AARoads Forum

Here's the full statement from the Tempe Police Department regarding the incident.

QuoteOn March 18, 2018 at approximately 10pm, Tempe PD responded to a traffic collision on Curry Road and Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. The vehicle involved is one of the Uber's self-driving vehicles. It was in autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel. The vehicle was traveling northbound just south of Curry Road when a female walking outside of the crosswalk crossed the road from west to east when she was struck by the Uber vehicle. The female was identified as 49 year old Elaine Herzberg. Herzberg was transported to a local area hospital where she passed away from her injuries. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17139518/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-crash-tempe-arizona

I'd still take my chances with a computerized car than a human eating/talking/on the phone/drowsy/etc

The article's headline should really read "Jaywalking pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle". 

It'll be interesting to see if it's possible to determine why the vehicle hit the pedestrian.  If the option was between that and, say, hitting a school bus filled with kids (yes, I know it's 10pm), or between hitting a pedestrian and hitting a person changing a tire on the side of the road, then unfortunately it's a battle for the least unfortunate decision. 

Was the pedestrian crossing at an unmarked intersection (where I believe some laws have an implied crosswalk?), or in between intersections?

The intersection in question: https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,+Tempe,+AZ+85281/@33.4374148,-111.9436556,130m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x872b0931b4d9dd05:0x5d55a20356caaf8!8m2!3d33.4377022!4d-111.9433046

Uber vehicle was approaching intersection from the south; pedestrian was crossing Mill Ave left to right "walking outside of the crosswalk" (quoting police report) when struck.

There was a "vehicle operator" behind the wheel. Does this mean a human was in the driver seat and a brake pedal could have been pushed?  :hmmm:

Quote from: cjk374 on March 19, 2018, 06:21:37 PM
There was a "vehicle operator" behind the wheel. Does this mean a human was in the driver seat and a brake pedal could have been pushed?  :hmmm:

Most likely yes - but being out of control, operator probably paid little attention to the road.

At the bottom of, or just off the bottom of, the link I posted above, there are 2 brick colored pathways forming an X in the median south of the intersection, which is rather heavily landscaped. Via Street View, at least one post can be seen in the median with a "No Pedestrians" image, and wording "use crosswalk" with an arrow below it. So why on earth is there a paved walkway in the median if it's not to be used? I did read something earlier today stating that this is a known location of jaywalkers.

Uber vehicle was reportedly traveling 40mph at the time of impact. A pedestrian pushing a bicycle emerging from behind some brush into a traffic lane in the middle of a road at 10 PM is unfortunately something that's not easy to react to-by a human driver in full control of a car, or an "Uber vehicle operator" or a bank of computers.

Speaks to the unpredictability of circumstances on the road. Technology's got a ways yet to go before things like that can be responded to.

I wonder if the victim expected the car to brake, or if she would have been hit even if brakes were applied. While this case points up one of the problems with autonomous vehicles, I still think the woman could have easily prevented it by (1) not jaywalking and (2) being more attentive. Tendency is to blame the car (and/or operator) but that's not necessarily reflective of the full picture in this case.

Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Though I am worried that this autonomous vehicle did not have a decent night sensor. Uber really rushed into their testing, unlike much older projects like Waymo (Alphabet/Google) and established automakers.

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by pedestrians looking up from their handheld devices, lowering the volume on their earbuds, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them.

I'm not necessarily saying the pedestrian was at-fault in this case (too many details yet unknown), nor deserved to die, but after observing the display of utter stupidity (both of sober and non-sober students) whilst driving through college campuses numerous times is astounding and tends to skew one's opinion on pedestrian behavior.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 19, 2018, 11:25:28 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by pedestrians looking up from their handheld devices, lowering the volume on their earbuds, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them.

I'm not necessarily saying the pedestrian was at-fault in this case (too many details yet unknown), nor deserved to die, but after observing the display of utter stupidity (both of sober and non-sober students) whilst driving through college campuses numerous times is astounding and tends to skew one's opinion on pedestrian behavior.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by drivers looking up from their handheld devices, turning off their radio, lowering their windows, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them. (But they don't)

P.S. A pedestrian listening to music can still hear far more than a driver not listening to anything in their car. "Noise-cancelling features" being touted by auto companies worsens street safety for the rest of us!

Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 19, 2018, 11:25:28 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by pedestrians looking up from their handheld devices, lowering the volume on their earbuds, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them.

I'm not necessarily saying the pedestrian was at-fault in this case (too many details yet unknown), nor deserved to die, but after observing the display of utter stupidity (both of sober and non-sober students) whilst driving through college campuses numerous times is astounding and tends to skew one's opinion on pedestrian behavior.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by drivers looking up from their handheld devices, turning off their radio, lowering their windows, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them. (But they don't)

P.S. A pedestrian listening to music can still hear far more than a driver not listening to anything in their car. "Noise-cancelling features" being touted by auto companies worsens street safety for the rest of us!

Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

Thank you for helping prove my point. The intelligence of the roadway design can be virtually meaningless if all its users aren't paying attention.

Quote from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.phpPushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags, a woman abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic

38 in a 35? That's almost worth a LEO's time and would fall between the posted speed and the design speed of just about any modern roadway, road diet or not. You'd have more of a case if they ran a red light. Motor vehicle laws still don't negate the laws of Physics. Don't step off the curb in front of a moving vehicle.

