Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

[akirby]

So once we establish that the pedestrian is in the wrong

There is absolutely no obligation on the driver, observer

Or AV technology to either avoid a collision or even try

to save a person’s life. Got it.

Not in terms of liability or criminality. The car had the right of way, the pedestrian did not. You can’t assume that the driver had the time or the ability to avoid the accident in such a short timespan after the pdedestrian entered the vehicle’s lane.

 

Another less emotional example:

 

An oncoming car turns left in front of you. You have time to swerve to the left to avoid it but you panic and just hit the brakes and you hit the car. Who is at fault? The other driver. 100%. You had the right of way.

 

Now IF something is already in the road then you have the responsibility to avoid it. Let’s say the pedestrian was riding her bike in the same direction in the middle of the lane. In that case the car would be at least partially at fault because you should always be able to stop your vehicle to avoid an obstacle. But not when that obstacle darts in front of you at the last minute.

[akirby]

That doesn’t mean that the failure of the automatic braking system should be ignored. Quite the opposite. And it should have ramifications on autonomous driving.

 

It also doesn’t mean that the driver shouldn’t be punished or reprimanded by Uber for not doing their job.

[jpd80]

Not in terms of liability or criminality. The car had the right of way, the pedestrian did not. You cant assume that the driver had the time or the ability to avoid the accident in such a short timespan after the pdedestrian entered the vehicles lane.

Another less emotional example:

An oncoming car turns left in front of you. You have time to swerve to the left to avoid it but you panic and just hit the brakes and you hit the car. Who is at fault? The other driver. 100%. You had the right of way.

Now IF something is already in the road then you have the responsibility to avoid it. Lets say the pedestrian was riding her bike in the same direction in the middle of the lane. In that case the car would be at least partially at fault because you should always be able to stop your vehicle to avoid an obstacle. But not when that obstacle darts in front of you at the last minute.

Hypothetically, if a driver or AV observer sees a person doing an illegal road crossing

off in the distance, they walk across the far oncoming lanes and its clear their intention

Is to continue into the path of your vehicle, is the driver/ AV observer required to warn them with horn blast

Or make early decision to brake and avoid a crash?

 

I know that in British commonwealth countries they make a big deal regarding a drivers duty of care to pedestrians on the road legal or otherwise. If in hindsight authoritaties consider that you coulda shoulda stopped in time or at least warned the person then you could be in trouble. Thats why I have issue with blaming pedestrians as an escape - under our system you could still be on the hook. Same for red light runners , you go through on a green and hit them on your drivers side and under our system, youre at fault.

 

Hope that explains cultural difference and curiosity around this case.

Edited March 26, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

JPD - there is a big difference between a pedestrian that can be seen at a distance in the roadway in time for a driver to see them and avoid them and a pedestrian that enters the driver’s lane at the last second.

 

In this case the pedestrian was not in the roadway until the last second. That is the difference.

 

Your red light scenario is crazy and does not work here in the US. If you run a red light or otherwise fail to yield the right of way and you get hit it’s your fault. Unless you were legally in the roadway at some point and got stuck there. But that falls into the “something that is already in the road” category.

[jpd80]

The question around the Uber situation is exacerbated by the Polly configured dashcam

making it look like she stepped into the path at the last minute, the Volvos headlights actually

light up about twice the distance apparent in the video which also means she started crossing

earlier but most likely without looking for oncoming vehicles.

 

My wife was caught out going through on a green light when som idiot blew through a red and

Hit her on front drivers side, long story short she failed to give way to the right, copped a fine

And lost no claim bonus had to pay deductible and took a hit on insurance.

[jpd80]

The question around the Uber situation is exacerbated by the poorly configured dashcam

making it look like she stepped into the path at the last minute, the Volvos headlights actually

light up about twice the distance apparent in the video which also means she started crossing

earlier but most likely without looking for oncoming vehicles.

