution of blame” above is that the car’s autonomous system was aware of the jaywalker and did nothing.  The NTSB’s investigation has not reached its’ final conclusions, but a few questions – seemingly missed by the press – come to mind:

  • With the non-intuitive revelation that “automatic braking” was intentionally disabled during this testing – has anyone asked whether Uber and the car manufacturers were intending to include these “miles driven” in any future “miles driven” claims supporting the “proven safety” of these cars?
  • Is it possible (I ask in complete ignorance) that the Tempe police department has now concluded – as a matter of convenience – that this accident was the fault of the human monitor simply because she was doing something she shouldn’t have been doing at the time?  (You know, in the same way a drunk driver may automatically be assumed “at fault” regardless of what actually caused a particular accident).  Should we allow “Batman” to blame “Robin” in these cases?
  • Has there been any immediate/emergency discussion between the NHTSA/NTSB and “self-driving car” testers concerning this decision to deactivate the automatic braking system?
  • (As previously doubted) Is there actually any scientific evidence showing that a human driver monitor can rightfully be expected to correct for all, or even “most” of the types of errors a “self-driving vehicle” might be expected to make?  Keeping in mind, of course, that any sudden and unexpected behavior by an autonomous vehicle will likely set in motion a time consuming cognitive process such as “Maybe there is a good reason why the car is swerving?” within its’ human monitor.  Have testers and lawmakers even “thought” about – let alone “tested” – their assumptions?
  • It appears that these “self-driving cars” conveniently morph in and out of “self awareness” and feelings of guilt.  With the continued use of the misnomers “self-driving” and “autonomous” – are manufacturers and testers of these vehicles dodging an otherwise proper degree of scrutiny in terms of “fault” through a simple mistake in “semantics”?
  • Considering the length of time the NTSB is intending to put into just this one investigation (I read “14 months”) ……….Has anyone asked what will happen in the (“inevitable”) future when many of these cars are out there, and the accidents start rolling in?  These investigations will be similar to airplane crash investigations in a number of ways.  They will involve black boxes and no surviving witnesses at times.  In addition, if a software “decision making” design flaw is to blame in a particular crash, then – unlike in the case of a dead human driver – this issue will continue to put the general public (encountering or driving the same car) at risk until the problem is fixed.  Are we to expect that the same relative degree of attention and resources will be applied to all such accidents in the very busy future?

It seems fairly inevitable that the NTSB (or whoever?) will be forced to put accidents into categories with differing priorities.  I suspect that – as with drunk driving – convenient conclusions will be assigned in order to cut down on the case load.  Even worse, I can imagine politicians enacting legislation which will become stricter in the automatic assigning of blame – but which will bring us further from the truth and cause added overall danger.  I know personally how hard it is to get politicians’ attention concerning those specific laws and road designs installed in recent years which are (clearly) untested and adding new dangers for pedestrians.

Many absurd statements surrounding “driver-less cars” go unchallenged by our officials and the press.  I heard a “self-driving car” representative say – in relation to this story about the first pedestrian death – that his company’s cars have travelled over five million miles (“without killing anyone” I guess was his point).  He seemed to think this was a big deal.  However, this is the equivalent of only ten “lifetime’s worth” of driving (assuming someone drove an average of 10,000 miles a year and stopped driving at age 67).  So his statement would be like me standing in a room surrounded by ten retired people and saying “Wow, isn’t it amazing that no one in this room ever killed someone with their car”!  Add to this the likelihood that the testing he was referring to – as with the Uber testing – was likely not, in any way, all encompassing.

When I took “Driver’s Ed” in high school, I was taught that a “moving car” is “like a weapon”, and that it was illegal to leave a car running without a driver inside.  We’ve come a long way baby!


Pedestrian Deaths Rising – The 3 Major Controllable (Yet Still Unaddressed!) Factors ……. Can You Hear Me Now?

2 Mar

I just heard another report saying that Pedestrian Deaths have increased disproportionately since 2010.  So – considering that cell phones had already been distracting us for years by that time – could there possibly be other factors more closely corresponding to the period in question? …. Hhhhmmm? …….. A recent incident, in which a young girl was hit by a car – no brakes applied – directly in front of my apartment and (according to the driver) under one of the exact scenarios I have been warning about (“just after dark, children now expecting cars will stop for them, driver could not see her in the glare of opposing headlights”), seems to suggest so!  (New readers here should try to get up to speed by reading my earlier essay “‘Stop and Stay Stopped’ Crosswalk Law Has Created Many New Dangers” about this law enacted (at least in New Jersey) in mid 2010.  Experienced visitors, and those on the go, can check out the (painfully condensed) summary below which is my attempt to quickly describe the three sweatiest suspects in this unfortunate increase in deaths (and presumably injuries as well).