PS: Noise has very little to do with a vehicle hitting a pedestrian, other than a visually-impaired person not being able to hear an oncoming vehicle (a real and documented danger of hybrid cars). How close would you be able to hear a pedestrian even if they were screaming, with your windows down, over the noise of the engine and tires on the pavement, and other vehicles on the road? 50-ft? 100-ft? Barely time to stop in the best of conditions, especially if the person is shrouded in shadows.

PPS: I'd like to see you drive around with your windows lowered when it's -3 outside and blowing snow.

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 19, 2018, 11:25:28 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by pedestrians looking up from their handheld devices, lowering the volume on their earbuds, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them.

I'm not necessarily saying the pedestrian was at-fault in this case (too many details yet unknown), nor deserved to die, but after observing the display of utter stupidity (both of sober and non-sober students) whilst driving through college campuses numerous times is astounding and tends to skew one's opinion on pedestrian behavior.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by drivers looking up from their handheld devices, turning off their radio, lowering their windows, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them. (But they don't)

P.S. A pedestrian listening to music can still hear far more than a driver not listening to anything in their car. "Noise-cancelling features" being touted by auto companies worsens street safety for the rest of us!

Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

Road diets also mean lower capacity, and if you are suggesting that you want an arterial lowered to 25mph, that's freaking insane man.

Maybe a road diet could work, if that ultimately terrifying world of ALL autonomous cars comes to fruition, but I am vehemently opposed to such a reality for various reasons. In fact, I see it as extremely frightening myself, consider the enormous power the government could have over something like that. But hey, you seem to fit in nicely with the post millennial who much prefers security over freedom, I recognize that there are dangers in driving and our society, but I'd much rather have the risk involved than the potential authoritarian control to transportation.


Both as a driver and pedestrian, I am very alert to all hazards. Perhaps traffic and pedestrians could move better if the latter especially followed the rules, as in DO NOT ENTER THE INTERSECTION ON A FLASHING HAND. In downtown Toronto, it's common in most intersections to see pedestrians enter the intersection even during the yellow ball. I don't care how cold it is, when that orange hand appears, I will not proceed further. The only close call I've ever had was with a CYCLIST and not a driver, as I was crossing a ONE WAY street and missed being hit by a cyclist by inches. (I didn't look against the flow of the street, why should I?)

There's no reason why we should believe uber's story until we seem some hard evidence (these vehicles must have a camera recording at all times... I'd hope). They're hardly the authority in a crash that they're possibly responsible for.

This photo taken after the crash shows a bicycle with its front wheel bent:
(https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/screen-shot-2018-03-19-at-1-06-09-pm.jpg?quality=82&w=2500#038;strip=all&w=1600)

Also note on the east side of the X shaped concrete feature that was discussed above (the site of the picture above) there's a mixing zone between the bike lane and the right turning lane–an infamously dangerous place for cyclists.

I think there's certainly more to this story than uber and the media would like to report. I want to see a rigorous investigation.

If you see a person in the median with intent to cross, do you slow down a little? Or do you speed up without a care?

An autonomous vehicle should 100% be able to slow down when approaching. It had plenty of time, but would have had even more time to decide to slow down had it not been traveling so fast.

Also, road diets don't cut capacity by all that much. The main targets are usually extra turn lanes (this intersection has double-lefts) that ultimately turn out to be unnecessary. Ask a real traffic engineer, they'll tell you.

Quote from: Bruce on March 20, 2018, 01:00:25 AM
If you see a person in the median with intent to cross, do you slow down a little? Or do you speed up without a care?

An autonomous vehicle should 100% be able to slow down when approaching. It had plenty of time, but would have had even more time to decide to slow down had it not been traveling so fast.

Also, road diets don't cut capacity by all that much. The main targets are usually extra turn lanes (this intersection has double-lefts) that ultimately turn out to be unnecessary. Ask a real traffic engineer, they'll tell you.

It's not a one size fits all approach. But the traditional example of a "road diet", I usually understand as a 4 lane road (two in each direction) being downgraded to a single lane in each direction with a center left turn lane along with bike lanes on either side.

I should mention regarding dual left turn lanes, even with the desire for the powers that be to turn Highway 7 through York Region into what is now known as a "complete street", they have kept the dual left turn lanes in place at Hwy 7/Keele, creating a monstrous intersection that to me looks extremely unfriendly to pedestrians. So let's do the math, a complete street at Hwy 7/Keele, if you don't bother looking it up (assuming we are on the NW or SW corner) we have from north to south:

-1 WB Bike Lane
-3 WB General Purpose Lanes
-1 WB Bus Platform
-Separated Bus Lane for each direction
-2 EB Left Turn Lanes
-3 EB General Purpose Lanes
-1 EB Bike Lane
-1 EB Right Turn Lane

You're trying to tell me this is much better than the approach before. The traffic engineers obviously understood the disastrous effects of removing the right turn lane or one of the left turn lanes. It's not rocket science, even so called educated people can be brainwashed into thinking certain ways. Telling me to ask a real traffic engineer makes it seem like that you think I'm some sort of idiot.

Quote from: Bruce on March 20, 2018, 01:00:25 AM
If you see a person in the median with intent to cross, do you slow down a little? Or do you speed up without a care?

Did you even read the article you cited earlier?

Quote from: TPD Chief Sylvia MoirFrom viewing the videos, "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,"  Moir said. The police have not released the videos.

Quote from: Bruce on March 20, 2018, 01:00:25 AMAn autonomous vehicle should 100% be able to slow down when approaching. It had plenty of time, but would have had even more time to decide to slow down had it not been traveling so fast.

