Jump to content

Uber driver was watching video before fatal self-driving crash, police say


jpd80

Recommended Posts

Uber driver was watching video before fatal self-driving crash, police say

June 22, 2018 @ 3:56 am

Heather Somerville

Reuters

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180622/COPY01/306229980/uber-driver-was-watching-video-before-fatal-self-driving-crash

 

SAN FRANCISCO -- Police in Tempe, Arizona, said evidence showed the safety driver behind the wheel of a

self-driving Uber was distracted and streaming a television show on her phone right up until about the time of

a fatal accident in March, deeming the crash "entirely avoidable."

 

A 318-page report from the Tempe Police Department, released on Thursday in response to a public records request,

said the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, repeatedly looked down and not at the road, glancing up just a half second before

the car hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing the street at night.

 

According to the report, Vasquez could face charges of vehicle manslaughter. Police said that, based on testing,

the crash was "deemed entirely avoidable" if Vasquez had been paying attention.

 

Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming television shows and movies, which showed

Vasquez's account was playing the television talent show "The Voice" the night of the crash for about 42 minutes,

ending at 9:59 pm, which "coincides with the approximate time of the collision," the report says.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you everyone so when this first came out.

 

I don't think anyone argued that the "driver" wasn't distracted.

 

They still haven't charged her though. I'm not sure you can say definitively whether the accident was avoidable beyond a reasonable doubt given that it was at night and the victim was crossing illegally.

 

It's reasonable to say it Might have been avoidable or should have been avoided but that's not good enough for a criminal conviction.

 

Might win a civil case though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think anyone argued that the "driver" wasn't distracted.

 

They still haven't charged her though. I'm not sure you can say definitively whether the accident was avoidable beyond a reasonable doubt given that it was at night and the victim was crossing illegally.

 

It's reasonable to say it Might have been avoidable or should have been avoided but that's not good enough for a criminal conviction.

 

Might win a civil case though.

 

This may have been asked in the debate a while back, but...

 

Even if the "driver" had been fully paying attention, isn't the whole point for that driver to monitor the autonomous system...i.e. take over if there's an issue, right? So let's look at this scenario - dark, and this person crossed where there was no crosswalk. From that there are a few scenarios:

 

1) The driver, nor car sees the person (which is what happened

2) The car doesn't see the person, the driver does, tries to stop, hits the lady anyway.

3) The car doesn't see the person, the driver sees the person, waits for system to react, system doesn't, hits lady.

 

Scenario 2 and 3 are the ones I'm curious about - let's say the driver was paying full attention. They've probably been instructed to let the system do its thing. I know even when using auto cruise control, you sometimes have to train yourself to let it work, even if YOU as a driver would've done something different. The same would apply to this, meaning hesitation for the driver to take over...

 

I guess basically my point is - at what point can you fault the driver for not taking over if their job is to let the system do its job? And by the time that they realize the system isn't working/detecting the pedestrian, it's too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This may have been asked in the debate a while back, but...

 

Even if the "driver" had been fully paying attention, isn't the whole point for that driver to monitor the autonomous system...i.e. take over if there's an issue, right? So let's look at this scenario - dark, and this person crossed where there was no crosswalk. From that there are a few scenarios:

 

1) The driver, nor car sees the person (which is what happened

2) The car doesn't see the person, the driver does, tries to stop, hits the lady anyway.

3) The car doesn't see the person, the driver sees the person, waits for system to react, system doesn't, hits lady.

 

Scenario 2 and 3 are the ones I'm curious about - let's say the driver was paying full attention. They've probably been instructed to let the system do its thing. I know even when using auto cruise control, you sometimes have to train yourself to let it work, even if YOU as a driver would've done something different. The same would apply to this, meaning hesitation for the driver to take over...

 

I guess basically my point is - at what point can you fault the driver for not taking over if their job is to let the system do its job? And by the time that they realize the system isn't working/detecting the pedestrian, it's too late.

 

Take the autonomous part out of it.