#1) The “Stop and Stay Stopped” Crosswalk Law (closely tied to the time period of increased pedestrian fatalities) compounds the “driver distraction” issue; misinterprets the only safe purpose of a crosswalk (which would be to corral pedestrians to the safest crossing locations where unambiguous stop lights and stop signs exist); dangerously changes the assumptions of safety on the part of pedestrians; creates logistical impossibilities for drivers as they – unlike with stop signs and lights – now need to continually monitor (and interpret) the intentions of jittery pedestrians along the entire right side of the road and simultaneously do the same for the left, all while keeping their third eye “on the road ahead” as taught in driving class; and has created numerous other problems meticulously described in the essay referred to above.  Readers should note that this essay focusses on those new dangers occurring after implementation of this law.  No doubt “Stop and Stay Stopped” sounded great on paper, but it is clear (from my professional experience) that it was never actually tested, or was wholly inadequately tested prior to implementation.  This is an emergency situation!  Resolution of this problem will require political and professional “fortitude” on the part of designers and politicians (who may have to admit they were wrong) in order to save lives. …….. I have noticed what appears to be a bit of “deflection” by officials when they are asked about the rise in pedestrian deaths (which at times are occurring in direct contradiction to concurrent drops in other types of traffic fatalities).  This failure to look honestly at what is actually going on out there is very concerning.

#2) Ill-conceived and Untested Road Safety “Improvement” Projects For these I can provide photos.  Examples include “curb bump-outs” such as the one in front of our middle school which suddenly eliminates the shoulder, turns children at curb’s edge into “human traffic cones” as they now stand within inches of oncoming traffic, and causes a crash risk for bicyclists.  These cyclists, in fact, are more often seen making the sudden forced dart into the direct lane of much faster moving car traffic as they attempt to make it to the far edge of the bump-out without being hit.  On one occasion I saw my handicapped neighbor teetering on the curb of one of these bump-outs, twisted around and trying to decide when to make a run for it!  ……. There are also “middle of the road islands” with beams, fountains, statues, and vegetation that completely block a driver’s view of those pedestrians crossing at the poorly considered far end crosswalk!  Our local example even included black ice in the middle of the crosswalk – just off the end of the island – caused by the new inability of salt trucks to reach this spot.  In fact, I was nearly killed there as I tried to stay upright while taking photos.  Unsuspecting pedestrians would be at even greater risk were they to (50% of the time) fall forward into the fast moving, narrow lane of traffic that could not see them up to that point.  ……. And (a danger to drivers) there are poorly conceived “left corner view obstructions” such as planters, county park walls, and other beautification projects that require stopped drivers to inch their way forward, nearly in line with an intersection’s oncoming traffic, just to see what is coming.  This puts them at grave risk of being the victim of a driver’s side broadsiding!  These “left corner view” obstructions may also lead to a driver being unnecessarily involved, as a third party, in someone else’s crash (as I also witnessed a couple blocks from home)   ……….. Plus many more asinine and untested road projects.

#3) There is no mechanism set-up by which citizens can easily report “Road Design/Law Dangers” such that this information will be automatically routed to the correct jurisdictions for remedy, and the lessons learned documented and made viewable for all other road designers and legislators around the country so as to avoid future proliferation of these mistakes.  This unchecked spreading of bad road design, and bad “safety” laws seems to be occurring now as states and localities rush to “fix” safety issues.  Currently – if citizens reporting dangers are lucky enough to finally get their many hours of labor into the correct hands – they find they are speaking to the people who have the most to fear (professionally) if knowledge of their “design mistake” is more widely disseminated!  In addition, I have found after questioning that police and fire crews are reluctant to get involved in the reporting of bad road design to their more politically connected higher ups.  So valuable “real world” feedback is being missed here as well.  This systemic failure to obtain citizen feedback is not only shockingly ironic in terms of these new “safety” projects (“beta tested” at the public’s risk), but also in terms of the present push to test “autonomous vehicles” at the public’s risk.  Does not the lack of a citizen feedback mechanism totally defeat the purpose of a “beta test”?  Beta testing works by recruiting a massive number of additional “testers”.  Will the only feedback obtained from the public be their participation as non-communicative “death statistics”?!  Case in point – I was nearly run over in a parking lot recently as a driver backed up while relying only on his “rear camera” view as displayed on the panel in front of him.  This camera does not provide views to the sides.  Who do I report this major “real world” result to before people are killed or horribly injured?  (Note: Perhaps “rear camera” views should only display on screens located behind the driver, thus requiring that they are actually turned around?  ……. Just a thought).  Anyways – I have an idea for a low cost citizen’s “Road Design/Law Danger” reporting system that would not require individual states to drastically change the way they do things, or for them to pass new laws.  Officials should contact me if interested.

The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy – A Software Tester’s Concerns

23 Nov

As was the Healthcare (or “Obamacare”) Website, the adoption and testing of “autonomous vehicles” (I’m tempted to say “Obama Car”) is overwhelmingly a “software testing” project. The analogy between the two, and the lack of solid “buck stops here” ownership is very concerning as I view the “Federal Automated Vehicles Policy”.

In a nutshell, the Federal DOT and NHTSA are (kind of) claiming overall ownership of this project while also admitting they can only make “Best Practice” suggestions.  In fact, there appears to be even less direct control over this project than existed for the healthcare website.  The size and complexities of this new computer code will no doubt dwarf that created for the healthcare website, and the consequences here are much graver.