And the pedestrian has even more time to react to an oncoming vehicle with its headlights on. In the case of the vehicle, you can't stop for what you can't see. Based on the reported speed and ignoring perception-reaction time, it would take approximately an additional 11-ft to stop versus if it had been traveling the posted speed limit. (source)

Quote from: MisterSG1 on March 20, 2018, 01:11:42 AM

Quote from: Bruce on March 20, 2018, 01:00:25 AM
If you see a person in the median with intent to cross, do you slow down a little? Or do you speed up without a care?

An autonomous vehicle should 100% be able to slow down when approaching. It had plenty of time, but would have had even more time to decide to slow down had it not been traveling so fast.

Also, road diets don't cut capacity by all that much. The main targets are usually extra turn lanes (this intersection has double-lefts) that ultimately turn out to be unnecessary. Ask a real traffic engineer, they'll tell you.

It's not a one size fits all approach. But the traditional example of a "road diet", I usually understand as a 4 lane road (two in each direction) being downgraded to a single lane in each direction with a center left turn lane along with bike lanes on either side.

MisterSG1 has the general idea of a road diet correct...the traditional road diet reduces the overall number of lanes along the link, not at the nodes (intersection). FHWA agrees (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/)

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM
Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

Look at the link Davewiecking posted: 

Quote from: davewiecking on March 19, 2018, 04:13:22 PM
The intersection in question: https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,+Tempe,+AZ+85281/@33.4374148,-111.9436556,130m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x872b0931b4d9dd05:0x5d55a20356caaf8!8m2!3d33.4377022!4d-111.9433046

Uber vehicle was approaching intersection from the south; pedestrian was crossing Mill Ave left to right "walking outside of the crosswalk" (quoting police report) when struck.

Does this look like an area where a road diet and/or a 25 mph zone would work?  There's no businesses and no driveways leading out onto the main roads at this point.  The fact that it is a 35 mph zone is probably only due to the overpass over the river at that point.  I know you are hyper-anti-car, but we can't have 25 mph zones and road diets all over the place for no reason.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 03:49:03 PMThe article's headline should really read "Jaywalking pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle".

So she was asking for it?

Even the hardest pro-car person surely doesn't feel jaywalking is punishable by death?

Though the jaywalking does raise questions - can the self-driving car tech not handle emergency stop situations? Is it only expecting pedestrians to walk only within certain bounds? Does it therefore expect all cars to be doing under the speed limit? Either way it is clear that halting tests is important - something is wrong in the specification if it can't and won't deal with behaviour that is either unexpected/not following the rules to the letter.

Quote from: english si on March 20, 2018, 08:08:06 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 03:49:03 PMThe article's headline should really read "Jaywalking pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle".

So she was asking for it?

Even the hardest pro-car person surely doesn't feel jaywalking is punishable by death?

Though the jaywalking does raise questions - can the self-driving car tech not handle emergency stop situations? Is it only expecting pedestrians to walk only within certain bounds? Does it therefore expect all cars to be doing under the speed limit? Either way it is clear that halting tests is important - something is wrong in the specification if it can't and won't deal with behaviour that is either unexpected/not following the rules to the letter.

Automatic control absolutely has to be able to handle emergency situations. Driving straight line is quite simple...  What happened here, I assume, either pedestrian was not visible to cameras and sensors (no reason not to have a lidar in such system), or was not recognized as moving object.
First situation is quite common for human driver as well, someone steps on the road from between parked cars, giving no warning to traffic...  Marked and unmarked crossings are normally setup to provide visibility - including limiting car parking to a certain distance. Police said something along the lines "stepped out from shadows" - but shadow itself should be zero issue for lidar. Shadow as being behind brushes may be a different story.
Not recognized as moving is another possible issue. Standing still and talking on a phone, and then making a step without looking?

Unfortunately, video is unlikely to be released for such situation. It would tell a lot...

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 19, 2018, 11:25:28 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
Future fatalities can easily be prevented with better road design. Less lanes and smarter signals, better pedestrian and bike facilities, and better lighting.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by pedestrians looking up from their handheld devices, lowering the volume on their earbuds, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them.

I'm not necessarily saying the pedestrian was at-fault in this case (too many details yet unknown), nor deserved to die, but after observing the display of utter stupidity (both of sober and non-sober students) whilst driving through college campuses numerous times is astounding and tends to skew one's opinion on pedestrian behavior.

Future fatalities can also be easily prevented by drivers looking up from their handheld devices, turning off their radio, lowering their windows, and paying attention to the signs, signals, laws, and environment around them. (But they don't)

P.S. A pedestrian listening to music can still hear far more than a driver not listening to anything in their car. "Noise-cancelling features" being touted by auto companies worsens street safety for the rest of us!

Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

I've often noticed people like Bruce are quick to blame everyone else in bicycle and pedestrian accidents.  It sours a lot of people's thoughts on bicyclists and peds sharing the road when their attitude is so one sided.  There's one guy that comments on articles in the Philly Inquirer where he constantly and blatantly said he runs red lights because it's safer than getting rear ended at the red light.  He's offered no evidence showing bicyclists are getting rear-ended at red lights, especially in bicycle lanes.  It's almost as if he is completely feels he will never be cited for such red light running.  If a car driver wanted to go thru a red light claiming he didn't want to get hit from behind, they'll take away his keys.

In this case, he is quick to cite the 'speeding' vehicle...at 3 mph over the limit, while completely ignoring that the bicyclist, by all accounts, decided to switch lanes without warning directly in front of another vehicle.  Arguments like this, which are occurring all over the bicyclist community, continue to reduce public support for bicyclists.  If they would simply admit that, even in part, the bicyclist is at fault, then it would help to foster a relationship between the two.