 

Driver is looking at their phone. Lady walks out in front of the car at night outside of a crosswalk or intersection. She wasn't sitting in the road. Driver doesn't see her in time to stop or swerve because they were changing stations on the radio. Does the driver get charged? I think not because you can't say with 100% certainty that even if the driver was paying attention that they would have been able to avoid hitting the victim. Now if the victim is already in the road that's different - you must be able to stop for anything in the road and you should always have time to do that. But something coming out of the dark is a totally different matter even if there were streetlights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report, Vasquez could face charges of vehicle manslaughter. Police said that, based on testing, the crash was "deemed entirely avoidable" if Vasquez had been paying attention.

 

What testing?

 

Testing in which they know that something's going to jump out in front of the car so the driver in the test is aware of the coming obstacle?

 

Obviously the driver should've been paying attention, but to say it's entirely avoidable seems extreme - it's dark out and one second there's nothing in front of the car, the next someones in front of it. From what I recall, the car's sensors DID pick up she was there, but it didn't interpret that information correctly. But the computers can see without light. If it was dark, the person couldn't necessarily see her.

 

Furthermore, if they go through with that (well, either verdict, really), it'll set a precedent for future cases. Basically if your autonomous car hits and kills someone while you're not driving, you're at fault and are charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report, Vasquez could face charges of vehicle manslaughter. Police said that, based on testing, the crash was "deemed entirely avoidable" if Vasquez had been paying attention.

 

Police can say anything they want. Every day they say people commit a crime and every day thousands of those people are either not charged or found not guilty.

 

Saying it to the press and proving it in court BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT are entirely different things.

 

Just because you want the driver to be charged doesn't mean it will or should happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if that had been a little kid or your kid that was killed. I think you would look at this in a total different light.

As far as it being dark. The pictures from the on board cameras made it appear much darker than it was.

Edited by coupe3w
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Take the autonomous part out of it.

 

Driver is looking at their phone. Lady walks out in front of the car at night outside of a crosswalk or intersection. She wasn't sitting in the road. Driver doesn't see her in time to stop or swerve because they were changing stations on the radio. Does the driver get charged? I think not because you can't say with 100% certainty that even if the driver was paying attention that they would have been able to avoid hitting the victim. Now if the victim is already in the road that's different - you must be able to stop for anything in the road and you should always have time to do that. But something coming out of the dark is a totally different matter even if there were streetlights.

You can't take the autonomous part out of it though because it's the key

to what lies behind the failing of both the AV and the safety observer.

 

The police investigation revealed that with a vigilant driver, that accident was totally avoidable,

that means, the AV car failed to avoid the accident and the safety observer failed to step in.

.

The lady crossing the road did not just appear out of the shadows, that was an ill configured

GPS camera and not indicative of the actual lighting conditions at the accident location.

 

The issue here is the safety observer was supposed to remain vigilant and step in if / when needed

but she was watching a streamed TV show on her phone and behaving more like a passenger

so unprepared to take over in an emergency - I think that was in breach of the conditions Uber

was given to operate an AV in Arizona...

 

 

In saying that, I doubt the police could now charge the safety observer after clearing her of responsibility

immediately after the accident and Uber already settled with the decedent's family, so no civil case either.

 

What I would like to know is what instructions Uber gave to the safety observer, did they set up a situation

where the safety observer felt like she was just along for the ride and not required to really do anything.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if that had been a little kid or your kid that was killed. I think you would look at this in a total different light.

As far as it being dark. The pictures from the on board cameras made it appear much darker than it was.

That doesn’t change whether this was a crime or not. That’s an emotional response not a legal one. And just because the police believe there was time for the driver to stop this is going to be very hard to prove to a judge and jury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You’re allowed to look down or look away from the road for a second or two. Had she been in the driver’s lane (not the lane next to it) for 4 or 5 seconds there would be no doubt that the driver should have seen her and had time to stop or avoid hitting her.

 

You’re also acting like the victim has no blame in this accident. She has the primary blame - she failed to yield the right of way by crossing illegally at night (don’t care if there were streetlights it was still nighttime) without lights.