The existence of different proprietary systems, and questions as to how (or “if”) they will talk to each other, is one analogous issue.  Another is that this new “Highly Automated Vehicle” project (also) involves “retrofitting” software (in this case to a massive and diverse infrastructure that was not designed with these vehicles in mind).  Add to this the fact that our roads, bridges, signs, and laws are closely guarded turf under the control of 50 different state jurisdictions.  In fact, the NHTSA and Federal DOT have emphatically quoted this jurisdictional issue to me when explaining why they could not address, or even comment on a number of road safety dangers I brought to their attention.  So, has something suddenly and magically changed such that these discussions – “prohibited by law” – are now acceptable?  Those interested should read my essays located at (In the case of New Jersey’s “Stop and Stay Stopped” crosswalk law, subsequent rises in pedestrian deaths – contrary to concurrent drops in all other types of auto deaths during some of these same years – seemed to confirm my fears, but that is a whole other story!)

People should keep in mind here that the REAL safety testing of automated vehicles will only occur after they are set free on our public streets. This will be what software testers call a “beta test”.   There is no similarity whatsoever between the NHTSA’s oversight of straightforward, non varying “crash” tests, and the new responsibilities it has been assigned.  For auto manufacturers, let alone the NHTSA, it will be logistically, perhaps even “cognitively” impossible to come even close to the level of testing that would be required (ahead of time) in order to verify safety under the endless number of real world scenarios these cars will encounter.  Not only would the costs be prohibitively expensive, but the use of live, walking and talking test subjects (simulating pedestrians for example) would be unethical at full speed operation.  So get ready people – we are all the “stakeholders” here!

From what I can see, the NHTSA is not yet requiring the establishment of an easily accessible, always available system by which the general population can report their dangerous or questionable encounters with these vehicles.  I thought the whole purpose of a “beta test” was to provide a massive increase in “tester” manpower.  By not providing this avenue for feedback, it defeats the whole purpose of a “beta” test!

And, concerning the preliminary testing that will take place, a reliance on the “self-reporting” of results by manufacturers should keep all of our eyebrows raised. Are we really to believe that every time a Tesla driver needs to retake control of his car from the automated system (where a potentially fatal crash would have occurred) this is being tabulated as a “likely fatal incident” in terms of its’ theoretical “fully autonomous” operation?  Of course Tesla points out here that their cars are not yet intended to be “fully autonomous”, but the illustration still applies.

I fully appreciate the awkward position the Federal DOT and NHTSA have been forced into by the President’s push to promote this automation. The NHTSA – traditionally the watchdog of physical and design defects after the fact – is now (kind of) claiming ownership of many aspects of the upfront planning phase of this massively impactful, hugely complicated, and loosely defined project.  The NHTSA is effectively establishing for itself a future “conflict of interest”.  Secretary Fox even said “What we’re doing here is building safety in at the ground floor” when announcing the public release of the FAV Policy.  It should be noted that the NHTSA is (kind of) claiming this ownership at the same time it has not been given the resources, expertise, or even the mandate to take proper control.  Am I the only person to see an analogy here between this current situation and the inadequate resources in the hands of FEMA prior to their (criticized) responses to a number of subsequent disasters?  When bad things happen – and they will – automakers will be able to point to the NHTSA’s (sort of) claims of ownership over the early phases of this project.  At the same time, manufacturers will also likely claim immunity due to the lack of specificity established upfront.  It is easy to imagine the potential for instances in which the NHTSA might be tempted to cover something up in order to avoid receiving flak from the public.  The NHTSA, of all organizations, should have a strong understanding of the environmental conditions leading to poor quality (and “recalls” involving negligence).  It is foolish to assume their own employees are somehow immune to these dynamics of self-preservation.

I have also noticed a failure to use unambiguous language, as would be required in the design stage of any software project. This is visible in the language used by the agency as it promotes “this technology”.  There is in fact no single or easily encapsulated “technology” here.  There are numerous physical technologies (that will no doubt change over time) and an even larger ongoing commitment to producing tons of “new and improved” computer code.  If the claim is that “computer code” itself is a “new” thing – this is news (or “olds”) to me.  Encompassing everything into one verbally convenient phrase such as “this technology” serves no real purpose.  Computer coders cannot code, fix, or be held accountable for “this technology”.

Another ambiguous reference occurs on Page #10 of the FAV Policy. The text toggles “primary responsibility” between the “human operator” and the “automated system”.  “Automated systems” are not cognizant beings, don’t “bleed”, and do not pay with their lives when things go wrong.  This may sound academic, but confounding these concepts – even when primarily an issue of semantics – creates further “wiggle room” for those car manufacturers (or computer programmers) when things go wrong in the future.  This becomes instantly obvious in a legal sense.  I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure the courts would actually hold the driver partially negligible – despite the NHTSA’s claims that the “automated system” was responsible – should an accident or death occur where the driver had previous knowledge that the automated system was not performing up to expectations.  I am curious as to just how literal we are to take these descriptions?

We are already seeing auto manufacturers running wild with their proprietary claims surrounding the promise of their own future autonomous vehicles. No doubt much of this is due to their fear of seeming technologically inferior or “behind the curve”.  They apparently have no fear that the NHTSA will call them out when it comes to these statements.  Elon Musk recently claimed that “half a million lives” would have been saved worldwide had everyone been driving Teslas with the activated “autopilot” feature.  He then told people to “Just do the math!”   Well, I not only did the math, I also applied some basic scientific considerations such as “sample size”.  With this it becomes instantly apparent that his claim (at this point in time) is ludicrous!  Again, see “‘Accountability’ and ‘Countability’ – Misdirection in the ‘Autopilot’ Safety Debate” located at for more on this.