Quote from: english si on March 20, 2018, 08:08:06 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2018, 03:49:03 PMThe article's headline should really read "Jaywalking pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle".

So she was asking for it?

Even the hardest pro-car person surely doesn't feel jaywalking is punishable by death?

Absolutely, no one should die accidently ever.  But when you do it properly it dramatically decreases the chances of getting hit.  A skydiver shouldn't die either, but if they decide to open their parachute 300 feet off the ground vs. 3,000 feet, their chances of dying increase dramatically as well.

Quote
Though the jaywalking does raise questions - can the self-driving car tech not handle emergency stop situations? Is it only expecting pedestrians to walk only within certain bounds? Does it therefore expect all cars to be doing under the speed limit? Either way it is clear that halting tests is important - something is wrong in the specification if it can't and won't deal with behaviour that is either unexpected/not following the rules to the letter.

I think that assumption ignores the vast amount of testing that has already been done with these vehicles on the road, and how few accidents they've been in.  Of course they can deal with all sorts of conditions, especially illegal conditions.  That said, as posted upthread, based on an officer's review of the video that was posted there wasn't much chance for anyone to react:

Quote from: TPD Chief Sylvia MoirFrom viewing the videos, "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,"  Moir said. The police have not released the videos.

Quote from: kalvado on March 20, 2018, 08:48:43 AM
Unfortunately, video is unlikely to be released for such situation. It would tell a lot...

Totally agree.  But this is what'll happen.  Someone will take the vehicle, reduce it to 1/16th speed, brighten the image, and then show the motorist should have had plenty of time to react.  In real time, that whole sequence took a half second.  At reduced speed, you'll see it over a period of 5 seconds, with certain people claiming that the motorist should've completely saw what was coming (while, again, ignoring the bicyclists' actions).

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM
Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

This collision has nothing to do with speed.  This real problem here was a pedestrian who wasn't paying attention and an automated car that was unable to register her.  They're both at fault.

Provide evidence she wasn't paying attention.

Speed is also a nontrivial factor, even within a range of 3-5 mph above the speed limit. Your chance of dying as a pedestrian after being struck at 35 mph is 31%–compare that to 39% at 38 mph or 45% at 40 mph (reports of the vehicle's speed are conflicting). Considering the victim was hospitalized after being hit, 3-5 mph could have meant the difference between life and death.

Interior and exterior dash footage released of the fatal crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTXd5bfX_GI

It's pretty obvious now that the pedestrian did not "dart" into traffic. She was already 2/3rds across and would be clearly visible to a responsible driver. And the driver could have stopped had the roadway been at a lower speed limit or given proper safety treatments (engineered for slower speeds, more lights added, more crosswalks).

Uber really did rush into this. If you read their statements during the Waymo lawsuit a few months ago, it's clear that they were trying to race their competitors and beat them. Highly irresponsible from them (but not unexpected of any car company...they don't care about safety) and from the government of Arizona for ceding public roadways as a test course.

Quote from: tradephoric on March 21, 2018, 07:02:15 PM
Interior and exterior dash footage released of the fatal crash:

On one hand, pedestrian is not doing anyone a favor by walking across dark road in dark clothes. I am not sure what would be the outcome if I was driving.
On the other hand, this is exactly the situation where electronic driver should be able to perform much  better than a meaty one in avoiding an accident.

Quote from: Bruce on March 21, 2018, 07:54:38 PM
It's pretty obvious now that the pedestrian did not "dart" into traffic. She was already 2/3rds across and would be clearly visible to a responsible driver. And the driver could have stopped had the roadway been at a lower speed limit or given proper safety treatments (engineered for slower speeds, more lights added, more crosswalks).

Uber really did rush into this. If you read their statements during the Waymo lawsuit a few months ago, it's clear that they were trying to race their competitors and beat them. Highly irresponsible from them (but not unexpected of any car company...they don't care about safety) and from the government of Arizona for ceding public roadways as a test course.

Generalize much? And at some point, these vehicles have to be used in the real world. Would you be this critical of airplane development too?

You can't even see her until the vehicle is 50-ft away from her (assuming Tempe uses a standard skip/dash ratio). The SUV wouldn't be able to stop in that short of a distance even if they were driving less than the speed limit.

There are two things that clearly would have helped her in this situation: crossing at an illuminated crosswalk or wearing something with retroreflective elements to it. Looks like her bike didn't have the required reflectors on the wheels either.

Does anyone know if this was a hybrid SUV? It seems odd how long it takes the victim to look at the vehicle... did she even hear the SUV coming?

I feel sorry for the victim's family, who now has this woman's accident visible over the internet. However, she was clearly jaywalking at the time. She was pushing the bicycle, not riding it; I'm not aware of any requirement for pushed devices to have reflectors. (Do baby strollers have reflectors?)

The Goog tells me that Uber uses XC90's, which come with a hybrid option-front wheels gas; rear wheels electric (although I can't find out quickly if it has "fake external engine noise"). Interestingly, the XC90 also comes with Pilot Assist standard, which is a semi-autonomous driving (low-speed traffic jams as well as general highway driving; https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/new-models/xc90). It also has Standard City Safety auto-braking technology, which detects imminent collisions and automatically brakes. Seems like the "stop before you hit something" technology was developed by Volvo, and Uber added the "get in the right lane and turn at the intersection" technology.