 

Is it POSSIBLE an attentive driver could have avoided the accident? Of course. But saying that the failure to do so was 100% due to driver inattention and therefore a criminal act is a big step regardless of what the police think.

 

Let’s say a driver pulls out in front of you and you slam on the brakes trying to stop. The lane next to you is open but you panic and don’t try to swerve into the other lane and you hit the person who pulled out in front of you. That person says well you could have just moved into the other lane and avoided me. Who do you think gets the ticket in that case? The person who pulled out in front of the other person because they failed to yield the right of way. We don’t ascribe criminal liability based on what a person could have possibly done to avoid a situation caused by another person. That’s just not how it works.

 

Now that’s certainly a possibility for a civil case because you could say the driver was 25% negligent - it’s not all or nothing. And I agree the driver was wrong and deserves blame for not paying attention. I just don’t think it warrants a criminal manslaughter charge in this particular case because you’re talking about a difference of a few seconds between having enough time to stop and not having enough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take the autonomous part out of it though because it's the key

to what lies behind the failing of both the AV and the safety observer.

 

The police investigation revealed that with a vigilant driver, that accident was totally avoidable,

that means, the AV car failed to avoid the accident and the safety observer failed to step in.

.

The lady crossing the road did not just appear out of the shadows, that was an ill configured

GPS camera and not indicative of the actual lighting conditions at the accident location.

 

The issue here is the safety observer was supposed to remain vigilant and step in if / when needed

but she was watching a streamed TV show on her phone and behaving more like a passenger

so unprepared to take over in an emergency - I think that was in breach of the conditions Uber

was given to operate an AV in Arizona...

 

 

In saying that, I doubt the police could now charge the safety observer after clearing her of responsibility

immediately after the accident and Uber already settled with the decedent's family, so no civil case either.

 

What I would like to know is what instructions Uber gave to the safety observer, did they set up a situation

where the safety observer felt like she was just along for the ride and not required to really do anything.

I think the instructions were probably very clear about what she was supposed to and she ignored those instructions. No argument there. And yes it matters in the context of what happens with AVs. And trust me I’m not in favor of AVs on city streets.

 

But my point was from the standpoint of the liability of the driver and whether she should be charged with manslaughter I think you have to step back and say how would this be handled if she was driving a regular car and there was no AV to cloud the issue? Any driver in that situation could say “I looked down at my speedometer for a second or two and when I looked up she was in my lane and I didn’t have time to stop. And no jury would convict somebody under that circumstance. Just like the other scenario I described above. The pedestrian was wrong first and foremost. And again - had she been in that lane stopped then it is the driver’s responsibility to see and avoid that type of collision. Same as if a car was stopped to make a left turn or simply stalled in the middle of the road - you have to be able to stop. But when somebody darts out in front of your car at the last second even if it’s in broad daylight that’s a totally different issue and I don’t think a few seconds is enough to hold the driver liable in that scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the instructions were probably very clear about what she was supposed to and she ignored those instructions. No argument there. And yes it matters in the context of what happens with AVs. And trust me I’m not in favor of AVs on city streets.

 

But my point was from the standpoint of the liability of the driver and whether she should be charged with manslaughter I think you have to step back and say how would this be handled if she was driving a regular car and there was no AV to cloud the issue? Any driver in that situation could say “I looked down at my speedometer for a second or two and when I looked up she was in my lane and I didn’t have time to stop. And no jury would convict somebody under that circumstance. Just like the other scenario I described above. The pedestrian was wrong first and foremost. And again - had she been in that lane stopped then it is the driver’s responsibility to see and avoid that type of collision. Same as if a car was stopped to make a left turn or simply stalled in the middle of the road - you have to be able to stop. But when somebody darts out in front of your car at the last second even if it’s in broad daylight that’s a totally different issue and I don’t think a few seconds is enough to hold the driver liable in that scenario.

I understand those circumstances but in this case, the police have specifically said

that the accident was entirely avoidable if the safety observer had been paying attention.