There also seems to be a very important (likely high volume and deadly) mistake in the logic applied by the NHTSA when discussing the automation levels of these cars. There is no reason for the NHTSA, or anyone else for that matter, to assume that a human driver – even when fully attentive – will be able to react in time to every mistake made by an automated system!  One needs only to imagine themselves in the following situation.  If a driver is concentrating intensely on the road ahead and a passenger (out of nowhere) suddenly jerks the steering wheel to the side for no reason, it will spark all sorts of reflexes and reactions within the driver’s mind as he/she attempts to make sense of what just happened.  The brain’s response might be “Don’t adjust the wheel because there must have been a good reason why my passenger did this”.  Or it could be the exact opposite reaction, thus creating an over compensation in steering.  These episodes will always occur – by definition – as complete surprises.  There is absolutely no way for drivers to safely practice, or anticipate these realities ahead of time!  It is preposterous for the NHTSA to be validating this “assumption of ultimate responsibility” (over mistakes made by the automated system) by applying it to this project!  This “clause” is being used as a “catch all” by those involved as a way of avoiding a more complex and realistic discussion surrounding true causal factors.

My overall recommendation to the Federal DOT and NHTSA is that – considering their very limited degree of true ownership over this project – they absolutely must wield every possible element of control they have at their disposal during these early stages. At the very least, the following actions should be taken:

#1) The NHTSA should mandate and monitor the use of a single (overall) “Final Stage Test Plan” (created and updated within a single software application) that is shared, viewed, accessed, and updated by all of the car manufacturers. This single (overall) “Final Stage Test Plan” will list all of the real world scenarios (each one representing a single “test case”) that the cars of each particular “automation level” will need to navigate safely.  This particular stage of testing – by definition here – must be conducted using a completely assembled car at speed, with all systems activated (individual component testing to be handled separately).  These scenarios (“test cases”) should be reviewed ahead of time for completeness, shared among all manufacturers, and of course then tested by each manufacturer under their own proprietary systems.  As new “tricky and dangerous” scenarios are discovered, these new “test cases” must be added to the original test plan (instantly viewable by all – as before).  Each manufacturer must assign ownership of the testing of each individual test case to a single tester who will be responsible for literally “signing off” (as in actual “signature”!) when a vehicle passes a particular test.  Keep in mind that this “Final Stage Test Plan” only describes the real world scenarios these cars must navigate safely (applicable to all manufacturers) and does not require the recording or revealing of any proprietary information. The potentially proprietary discussions related to the handling of problems (or “bugs”) will be controlled separately under each companies’ individual “project tracking” system as described below.   

#2) Though not established by the NHTSA, each manufacturer should of course have their own “project tracking” system to track problems and their resolutions as they occur.  This would of course follow standard software practices (assigning a unique identifier to each issue; stating whose hands a particular issue is in at any given moment in time; cross referencing the applicable test case if relevant; and so on).

#3) As these vehicles “go live” on our roadways (the “beta test”), there must be the establishment of an easy to use method by which the general population (bigtime “stakeholders”) can report any and all dangerous encounters.  Of course this will lead to duplicate entries as some of the same problems repeat themselves.  Therefore, on the same webpage, the NHTSA needs to continually update a “known problems” section enabling citizens to quickly log a “this happened to me also” entry.  This will not only save everyone time and trouble, but it will also add important emphasis to particular dangers.

#4) The NHTSA must eliminate completely the notion that drivers can be held ultimately responsible (under any “level” of automation) for mistakes made by an automated system.

A few additional observations on the “FEDERAL AUTOMATED VEHICLES POLICY”

Page 9: SAE Levels “2” and “3” are poorly defined

Page 38: The DOT anticipates increased responsibilities similar to “licensing” of the non-human driver in the future. This is surprising as my local (state) inspection station doesn’t even have the resources to check my tire “tread wear” anymore.  Perhaps I am missing something here?

Page 44: The FAV Policy glosses over the issue of liability and insurance coverage as related to the complexities and differences that will occur between the states. This is no small issue.  Let’s not forget that in the case of accidents and deaths, all parties will have it in their interest to go after the same entity – that being the “auto manufacturers”.  Therefore, it is clear that the first order of business for the manufacturers will be the seeking of legal immunity.

Page 59: As already noted, these automated cars – required to make decisions under an endless array of real world scenarios – will really only be tested once they are released in the real world.  This fact greatly hinders the concept of granting “exemptions” based only on limited prior (non-real world) testing.  Something to think about!

Page 72: Referring again to the complexities involved in testing the endless scenarios that would need to be handled by an automated car – the NHTSA is kidding itself if it thinks it will have the manpower and resources to adequately test – by itself – even one such vehicle before release to the real world.