QuoteVolvo Cars' engineers have worked closely together with engineers from Uber to develop the XC90 premium SUVs that are to be supplied to Uber. The base vehicles incorporate all necessary safety, redundancy and core autonomous driving technologies that are required for Uber to add its own self-driving technology.

(https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/216738/volvo-cars-to-supply-tens-of-thousands-of-autonomous-drive-compatible-cars-to-uber)

But I keep coming back to what I wrote 2 days ago. Why are there sidewalks in the middle of the median if they weren't to be used as such (and were signed to not be used)? In many places where authorities have recognized a problem middle-of-the-block crossing, they put up a fence in the median, because signs just plain don't work, especially in a poorly lit area at night.

I think the analogy with early airflight testing is a bad one. Although there may have been fatalities on the ground, those choosing to make early plane flights were well aware of the risks, and made the choice to fly anyway. I'm not sure many people moved to Tempe, AZ because they wanted to be guinea pigs for self-driving cars.

I believe I would have seen the pedestrian sooner from the drivers seat than it appears in the video just because our eyes do better than regular video cameras in low light situations, they just do. Even with that, I did see that a set of (headlights?) in the oncoming lane way in the distance get dim from left to right as an object crossed in front of it, and then the shoe of the pedestrian became visible in the same lane as the striking vehicle just as the clock changed from :02-:03. Saying that would be unfair to anyone driving this vehicle because I was a) on a second pass through the video and b) was expecting someone to suddenly appear in front of the car in a place they didn't belong. Notice the lack of any signs, markings, smoke signals, anything showing that this was a legal crosswalk.

I now can see why the car didn't pick up the conflict until it was too late, because she wasn't occupying the lane the car was in until the last instant. Are these things even capable of picking up and resolving low mass, low speed potential conflicts before they actually move into the path of the vehicle-something people have been doing since they first grabbed a steering wheel?

In any event, she didn't do herself any favors, notice that when she came into view she was looking down at the ground and away from the direction traffic would be coming? I am sure the car would have been visible to her long before she would have been visible to even an attentive driver.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 21, 2018, 08:45:19 PM
Generalize much? And at some point, these vehicles have to be used in the real world. Would you be this critical of airplane development too?

You can't even see her until the vehicle is 50-ft away from her (assuming Tempe uses a standard skip/dash ratio). The SUV wouldn't be able to stop in that short of a distance even if they were driving less than the speed limit.

There are two things that clearly would have helped her in this situation: crossing at an illuminated crosswalk or wearing something with retroreflective elements to it. Looks like her bike didn't have the required reflectors on the wheels either.

Does anyone know if this was a hybrid SUV? It seems odd how long it takes the victim to look at the vehicle... did she even hear the SUV coming?

There was a time where U.S. automakers tried to stifle new safety mechanisms and the unsafe nature of their vehicles, all because it would hurt sales.



Would you wear a reflective coat all day, every day? It's hard to buy one for every size while being comfortable. Heck, even a brightly covered coat is very hard to find, since everyone wears dark colors!

Quote from: davewiecking on March 21, 2018, 11:12:09 PM
I feel sorry for the victim's family, who now has this woman's accident visible over the internet. However, she was clearly jaywalking at the time. She was pushing the bicycle, not riding it; I'm not aware of any requirement for pushed devices to have reflectors. (Do baby strollers have reflectors?)

Quote from: §1512.16   Requirements for reflectors
There shall be retroreflective tire sidewalls or, alternatively, reflectors mounted on the spokes of each wheel, or, for non-caliper rim brake bicycles, retroreflective wheel rims. The center of spoke-mounted reflectors shall be within 76 mm (3.0 in.) of the inside of the rim. Side reflective devices shall be visible on each side of the wheel.

Source

If you regularly operate a baby stroller in the street, I would assume it would need reflectors as well. Crossing a street likely wouldn't count as "operating in the street" in the same manner a motor vehicle would.

Quote from: Bruce on March 21, 2018, 11:34:48 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 21, 2018, 08:45:19 PM
Generalize much? And at some point, these vehicles have to be used in the real world. Would you be this critical of airplane development too?

You can't even see her until the vehicle is 50-ft away from her (assuming Tempe uses a standard skip/dash ratio). The SUV wouldn't be able to stop in that short of a distance even if they were driving less than the speed limit.

There are two things that clearly would have helped her in this situation: crossing at an illuminated crosswalk or wearing something with retroreflective elements to it. Looks like her bike didn't have the required reflectors on the wheels either.

Does anyone know if this was a hybrid SUV? It seems odd how long it takes the victim to look at the vehicle... did she even hear the SUV coming?

There was a time where U.S. automakers tried to stifle new safety mechanisms and the unsafe nature of their vehicles, all because it would hurt sales.

Yeah, until automakers found they sell more vehicles the safer they are. Why do you think crash ratings get inserted into seemingly every car ad?

Quote from: Bruce on March 21, 2018, 11:34:48 PM
Would you wear a reflective coat all day, every day? It's hard to buy one for every size while being comfortable. Heck, even a brightly covered coat is very hard to find, since everyone wears dark colors!

Ever heard of a safety vest? You can even buy them at WallyWorld; large enough to fit over just about any coat.

Quote from: Bruce on March 19, 2018, 11:37:21 PM
Also, the Uber was speeding (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php) (38 in a 35). Road diets would make it much harder for it to speed, and the limits can be reduced to a safer speed like 25 mph for arterials.