 

I am concerned with the mixed messages coming from this whole mess, this review by the police

takes into account all conditions and what actually happened in this event, so to give that judgement

is quite damming.....the confusion for me is that at the time of the accident, she was deemed not at fault.

If anything, the police have altered their original position on the matter....

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate to me says that the public isnt ready, law enforcement isnt ready, the legal system isnt ready and the laws sure as hell definitely arent ready for autonomous vehicles.

 

We have a long way to go.

 

The technology part of autonomous vehicles is way ahead of the legal and regulatory parts right now. Governments have to take responsibility for updating the latter if autonomous vehicles and their benefits are to become more widespread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand those circumstances but in this case, the police have specifically said

that the accident was entirely avoidable if the safety observer had been paying attention.

 

I am concerned with the mixed messages coming from this whole mess, this review by the police

takes into account all conditions and what actually happened in this event, so to give that judgement

is quite damming.....the confusion for me is that at the time of the accident, she was deemed not at fault.

If anything, the police have altered their original position on the matter....

 

The police really shouldn’t be making statements like that in the first place. Even if there was time for a super attentive driver to have avoided the collision, it doesn’t mean the driver is criminally liable as I tried to illustrate above. The only way it’s cut and dried is if the pedestrian is already in the road when they become visible to the driver. Then the driver has to avoid them as they would for any other car stopped in the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You’re allowed to look down or look away from the road for a second or two." Is that a written law somewhere? I must have missed that in drivers ed.

Where does it say you’re not allowed to glance down at the radio, speedometer or hvac controls?

 

Unless you’re willing to swear that you’ve never looked away from the road for 1-2 seconds at a time that’s a stupid answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand those circumstances but in this case, the police have specifically said

that the accident was entirely avoidable if the safety observer had been paying attention.

 

I am concerned with the mixed messages coming from this whole mess, this review by the police

takes into account all conditions and what actually happened in this event, so to give that judgement

is quite damming.....the confusion for me is that at the time of the accident, she was deemed not at fault.

If anything, the police have altered their original position on the matter....

 

I still don't understand how they arrive at the conclusion that it was avoidable. By swerving into the other lane I guess?

 

We'll never know if the driver could've actually seen the lady even if they had been paying attention in time to actually stop.

 

 

The technology part of autonomous vehicles is way ahead of the legal and regulatory parts right now. Governments have to take responsibility for updating the latter if autonomous vehicles and their benefits are to become more widespread.

 

And clearly the technology isn't ready yet either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I still don't understand how they arrive at the conclusion that it was avoidable. By swerving into the other lane I guess?

 

We'll never know if the driver could've actually seen the lady even if they had been paying attention in time to actually stop.

 

 

And clearly the technology isn't ready yet either...

Hey look over there! We are finally building the model 3! Pay no attention to our autopilot errors!

 

-Tesla probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police really shouldn’t be making statements like that in the first place. Even if there was time for a super attentive driver to have avoided the collision, it doesn’t mean the driver is criminally liable as I tried to illustrate above. The only way it’s cut and dried is if the pedestrian is already in the road when they become visible to the driver. Then the driver has to avoid them as they would for any other car stopped in the road.

Oh I agree with you, I just don't understand how the police now back track on this after clearing the person,

and maybe even improper for the police to make such a statement without first formally charging someone.

 

As Fuzzy said above,

This debate to me says that the public isnt ready, law enforcement isnt ready, the legal system isnt ready and the laws sure as hell definitely arent ready for autonomous vehicles.

 

We have a long way to go.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how they arrive at the conclusion that it was avoidable. By swerving into the other lane I guess?

 

We'll never know if the driver could've actually seen the lady even if they had been paying attention in time to actually stop.

 

 

 

And clearly the technology isn't ready yet either...

And this is exactly my point. Sorry for getting carried away yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is exactly my point. Sorry for getting carried away yesterday.

All good, I understand and respect your position but i wonder if the cops will take this matter further

 

I think it's going to be a steep learning curve for authorities and lawmakers to sort out the mess of liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...