“Accountability” and “Countability” – Misdirection in the “Autopilot” Safety Debate

7 Jul

To be clear, Tesla and Elon Musk were referring to “autopilot assisted”, and not “fully autonomous” driving when claiming that only one Tesla fatality has occurred in 130 million autopilot assisted miles driven. The same is true of Musk’s later (quite bizarre and scientifically unproven) statement that half a million lives would have been saved around the world had everyone been driving said Teslas. For this he presumably considered the 1 million worldwide auto fatalities per year, occurring at a rate of one for every 60 million miles driven.

Per Musk’s insistence, I thought I had better do the math for myself. Right off the bat, there is a major issue with his claim. Musk had at his disposal a Tesla sample size (everything to date) capable of producing just one death, and this was then compared to a yearly sample size large enough to have resulted in one million deaths (in the case of the worldwide figure). After allowing for Tesla’s relatively higher number of miles per death (130 million divided by 60 million), and then dividing the total worldwide deaths by this amount (1 million/2.16), you end up with the fact that the worldwide totals arose from a sample size roughly 460,000 times larger than Teslas’! You can think of it this way – if Tesla was to have had just one more fatal accident in which two passengers were killed – they would be down to one fatality per 43.3 million miles driven. Would Musk then be proclaiming that if everyone around the world had been driving autopilot assisted Teslas there would have been an additional 384,000 people killed?

And, what exactly were the “controls” in place for this comparison to be valid? Are Teslas equally distributed among the countries included in the worldwide figure? Is Tesla’s autopilot currently capable of handling all of the locally specific traffic laws and infrastructure as they currently exist around the world? In the U.S., we have 50 separate states doing their own thing when it comes to passing legislation. What about these further distinctions around the world?

STOP !!! ……. (Note to Self) ……. Enough already with the careful and literal translation of Tesla and Musk’s statements concerning the safety level of their system! I need to now continue writing this under the assumption that what most people actually heard was “self-driving” car, not “autopilot assisted”. Why do I feel this way? Because I am a pretty smart guy with a background in quality assurance and a demonstrated interest in road safety – and even I made this mistake before I carefully reread the claims.

Most troubling is the ease with which these claims were made, and the lack of any proactive clarification on the part of Tesla. This is likely symptomatic of a greater problem as put forth earlier in my essay “Testing ‘Self-Driving’ Cars – The Buck Stops Where?!” also located here at

To a most useful end, I would like now to explain how far off, and scientifically invalid these safety claims would be if a person was to (incorrectly) apply them to the idea of “hands off”, “fully autonomous” operation.

To misapply the data would be to neglect all of those instances in which Tesla drivers quickly corrected a potentially fatal mistake made by autopilot. Some examples can be found on Youtube and I suspect there have been more than reported publicly. Examples include the car suddenly attempting to exit the highway at the last second, or the car continuing to follow the car in front instead of staying in lane.  If just a few of these (otherwise fatal) events have occurred (to date) it would represent a massively lower “fully autonomous” safety level. What is so disturbing is that Tesla is not openly disclosing this type of data.  Not collecting it would be even worse.  Anyone out there know the answer?  If this data has been neglected, it would fit expectations considering that the Federal D.O.T. announced they would be relying on the self-reporting of auto manufacturers when verifying “driverless-car” safety. (Again – see my earlier essay).

In fact even if the above (calculated) considerations were to be added in at this point, the adjusted safety level would still be massively under estimated.  Currently Tesla’s autopilot is only recommended for less complicated scenarios such as highway driving.  Not included are the greater complexities encountered with city driving, pedestrian traffic, construction sites, police-directed situations, emergency maneuvers, and more.  A person need only imagine the potential for these to change the overall safety rating.

So, as your average idiot can now see – there is absolutely no way to obtain an accurate guestimate to the question “How safe (more specifically ‘deadly’) does the ‘hands off’ operation of Tesla’s autopilot appear to be at this point in time?” when using only the data at hand.  If Tesla, in fact does have the answers to this more fully considered question, they should be willing to discus it with any reporter who inquires.  If they don’t, then we should all be pointing our fingers at the Federal D.O.T asking “Just exactly what is going on with the testing of this ‘Self-Driving’ stuff?!”  (Again – read my earlier essay) ……… So there you go …….Reporters get to work now!

Nutty Questions Concerning “Self-Driving”Cars

6 Jul

And now a few questions surrounding the nuttiness of the current (non) discussions that are (not) widely occurring yet regarding this “self-driving” car stuff.

One of these (non) discussions is failing to occur when experts suggest that one day we won’t own our own cars, but will instead summon vehicles to come pick us up for our trip down the block for milk.  Would these empty cars not be racking up additional environmentally unfriendly miles every time they come to get us?  Or, if the plan is for them to pick up other passengers along the way (imagine the wait times), could we not just slap some rails underneath these bad boys (for safety’s sake) and create a “smart phone connected” rail system?  By definition, these customers aren’t looking to “grab the wheel” themselves anyway.

And what of the widely unchallenged notion that these cars will be using their communication powers to link up with other cars on the road, thus travelling in tight formation just inches apart?  I wasn’t previously aware that “tailgating” is bad because it is “hard to do”.  I always thought the concern was “reaction time”.  Not just mine, but also Isaac Newton’s (think “Apple Car”).