Wow three over! Come on! Most states have a 5 over lenience. 


iPhone

Quote from: §1512.16   Requirements for reflectors
There shall be retroreflective tire sidewalls or, alternatively, reflectors mounted on the spokes of each wheel, or, for non-caliper rim brake bicycles, retroreflective wheel rims. The center of spoke-mounted reflectors shall be within 76 mm (3.0 in.) of the inside of the rim. Side reflective devices shall be visible on each side of the wheel.

Source

Thanks for linking the source. For now, I'm going to respond with: Title 16, Chapter 8 (of which §1512 is a part) covers the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which relates to the condition of devices at the time of sale. I don't believe the CPSC relates to traffic laws. By your logic, if I have to replace a broken spoke and have to temporarily remove the reflector in order to do so, I'm in violation and the CPSC should site me for possessing such a thing, even if I'm sitting on my front porch.

Quote from: davewiecking on March 22, 2018, 12:19:45 AM

Quote from: §1512.16   Requirements for reflectors
There shall be retroreflective tire sidewalls or, alternatively, reflectors mounted on the spokes of each wheel, or, for non-caliper rim brake bicycles, retroreflective wheel rims. The center of spoke-mounted reflectors shall be within 76 mm (3.0 in.) of the inside of the rim. Side reflective devices shall be visible on each side of the wheel.

Source

Thanks for linking the source. For now, I'm going to respond with: Title 16, Chapter 8 (of which §1512 is a part) covers the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which relates to the condition of devices at the time of sale. I don't believe the CPSC relates to traffic laws. By your logic, if I have to replace a broken spoke and have to temporarily remove the reflector in order to do so, I'm in violation and the CPSC should site me for possessing such a thing, even if I'm sitting on my front porch.

By my logic? Ahh no. You're taking what I said a couple steps in the wrong direction. How is sitting on your porch the same thing as operating it on a public street? Just like it's one thing for your car to have a broken reflector or light while it's on your property. It's a completely different situation if you're driving said car down the street. The latter can get you pulled over and ticketed for an equipment violation.

Further, if you have a broken spoke, with the way most wheel reflectors are designed, you can easily relocate and reattach the reflector to a different location on the same wheel.

Quote from: Bruce on March 21, 2018, 07:54:38 PM
It's pretty obvious now that the pedestrian did not "dart" into traffic. She was already 2/3rds across and would be clearly visible to a responsible driver. And the driver could have stopped had the roadway been at a lower speed limit or given proper safety treatments (engineered for slower speeds, more lights added, more crosswalks).

Really?  At what point did you see the person? 

As for everything else you said: Nonsense.  What sense would it be to engineer the road for lower speeds?  There's nothing on either side of the road.  Why did the pedestrian decide to cross at this point?  There's no reason for the road to be given a lower speed limit and crosswalks be added where there's absolutely nothing around.  In fact, I think she's on a bridge or just off the bridge at this point.  As for lights on the road - again, there's no reason to light up every road everwhere.  It would be an incredibly inefficient use of lighting, and would dramatically contribute to light pollution.

It's unfortunate the driver was looking down, because it easily switches the focus off the car that was truly hidden until the last half-second. 

I'm pretty sure that people that want lower speed limits on every road will be equally unhappy once they realize that their buses and other means of transportation take much longer as well...because they have to go slower speed also.

I saw the dashcam footage this morning on the news.  I honestly did not see the pedestrian until the last second and I doubt very much that I would have avoided hitting her had I been driving.  While it's unfortunate that the pedestrian was killed, I believe that it was her inattentiveness and irresponsibility that led to her demise.

While most people hate trial lawyers, and there is a lot there to hate with their w***e witnesses spewing junk science and their obnoxious commercials, they do serve a purpose in our society.  At the end of the say lawsuit losses eventually change bad behaviors by corporations. 

Think of this.  This crew actually was willing to TEST an unproven technology on city streets around unconsenting people.  And now they have KILLED someone.

Hopefully everyone involved will be reduced to poverty and this dead end pipedream technology can be ridiculed for the load of crap it is.

Pedestrian really did a lot to get hit; but there is still one big question:
WHY electronics didn't see her???  Looks like the car doesn't even try to brake within that last second.. And that is with sensor suit which is far superior to human eye...
Computer relies on visible light camera information only? Then ban such design from the road RIGHT NOW!
Lidar picked her up, but object wasn't recognized as dangerous? DOn't believe so.
Lidar was inop (e.g. dirt on glass)? Well, maybe. That should affect the operating standards quite a bit.
Black clothing was also too black in infrared, so lidar didn't pick her up? Plausible, but very disturbing...

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 11:16:16 AM
While most people hate trial lawyers, and there is a lot there to hate with their w***e witnesses spewing junk science and their obnoxious commercials, they do serve a purpose in our society.  At the end of the say lawsuit losses eventually change bad behaviors by corporations. 

Think of this.  This crew actually was willing to TEST an unproven technology on city streets around unconsenting people.  And now they have KILLED someone.

Hopefully everyone involved will be reduced to poverty and this dead end pipedream technology can be ridiculed for the load of crap it is.

SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.
I hope traffic laws violated by pedestrian would allow Uber to get out of this case with minimal losses. Amount similar to what would be paid in case of human driver accident - and even that is too much.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 11:16:16 AM
While most people hate trial lawyers, and there is a lot there to hate with their w***e witnesses spewing junk science and their obnoxious commercials, they do serve a purpose in our society.  At the end of the say lawsuit losses eventually change bad behaviors by corporations. 