 

My wife was caught out going through on a green light when som idiot blew through a red and

Hit her on front drivers side, long story short she failed to give way to the right, copped a fine

And lost no claim bonus had to pay deductible and took a hit on insurance rating.

 

The universals with pedestrian safety still apply though, cross at designated crossings,

at other locations, only cross if safe to do so and never assume that drivers have seen you

Edited March 26, 2018 by jpd80

[LoveTaurus]

My wife was caught out going through on a green light when some idiot blew through a red and

Hit her on front drivers side, long story short she failed to give way to the right, copped a fine

And lost no claim bonus had to pay deductible and took a hit on insurance rating.

 

 

Can you explain more about your wife's accident? Why she was at fault going through a green? Thanks!

[jpd80]

Can you explain more about your wife's accident? Why she was at fault going through a green? Thanks!

Ok first off, dont panic because its not in the USA,

Its in a Right Hand Drive situation in Australia

 

Our system revolves heavily around the rule of yield (give way) to traffic on the right

Now many years ago there was an car crash at traffic lights where a person travelling

through on the green was struck by a car going through a red light on the right of the

First car. The judge ruled that going through a green light still required drivers to be

Vigilant to traffic suddenly entering the intersection on the right and to give way as

and when required.

 

That ruling set the case for insurance judgements in similar cases for the next forty years.

Sucks to be us hey....

 

Thanks for your patience guy but now it time for me to step back and let others

Discuss matters of relevance to the thread topic

Edited March 26, 2018 by jpd80

[coupe3w]

Google Earth that intersection you can clearly see street lights. There is no way it's that dark. If that driver was paying attention he /she could have avoided that accident. Headlights must illuminate persons and objects for 350 feet on high beam and 100 feet on low beam.

[sullynd]

A month or two ago there was a Tesla that rear ended a (parked) fire truck at speed in autopilot. There was an article about how autopilot and most automatic cruise control systems will ignore a static object for safety reasons. The Tesla was following another car, the leading car swerved to avoid the fire truck, and the Tesla drove into it. The article talked about how such systems have to ignore some objects to avoid false positives (stopping suddenly for no reason isnt safe). I wonder if this isnt the same issue. Can a system distinguish between someone walking their bike along the road (with no intent to enter the road way) and one who may enter the roadway? Stopping for every biker and pedestrian isnt realistic or safe either.

[akirby]

Ok first off, dont panic because its not in the USA,

Its in a Right Hand Drive situation in Australia

Our system revolves heavily around the rule of yield (give way) to traffic on the right

Now many years ago there was an car crash at traffic lights where a person travelling

through on the green was struck by a car going through a red light on the right of the

First car. The judge ruled that going through a green light still required drivers to be

Vigilant to traffic suddenly entering the intersection on the right and to give way as

and when required.

That ruling set the case for insurance judgements in similar cases for the next forty years.

Sucks to be us hey....

Thanks for your patience guy but now it time for me to step back and let others

Discuss matters of relevance to the thread topic

Is it at least joint liability where the driver that ran the red light is also at fault? That’s crazy.

 

We have a similar situation in my current county where they’ve added unnecessary yield signs on right turns at traffic light controlled intersections. The only time this should happen is if there is a concrete triangle that separates the right turn lane from the intersection and therefore the right turn is not controlled by the light - so you need a yield sign there. But they put them in places without the concrete triangles creating mass confusion. If you are turning left on a solid green you would normally yield to all oncoming traffic including those turning right with or without a right turn lane. But now since drivers have seen all the right turn yield signs they just turn in front of the right turners assuming they have the right of way. However, the left turner can’t actually see the yield sign so they end up turning in front of cars where there is not a yield sign. Even if they know there was a yield sign there yesterday it could have been knocked down or taken down. With the concrete triangle you can clearly see that it’s there so you know the right turners have to yield.