The list goes on and on  ………. Who do we give “the wave” to when overly cautious (driverless) cars let us into the roadway out of turn?  Who do we give the “finger” to when stuck behind these same cars?

Will driverless cars be able to get out of the way (by driving over the curb onto someone’s lawn, etc.) of a honking ambulance under all of the potentially infinite scenarios? (Correct answer being “no”).

When a driverless car stalls in the middle of a fast moving road (not due to a computer problem of course because computers don’t typically malfunction) it will surely turn on its flashers, but who will walk back 100 feet to wave off unsuspecting drivers zooming around the bend?  Will these cars tip the tow truck driver (or non-driver)?

When one of these empty cars runs someone down, it will surely dial ‘911’, but what will it tell the operator in relation to the severity of the situation?

What happens in the D.O.T’s record books when two driverless cars flatten each other?  Is this recorded as a “deadly accident”?

We’ve all heard of “cow tipping”, but what about the newest craze – covering the sensors of rich people’s driverless cars so that their owners cannot “summon” them.  Oh, that’s right, we will all be on camera 24 hours a day with these cars around.

…. Snow, sand, ice, “continue on” wave’s from pedestrians, deer and dogs given same priority (or not?) as humans, police directed emergencies, plastic bags floating across the street, jumpy dog in the middle of the highway (I actually saw this once), flooded out roads, missing or recently altered street signs, approaching cop car with lights flashing (C’est pour moi? says Mr. Peugeot) ………. on and on and on and on.

Of course, regardless of the degree of immunity granted up front, what will actually happen most often is that these cars will be out there in overly cautious mode, slowing everyone down due to their (quite necessarily) overly cautious programming and – as now required by the insurance companies – strict adherence to speed limits.  I could have sworn that some road study scientists once discovered that if there exists a steady flow of highway traffic and just two drivers (side by side) slow down for just a few seconds, it creates a backward moving ripple effect that slows down the trailing cars for miles, and lasts a very long time.  Perhaps automated cars can handle this situation better than humans?  It makes you wonder, will the D.O.T. now recommend installing the opposite of “HOV” lanes on the highways?  Perhaps we will now have “LOVE” lanes? (Low Occupancy Vehicle – Electric)

Jay Leno once said (paraphrased) that in the end, we are not going to have a bunch of driverless cars roaming the streets.  Instead, this technology will be incorporated as safety additions similar to ‘ABS’ braking and so on.  So, if Mr. Leno (an expert in both “comedy” and “cars”) is in fact correct – why the big push (by “safety experts”) to get our hands off the wheel?

Testing “Self-Driving” Cars – The Buck Stops Where?!

22 Jan

Hello D.O.T.,

I am very concerned regarding the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recently implied ownership of the “Self-Driving Car” testing process.

In truth, the testing of “self-driving” cars is another major software testing project (since cars do not, and never will, make decisions themselves).  This will necessitate the verification of acceptable vehicle behaviors under a huge number of real world scenarios.  All kinds of computer coding decisions will be made regarding the legal and safety “choices” exhibited by these cars. Perhaps these decisions will even be made (on occasion) by young urban computer whizzes who have not yet gotten around to obtaining their own driver’s licenses.  In addition, these scenarios, errors, and fixes will need to be documented, addressed and verified not just once, but for all of the competing proprietary systems utilized by the various car companies.  These separate “self-reported” real world “beta tests” will be occurring at the public’s risk.

Ideally, of course, this would all be combined and addressed by the D.O.T. as one overall beta test.  And by definition, this beta test would include the establishment of an appropriate project tracking system in which the public is encouraged to “report bugs”, in which issues are “logged” using a unique identifier, in which “accountability” or the “present ownership” of a particular bug is immediately identifiable at any given moment in time, and which would include the establishment of a clear decision making hierarchy regarding legalities, project priorities, and the postponing of less critical issues.

My concerns are as follows:

From my own experience – in which the D.O.T. has failed to assume ownership of any of the numerous road dangers I have documented over the past few years – it seems the D.O.T. does not currently have a public oriented, problem reporting system similar to the one described above.  Incidentally, there are certainly a number of “Best Practices” principles to be gleaned from my previous correspondences (more on that later).

On two separate occasions I was told by your employees that the US D.O.T. is prohibited from direct involvement in relation to state specific legislation.  I have also learned through experience that state legislators are not likely to admit that one of the safety “improvements” they previously voted for turned out to be dangerous.  On top of this, future dangers occurring as a result of interactions between “self-driving” cars and people will likely be a bit tricky to describe.  This is because many of society’s most logical thinkers (the aforementioned computer programmers) will have already taken into account the handling of many of the more commonly encountered driving scenarios.  These new “state specific dangers” will require much more involved, mind numbing explanations leading to even less likelihood that politicians will expend their political capital on such “I was wrong” campaigns.  And given the “recent trend” nature of the dangers I myself have been warning about, I am concerned that the D.O.T. does not understand the scope, magnitude, or irreversibility of the problems created should it let the genie out of the bottle prematurely!