Think of this.  This crew actually was willing to TEST an unproven technology on city streets around unconsenting people.  And now they have KILLED someone.

Hopefully everyone involved will be reduced to poverty and this dead end pipedream technology can be ridiculed for the load of crap it is.

Imagine if someone tried inventing an automobile today.  The very first crash that occurs where someone would be killed would be the end of the auto, correct?

We have 40,000 people dying in auto wrecks every year.  And yet that is perfectly acceptable.  Amazingly, in this one crash, many people cite that if the human was paying attention, the crash could've been avoided.  And yet, we still have 40,000 auto deaths in which humans were at the wheel, in control of the vehicle.  Every year.

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 11:22:03 AM


SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.

And they were wrong.  And now they have killed someone.  Someone who had not consented to be a part of their little test.  People that get things wrong get sued.  People that test bad ideas on unconsenting subjects should get jailed. 

The way you test new technology is in the lab and proving grounds.  Of course setting up a proving ground for this complex a technology would cost billions.  So they just tested on whoever.  And now someone is dead. 

So, you would be fine if Kellogg's made a new cereal.  Maybe its poison, maybe not.  Why bother feeding it to some lab rats.  You just dig in.  And, BTW, we are not even asking your permission, just randomly inserting the new formula among all the regular stuff.  Interesting.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:15:36 PM

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 11:22:03 AM


SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.

And they were wrong.  And now they have killed someone.  Someone who had not consented to be a part of their little test.  People that get things wrong get sued.  People that test bad ideas on unconsenting subjects should get jailed. 

The way you test new technology is in the lab and proving grounds.  Of course setting up a proving ground for this complex a technology would cost billions.  So they just tested on whoever.  And now someone is dead. 

So, you would be fine if Kellogg's made a new cereal.  Maybe its poison, maybe not.  Why bother feeding it to some lab rats.  You just dig in.  And, BTW, we are not even asking your permission, just randomly inserting the new formula among all the regular stuff.  Interesting.

You're assuming the real-world testing is the only testing that occurs. Of course there is going to be computer simulation/lab testing and closed-course tracks, but at some point, yes, the real-world will have to be used. The real-world is a never ending test, since there is no way you can ever account for every possible scenario.

Obviously they did some lab testing.  Not enough, because they just killed somebody. 

I get a kick out the pipedreamers who point out how many person driven cars have had accidents.  Umm, yeah, but this dead end technology has already killed several, with 0.001% of the mileage, and most of that in cherry picked environments and on cars with non-real world levels of vehicle upkeep.  And yet, PER MILE DRIVEN, this dead end technology kills 10000s for every one a human does.  It is just too dangerous to allow further. 

But even if that was not so, it remains totally unethical to test anything on non-volunteers.  I thought we learned that from the Tuskegee scandal. 

Even if the average is 100 million miles (about the human average), there is about a 1% chance that it will happen within the first million miles. Are we sure this isn't the case?

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:15:36 PM

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 11:22:03 AM


SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.

And they were wrong.  And now they have killed someone.  Someone who had not consented to be a part of their little test.  People that get things wrong get sued.  People that test bad ideas on unconsenting subjects should get jailed. 

The way you test new technology is in the lab and proving grounds.  Of course setting up a proving ground for this complex a technology would cost billions.  So they just tested on whoever.  And now someone is dead. 

So, you would be fine if Kellogg's made a new cereal.  Maybe its poison, maybe not.  Why bother feeding it to some lab rats.  You just dig in.  And, BTW, we are not even asking your permission, just randomly inserting the new formula among all the regular stuff.  Interesting.

This is how you kill any innovation. Go to your cave and eat your raw wheat - flour mills are not proven to be safe enough, and stoves cause fires on a regular basis. And those studs in your house are treated with chemistry which may contain hell of a load of cancer-causing chemicals. They are tested to a certain level, but who said it is enough? Your home slowly kills you!
Anything new out there can have a glitch. Even Kellog cereal tested on lab rats can trigger allergy in someone - due to new processing technique of the grain, which causes problems to 1 person in a million.
Something more involved? Of course. Ever heard about car recalls? That is just that - lab tested technology not working in real life. Batteries burn, paints turn out to be toxic, and kids eat anything what fits in their mouth..
You may build a test city, hire 500,000 testers - but still not get someone wearing that specific brand and color of a jacket.

Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 03:05:04 PM
Even if the average is 100 million miles (about the human average), there is about a 1% chance that it will happen within the first million miles. Are we sure this isn't the case?

And you do expect MORE problems during testing than you get during regular use...

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:51:50 PM
And yet, PER MILE DRIVEN, this dead end technology kills 10000s for every one a human does.  It is just too dangerous to allow further.   

Source needed of the number of miles these cars have driven.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:09:27 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:51:50 PM
And yet, PER MILE DRIVEN, this dead end technology kills 10000s for every one a human does.  It is just too dangerous to allow further.   

Source needed of the number of miles these cars have driven.

Quote
Waymo this week said its test fleet has logged 5 million miles driving in autonomous mode on public roads. That's more than double the 2 million miles Uber reached in December (though both companies are now capable or racking up a million test miles about every three months, based on reporting by Forbes' Biz Carson)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/03/02/waymo-is-millions-of-miles-ahead-in-robot-car-tests-does-it-need-a-billion-more/#5f450c61ef4c

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 03:06:08 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on March 22, 2018, 02:15:36 PM

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 11:22:03 AM


SO how do you prove technology without testing it in real world? Apparently someone did testing on closed range, and assumed thing is safe enough for testing in a wild.

