> How is it cruel or unusual to subject someone to risks posed by a system they're building?

More unusual than cruel, I must admit. We just don't do that anywhere.

If I were to guess why - if we did, people would either not work on experimental systems or would gold-plate the safety features way beyond what was reasonable. That sounds nice if you don't think about it too hard but in practice it would shave % off how much we produce in goods and services for no reason.

Aeroplanes are a great example. It sounds nice to say they are a super-safe form of transport, but actually thinking through the risks people face on their commute to work each day the amount of money we spend doesn't make sense. I mean, what if the risk of being in a plane crash was only as rare as being struck by lightening? And the ticket was much cheaper? That wouldn't be so terrible. I don't know a lot of people who were struck by lightening but I know a lot of people who don't have much money but take overseas holidays anyway.

> I bet if that engineer thought it would be him in front of that things bumper, he would've put in a bit more work to figure out what was going on.

Probably not in my experience. It is quite hard to get better performance out of a knowledge worker by threatening them. From what I've seen they tend to either resign or just do what they were already doing and hope. It isn't like anyone can stop writing buggy code by trying harder.

> More unusual than cruel, I must admit. We just don't do that anywhere.

Again I disagree, perhaps it would be unusual to do it via some sort of mandate after the fact, but the long history of human innovation involves tons of inventors risking life and/or limb to test safety systems of their own design. I'm reminded of the person who invested that special brake for circular saws that when it detected human flesh in front of the blade, it clamped down so hard it would often destroy the tool. The thing is, it also prevented you from losing a finger.

> if we did, people would either not work on experimental systems or would gold-plate the safety features way beyond what was reasonable.

I mean, maybe? I just think there's something lost there when you have a software engineer working on the code in a large company that's then testing on the unwitting public. I'm not saying it has to be a standing threat of "we're testing this on you" but, I mean, look what happened. An ugly hack that has no business in a codebase like this went in and someone was seriously injured, and I'm not saying the engineer necessarily deserved to be injured in their stead, but the person surely didn't have any role in this, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

> It isn't like anyone can stop writing buggy code by trying harder.

One person, no, but an organization can. Talking of airplanes, when you look into the testing and QA setups for something like Boeing, where the software is literally keeping people in the air alive, its layer after layer of review, review, review, testing, analysis, on and on. Something like "if you think there's a pedestrian ahead, wait one second and check again" would NEVER have made it through a system like that.

You know I'm all for innovations but Silicon Valley's VC firms have a nasty tendency to treat everything like it's "just another codebase" forgetting that some of this stuff is doing real important shit. Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos come to mind.

> when you look into the testing and QA setups for something like Boeing

Boeing has a corporate lineage that extends back for more than a century and for most of that they did not have the levels of engineering safety excellence they can manage today. The culture that achieves near-perfect performance every flight is a different culture to the one that got planes off the ground back in the day.

And that goes to what I'm trying to communicate in this thread - people are bringing up examples of how people deviating from standard practice in mature, well developed industries where there are highly safe alternatives.

This is a different industry. Today in 2019 mankind knows how to fly a plane safely but does not know how to drive safely - I've worked in a high safety environment, they were notching speeds down to 30kmph and 40kmph down from 100kmph on public roads because the risk of moving any faster than that just isn't acceptable. People were substantially more likely to die on the way to work than at it. They'd probably have bought in 20kmph if the workers would reliably follow it. Driving is the single highest risk activity we participate in. Developing car self-driving technology has an obvious and imminent potential to save a lot of lives. Now we aren't about to suspend the normal legal processes but anyone who is contributing to the effort is probably reducing the overall body count even if the codebase is buggy today and even if there are a few casualties along the way.

What matters is the speed with which we get safe self driving cars. Speed of improvement, and all that jazz. Making mistakes and learning from them quickly is just too effective; that is how all the high safety systems we enjoy today started out.

It is unfortunate if people don't like weighing up pros and cons, but slow-and-steady every step of the way is going to have a higher body count than a few risks and a few deaths learnt from quickly. We should minimise total deaths, not minimise deaths caused by Uber cars. Real-world experience with level 3/4 autonomous technology is probably worth more than a few tens of human lives, because it will very quickly save hundreds if not thousands of people as it is proven and deployed widely.

> The culture that achieves near-perfect performance every flight is a different culture to the one that got planes off the ground back in the day.

But those lessons were learned. We know how to do it now. Just like...

> Today in 2019 mankind ... does not know how to drive safely

Yes we do, and by and large we do it correctly. It's easy to think nobody knows how to drive if you spend 5 minutes on r/idiotsincars, but that's selection bias. For every moron getting into an avoidable accident each day there are millions of drivers who left home and returned completely safely.

You can make the argument that people sometimes engage in too-risky behaviors while driving, that I'd agree with, but people know how. Just like people know how to develop safety systems that don't compromise safety, even when they choose to not, as I believe happened here.

> Making mistakes and learning from them quickly is just too effective; that is how all the high safety systems we enjoy today started out.

But again, we know how to do this already. And again, my issue isn't even that someone got hurt while we perfected the tech, all of our safe transit systems today are built on top of a pile of bodies, because that's how we learned- my issue is the person hurt was not an engineer, was not even a test subject. Uber jumped the gun. They have autonomous vehicles out in the wild, with human moderators who are not paying attention. That is unacceptable.

There was a whole chain of errors here:

* Ugly hacks in safety control software * Lack of alerts passed to the moderator of the vehicle * The moderator not paying attention

All of these are varying levels and kinds of negligence. And someone got hurt, not because the technology isn't perfect, but because Uber isn't taking it seriously. The way you hear them talk these are like a month away from being a thing, and have been for years. It's the type of talk you expect from a Move Fast Break Things company, and that kind of attitude has NO BUSINESS in the realm of safety, full stop.

> The culture that achieves near-perfect performance every flight is a different culture to the one that got planes off the ground back in the day.

This is true, but those lessons that got them to that culture are written in blood.

Like the old saying, "Experience is learning from one's own mistakes. Wisdom is learning from others mistakes." I don't think re-learning the same mistakes (process mistakes, not technological) is something that a mature engineering organization does.

One of my worries is that SV brings a very different "move fast and break things" mindset that doesn't translate well to safety-critical systems.

As for the rest of your post, what you're talking about is assessment of risk. Expecting higher levels of risk of an experimental system is fine, but there's a difference when the person assuming that risk (in this case, the bicyclist) doesn't have a say in whether that level of risk is acceptable

>>If I were to guess why - if we did, people would either not work on experimental systems or would gold-plate the safety features way beyond what was reasonable. That sounds nice if you don't think about it too hard but in practice it would shave % off how much we produce in goods and services for no reason.

Certified engineers absolutely can and do go to prison for structural mistakes in their projects, especially if those mistakes lead to loss of human life, but sometimes even without it - chief engineer of what was the tallest human-made structure on Earth(radio mast near Warsaw) went to jail for 2 years after the mast collapsed due incorrect design of the support structures.

Does it stop people from becoming engineers or from embarking on difficult projects? Of course not. If anything, it shows that maybe programmers working on projects like the autonomous cars should not only be certified the same way engineers are, but also held liable for what they do.

The problem here is that the engineers are likely working under an industrial exemption so there is no professional license liability assumed.

I personally have not come across a single software engineer or controls engineer who has had to certify a design.