One of the hardest hitting fruits the D.O.T. will be wielding, as overseers of this project, is the (largely non-binding) “Best Practices” report it will assemble in relation to self-driving cars.  I am not knowledgeable as to the inner workings of the D.O.T. or what it has in mind.  I will say, however, that nearly every one of my previous “dangerous scenarios” involved a tricky real life situation that should prove even trickier for driverless cars – I mean “computer programmers”.  When the D.O.T. discusses plans to issue this report, I can only wonder nervously – “Based on what?” “Coming from who?”  And prior to issuing these recommendations – should there not at least be a few tentative demands made?  Perhaps in relation to an end goal of “complete compatibility” between the now competing and proprietary computerized systems under development by the various car companies?  After all, aren’t these cars going to be “talking” to each other?  Wouldn’t it be nice if in the future, every time we need to correct their grammar, or slap them on the wrist, these adjustments could be made in just one location without the need to duplicate, triplicate, or quadruplicate our efforts?  Will the current climate surrounding these unseen computer codes (or “competitive advantages”) be addressed such that, if one particular company designs code that is far superior at handling a particular road danger, this life saving knowledge will be immediately disseminated to all involved before my dog “Buffy” is run over by a competitor’s car?  Wouldn’t it be nice if the D.O.T. – before handing over the keys – laid down some ground rules for these young cars who have just received their learner’s permits?

Some things in life – like “blindingly bright” modern headlight technology (also not yet addressed nationally) – can be seen from miles away.  In the case of future accidents caused by these cars, I mean “computer programs”, there will be one thing we can say for sure – “victims” and “owners” alike will be looking to put the blame on the auto manufacturers.  And since we already know “there ain’t a snowball’s chance in global warming” that any of these cars are going to end up on the roads without some degree of formal or informal immunity granted upfront to these auto companies, the question then becomes – “Who will Kenneth Feinberg be working for in these quandaries?”  …..  GM?  Takata?  …..  Hakuna  ….. Matata?  Comprende?  …..(DeNada).  It seems a bizarre possibility that those working within the federal D.O.T. – who, remember, are not the actual programmers or project managers of this computer code, who are not directly performing the testing, who do not have a complete and comprehensive setup for overseeing this testing (my deduction), and who tell me that they are prohibited by law from getting involved with state legislative decisions – will have it in their self-interests (personally and organizationally) to maintain a certain distance during this testing process.  They may actually be headed towards a bizarre alliance with the D.O.T.’s usual arch nemesis – “Plausible Deniability”.  Wow!  What a web!  And not a simple “Charlotte’s Web”, but a “Jack Webb”! (Extra ‘b’ in there)

I seriously wonder if the buck is going to stop anywhere on this project.  If the buck ends up stopping in the middle of the road and is then hit by one of these “self-driving” cars, I hope the D.O.T. will at least properly record the “Cause of Accident” under the newly added description – “Computer Crash”.

The Inquiry and Software Testing’s ‘Dirty Little Secrets’

31 Oct

As a former software tester – inquiry into the ‘’ failures seems the perfect forum by which the public could be brought to speed regarding their assumptions that large institutions properly test their customer data and calculated results.  Of course, in reality, these complexities will be lost in the politics (and real concerns) surrounding the ‘Affordable Care Act’ itself, but I can dream, can’t I?

I’ve worked for a major life insurance company, a ‘dot com’, a well known payroll processing company, and one of the original ‘outsourcing’ companies handling ‘pension benefit’ data for client companies.  Though not claiming any specific knowledge surrounding the design, construction, or performance of the healthcare site, I suspect that the dynamics involved were not unlike my own experiences.

I’ve seen major differences in project quality, and accountability, depending on whether software was programmed and controlled entirely ‘in house’ or promised as an outsourced service.  I have also seen differences regarding expectations of quality when comparing the ‘old days’ (simpler in that ‘dumb terminals’ were used by clerks to communicate with company run mainframes) and the modern environment (in which customers interact directly through an endless variety of devices, operating systems, browsers, and internet connection technologies to databases that may be under the jurisdiction of more than one organization).

One of the ‘dirty little secrets’ in software creation is that – for certain segments of a project – ‘automated testing’ was a much more common mainstay in the pre-internet mainframe days.  Ideally, these automated testing tools (themselves ‘software’) are used to quickly and efficiently rerun large numbers of test cases, thus avoiding the need for a tester to sit down at a computer and perform these tasks manually.  In fact, following even a small change to programming code, no claim of quality can be made until all the old (unrelated) processing has been checked for inadvertent changes.  Unfortunately, the likelihood that these ‘regression’ tests have been automated is much lower these days due to the additional complexities mentioned above.

In the old environment, my automated tests were quite easy to maintain.  I simply identified the row and column where data was to be entered, listed the data, and followed this with a symbol representing the pushing of the ‘Enter’ key.  Currently, however, newer automation products need to take into account all sorts of additional environmental factors.  For example – Does the user have other applications open on the ‘desktop’ in addition to the one being tested?  What unexpected (operating system) messages might pop up and how will the testing tool deal with them?  And so on.  Any number of these surprise encounters – not under the control of the actual software being tested – could serve to derail the running of the automated test.  When they do, it is often unclear at first whether the test stopped running because of an error in the software being tested or the testing tool itself!  To make things worse, in order to differentiate their product, companies selling these tools fall into the temptation of ‘feature creep’.  Often, the time spent learning new features defeats its original purpose as a time saving tool.  Unfortunately purchasing decisions here are made by mangers who may not understand the nuts and bolts of the testing environment and/or what makes for efficient testing.  But wait, there’s more!