 

Worse yet we have a lot of drivers who now believe that left turners always have the right of way over right turners at an intersection on a solid green light. They’ll just pull out in front of you and then argue that it’s the law. One idiot even said that the phrase “oncoming traffic” only means traffic going straight not traffic turning right.

 

It gets better. We finally convinced the county that this was not only wrong according to the state DOT (and common sense) but dangerous for the reasons above. So they agreed to start taking down the yield signs. Except now instead of taking them all down they are actually adding little tiny concrete triangles (literally 3 feet wide) in some places so they can keep the yield sign. Idiots.

 

I can’t wait to get out of this stupid county in a couple of months.

[akirby]

Google Earth that intersection you can clearly see street lights. There is no way it's that dark. If that driver was paying attention he /she could have avoided that accident. Headlights must illuminate persons and objects for 350 feet on high beam and 100 feet on low beam.

 

If you were a juror and this was a human driver would you convict the human driver for manslaughter?

[rmc523]

 

I know that in British commonwealth countries they make a big deal regarding a drivers duty of care to pedestrians on the road legal or otherwise. If in hindsight authoritaties consider that you coulda shoulda stopped in time or at least warned the person then you could be in trouble. Thats why I have issue with blaming pedestrians as an escape - under our system you could still be on the hook. Same for red light runners , you go through on a green and hit them on your drivers side and under our system, youre at fault.

Hope that explains cultural difference and curiosity around this case.

 

 

The question around the Uber situation is exacerbated by the Polly configured dashcam
making it look like she stepped into the path at the last minute, the Volvos headlights actually
light up about twice the distance apparent in the video which also means she started crossing
earlier but most likely without looking for oncoming vehicles.

My wife was caught out going through on a green light when som idiot blew through a red and
Hit her on front drivers side, long story short she failed to give way to the right, copped a fine
And lost no claim bonus had to pay deductible and took a hit on insurance.

 

Wait a second.......you're telling me that - despite having a green light and being hit by someone running a red light - that your wife was at fault because she didn't (probably couldn't) yield to this person running the light?? That's absolutely absurd. What's the point in listening to the lights then? Run the light and hit someone else, it'll be their fault anyway.

[coupe3w]

If you were a juror and this was a human driver would you convict the human driver for manslaughter?

I can't answer that question without having all the evidence presented before me. And neither can anyone else. But a couple of things that I can see is, first, the operator (regardless of the law in AZ) was not paying attention and, second her feet were visible at least 100 feet before being hit. Ample time to brake (slow down some what) and swerve to possibly miss the person.

[akirby]

Whether the operator was paying attention isn’t the issue. The issue is whether a regular human driver in a regular vehicle would be at fault in a similar situation. The car was going about 60 feet per second. The driver would have had 2 seconds at most to recognize the situation and either stop or swerve. Even glancing down at your speedometer takes 1 second. Add 1/2 second reaction time (at best) and I don’t see how any jury or Judge would hold a driver responsible for hitting a pedestrian wearing dark clothes at night with no lighting. It’s just not happening.

[MKX1960]

A month or two ago there was a Tesla that rear ended a (parked) fire truck at speed in autopilot. There was an article about how autopilot and most automatic cruise control systems will ignore a static object for safety reasons. The Tesla was following another car, the leading car swerved to avoid the fire truck, and the Tesla drove into it. The article talked about how such systems have to ignore some objects to avoid false positives (stopping suddenly for no reason isnt safe). I wonder if this isnt the same issue. Can a system distinguish between someone walking their bike along the road (with no intent to enter the road way) and one who may enter the roadway? Stopping for every biker and pedestrian isnt realistic or safe either.

Waymo, one of the competing companies said the tech should have seen her in plenty of time and classified her as a pedestrian since she was moving.