These automated tests need to run on the actual computing devices they intend to test.  This means that in order to simultaneously test 50 different hardware/software configurations – PC, MAC, different operating systems, different versions of operating systems, browsers etc. – you need to actually have 50 different physical machines available and running at one time!  This, most assuredly, never happens in the actual development environment.  Acknowledgement of the limited nature of today’s software testing is visible as software companies make available free ‘beta’ versions of their latest software in the hopes that users will function as testers by reporting ‘bugs’ ahead of the main ‘release’.  Of course, the availability of this testing strategy should depend on the nature of the software being tested.  You wouldn’t want to hear your bank say ‘Try our latest online banking software and let us know if your checking account balances are being displayed correctly’!

In reality, the amount of time required to create and maintain these automated tests is so high that companies often don’t get around to it.  Especially in cases where projects have been outsourced and there is no expectation of revisiting this (new) software in the future, automation may not be used.  Also disconcerting is that even where a collection of test cases has been automated, the speed with which these tests run depends on the same network traffic issues (live) people encounter.  In the end, for documentation and liability purposes, testers are usually required to put down in writing a description of all the scenarios they want tested, but these may simply end up as ‘cue cards’ for future manual testing.  Late specification changes to the software (such as the government adding new legal requirements) will often mean there is literally no time to rerun these ‘regression’ test cases – either manually or through the use of these clunky automation tools!

It’s also important, in the crisis at hand, to realize that company ‘websites’ are usually not synonymous with the product itself.  In the case of ‘Craigslist’ it may be.  For health insurance it certainly isn’t.  Life decisions may depend on whether calculations occurring behind the scenes (premium quotes, or eligibility for example) were performed correctly.  Simply being able to ‘sign up’ or to see your name formatted correctly does not mean you are out of the woods!  On the other hand, problems appearing in this ‘cosmetic’ realm may be strong indicators as to the extent and quality of the testing performed prior to release.

On a case by case basis, the testing of calculations requires a much larger time commitment than testing simple screen flow.  The tester must manually step through the lengthy and complicated business rules (legal or otherwise) in an attempt to verify that calculated results were spit back as expected.  The endless combination of relationships between input data and rules, such as ‘if this is true, that cannot be true’, often means that testers are only able to test a small sample of the possible scenarios.  With the ‘’ website I would be most concerned with errors in this realm – especially in regards to a law that no one seems to fully understand!

Among my own customer experiences I’ve been victim (or beneficiary?) of a $600 computational error within my auto insurance bill.  This was apparently never noticed, one way or the other, by my insurer.  I received neither ‘Sorry, we previously overcharged you by $600’ nor ‘Sorry, we recently billed you $600 instead of $1200’. In another example, Bank of America – after acquiring the company that previously owned my credit card account – failed to properly handle the cardholder rules as contracted.  Though I had not made a late payment (a prerequisite for any change to my ‘fixed’ rate) they improperly changed my rate to ‘variable’, nearly doubling my interest payment.  I have also heard relayed accounts of inadequate testing performed prior to other large institution ‘takeovers’.  Consumers should really look out in these situations!

Of course, in addition to the issues discussed above, there are also your garden variety concerns relating to things like ‘project management’ methods and outsourcing pitfalls.  A few of these include:

#1) Current trends to be ‘flexible’ and to ‘cross train’ can wreak havoc in terms of learning curves and accountability.  ‘Bug Tracking’ must be handled correctly so that all outstanding issues are individually identified and assigned unambiguously to one, and only one employee at any given moment in time.  Ideally, software testers should be given the power and responsibility of literally ‘signing out’ the end product.  This means that they put their signature down on paper and include notes as to the existence of any outstanding issues (to be fixed in the future).  This process is essentially defeated and meaningless when others, such as project managers are allowed to do this ‘signing out’ in place of those who did the actual testing.  In reality, only my first employer followed this most basic of practices.  Perhaps it creates fear these days in which deadlines and completion dates seem to take precedence over all else.

#2) Outsourcing providers may lack adequate understanding of the client company’s business requirements or existing source code prior to preparing their estimations of the time required for a project.

#3) Employees within the hiring company (like the government) may not understand the technical complications created by late requests for changes to the software.  The outsourcing company is unlikely to tell the client ‘That can’t be done properly within the current time frame’.

#4) In situations where cash penalties might be imposed for late project completion – and especially when coders and testers sense the unlikelihood of any future direct accountability – these employees often avoid being the ‘squeaky wheel’ in status meetings run by the very stressed, less closely involved, project managers.  I saw this become a group behavior on one of my projects in which everyone knew there were major problems, but only I spoke up.  The fear is that the project manager might assume that the person encountering issues is less competent than the others.  In my case, I had documented so many unique concerns along the way – all of which eventually rang true – that no one continued giving me a hard time.  Most employees in my situation would not have risked these waters.

I hope these notes on the true nature of today’s software testing environment prove useful to others diving into this topic.