[coupe3w]

Whether the operator was paying attention isn’t the issue. The issue is whether a regular human driver in a regular vehicle would be at fault in a similar situation. The car was going about 60 feet per second. The driver would have had 2 seconds at most to recognize the situation and either stop or swerve. Even glancing down at your speedometer takes 1 second. Add 1/2 second reaction time (at best) and I don’t see how any jury or Judge would hold a driver responsible for hitting a pedestrian wearing dark clothes at night with no lighting. It’s just not happening.

 

Why isn't it an issue? You're saying that the driver behind the wheel is not a regular human? There are street lights. The video is abnormally dark for whatever reason. These cars are still experimental and the driver should be paying attention.

[akirby]

I’m saying even IF there was a human driver behind the wheel with no electronic assistance in the same exact situation they would not have been held liable. It doesn’t matter if there are street lights or not. If a car with no lights had turned in front of the driver 2 seconds is not enough time to say the driver should have avoided the accident.

 

Even in the daytime if you pull out in front of another car and get hit and you try to explain to the officer that even though they had the right of way, they had time to avoid your car by swerving at the last minute - do you know what the officer will say? Here is your ticket for failure to yield right of way and your insurance will be paying up.

[akirby]

Therefore the inattentiveness of the Uber driver is a moot point because even a driver who was paying attention in that circumstance would not be held liable.

[MKX1960]

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/lidar-maker-velodyne-fatal-uber-crash/

[jpd80]

 

Wait a second.......you're telling me that - despite having a green light and being hit by someone running a red light - that your wife was at fault because she didn't (probably couldn't) yield to this person running the light?? That's absolutely absurd. What's the point in listening to the lights then? Run the light and hit someone else, it'll be their fault anyway.

Yep, when we go through traffic lights we have to be vigilant of illegal traffic entering on the right side (driver's side of the car)

Give way to the right supersedes my right to travel through a green light in safety.

 

Even better we're going to no fault insurance (not).....I think that just gives idiots to have crashes without consequences..

 

I hope this info on my situation helps you understand when I ask dumb questions about US road rules.

[coupe3w]

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/lidar-maker-velodyne-fatal-uber-crash/

 

That model has a 360-degree field-of-view and a 120-meter range"

120 meter range that's almost 400 feet. You mean to tell me that there is no warning system (a light or an audible sound) to alert the driver of a possible problem? That's just plain ludicrous.

[MKX1960]

Arizona Governor suspends Uber.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-arizona-governor-suspends-ubers-ability-to-test-self-driving-cars-2018-3

[rmc523]

Yep, when we go through traffic lights we have to be vigilant of illegal traffic entering on the right side (driver's side of the car)

Give way to the right supersedes my right to travel through a green light in safety.

 

Even better we're going to no fault insurance (not).....I think that just gives idiots to have crashes without consequences..

 

I hope this info on my situation helps you understand when I ask dumb questions about US road rules.

 

Well that's just ridiculous. I get that you should be paying attention, but to be held responsible for someone running a red light and hitting you is absurd.

 

Arizona Governor suspends Uber.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-arizona-governor-suspends-ubers-ability-to-test-self-driving-cars-2018-3

 

Uber self driving testing* Not uber itself (the ride part).

[silvrsvt]

Lidar maker Velodyne is confused by fatal Uber crash

 

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/26/lidar-maker-velodyne-fatal-uber-crash/?icid=autoblog|trend|lidar-maker-confused-by-fatal-uber-crash

 

 

Lidar maker Velodyne has put out a statement concerning the fatal accident between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, last week. Uber's self-driving Volvo XC90 uses a Velodyne lidar (light detection and range) unit, said to be an HDL-64E. That model has a 360-degree field-of-view and a 120-meter range, so one of the big questions has been why didn't the lasers (or the 360-degree radar) pick up pedestrian Elaine Herzberg before the vehicle hit her. Velodyne president Marta Thoma Hall told Bloomberg, "We are as baffled as anyone else. Certainly, our lidar is capable of clearly imaging Elaine and her bicycle in this situation. However, our lidar doesn't make the decision to put on the brakes or get out of her way."