And they were wrong.  And now they have killed someone.  Someone who had not consented to be a part of their little test.  People that get things wrong get sued.  People that test bad ideas on unconsenting subjects should get jailed. 

The way you test new technology is in the lab and proving grounds.  Of course setting up a proving ground for this complex a technology would cost billions.  So they just tested on whoever.  And now someone is dead. 

So, you would be fine if Kellogg's made a new cereal.  Maybe its poison, maybe not.  Why bother feeding it to some lab rats.  You just dig in.  And, BTW, we are not even asking your permission, just randomly inserting the new formula among all the regular stuff.  Interesting.

This is how you kill any innovation. Go to your cave and eat your raw wheat - flour mills are not proven to be safe enough, and stoves cause fires on a regular basis. And those studs in your house are treated with chemistry which may contain hell of a load of cancer-causing chemicals. They are tested to a certain level, but who said it is enough? Your home slowly kills you!
Anything new out there can have a glitch. Even Kellog cereal tested on lab rats can trigger allergy in someone - due to new processing technique of the grain, which causes problems to 1 person in a million.
Something more involved? Of course. Ever heard about car recalls? That is just that - lab tested technology not working in real life. Batteries burn, paints turn out to be toxic, and kids eat anything what fits in their mouth..
You may build a test city, hire 500,000 testers - but still not get someone wearing that specific brand and color of a jacket.

I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

Well, 40K people get killed in US every year - and we assume it is acceptable.. Until you find yourself being 40,001-st one.
Suing for money - and probably getting settled for a undisclosed amount (likely paid off by insurance anyway) is perfectly legitimate. Same thing would happen with a human driver. Suing to kill entire technology as suggested?.. Not sure.

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.

Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 03:55:28 PM

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.

But the pilots are not passengers, just as the driver is not a passenger.  Yet the pilots must stay awake and alert for issues.

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Except it seems like there's a lot less to have to pay attention to in the air than in cars, especially since there are far more cars than airplanes. Pilots are seemingly better trained. IMO, partial automation as you describe it would be the most dangerous situation. How will the driver know when they have to intervene? That seems like it would add more to the perception-reaction time component of driving a car than that of 100-percent driver-controlled vehicles.

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 04:05:40 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 03:55:28 PM

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
I wonder if your tune would change if you or a loved one were the one hit.

"I am not going to sue since that would hamper innovation..."

While I think that's true, you can't exactly stop innovation. 

Look at pedestrians in general.  Say, someone gets hit and dies crossing at an intersection.  They don't ban vehicles.  The don't ban pedestrians.  They look to see what can make the situation safer.  Better marked crosswalks.  Better pedestrian signals.  Stuff like that. 

So the goal here is to make a safer self-driving vehicle...not ban them completely.

I have a feeling the best route to go is going to be partial automation, sort of what we already have on airplanes.  The driver will have to be awake and alert while monitoring the autopilot, but won't be able to completely let the autopilot run the vehicle 100%.

Almost all people traveling by airplane are passengers and therefore don't need to pay attention to their surroundings at all. This is not the case with cars.

But the pilots are not passengers, just as the driver is not a passenger.  Yet the pilots must stay awake and alert for issues.

And one of big problems is keeping pilots awake during long haul.. Latest changes in regulation require napping one at a time.
And I never use cruise control on a car...

The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY5O9JaVAAMIknK.jpg)

Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.

Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

 :popcorn:

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Uber is 100% at fault.

:rofl:

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PMLidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian

Now that I can agree with.

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 05:30:37 PM
Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

^ This guy gets it. Subtract out the autonomous Uber and we'd still very likely arrive at the same result with a dead pedestrian.

Quote from: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 05:30:37 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
The Associated Press, being the anti-car shills they are, asked two autnomous vehicle experts about the footage.

Uber is 100% at fault. Lidar should have easily picked up the pedestrian, end of story.

Not the end, but beginning of a story. Responsibility is assigned based on many factors, and pedestrian was in violation of multiple laws here, and any court would recognize that as contributing factor.
I basically asked same questions about lidar upstream, but that does not preclude pedestrian behavior being a contributing factor. And as many people agreed here - human driver had very hard time seeing the problem.

Having seen the video, I doubt a human driver would have stopped in time. However, the car didn't slow at all, and it's systems can't use the dark as an excuse.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2018, 05:59:48 PMSubtract out the autonomous Uber and we'd still very likely arrive at the same result with a dead pedestrian.

The entire discussion can be summed up by that statement. It is totally irrelevant that the car happened to be an autonomous one, as the bicyclist, and only the bicyclist, could have guaranteed the incident didn't happen by being attentive and doing the right thing.

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?

Quote from: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?

Did NTSB say that they are going to be involved? I wouldn't be surprized, since it is a high-profile case; but they definitely not get involved in regular crashes.

Why is it that in this society, we have to find a single source of blame in a situation?

This (as with many situations) seems to be one of multiple valid sources of blame. To sit and argue why one issue trumps the other issue is counter-productive.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 23, 2018, 10:27:09 AM
Why is it that in this society, we have to find a single source of blame in a situation?

This (as with many situations) seems to be one of multiple valid sources of blame. To sit and argue why one issue trumps the other issue is counter-productive.

People tend to like to have sources.  And even more so, names.  Or even sex.  If we find out the driver is a female, we can say they are always on their cell phones or putting on makeup.  If it's a male, all males drive fast.  With names, we can instantly tell their nationality and whether they should be deported.  With sources, we can pin everything on one thing.

Obviously, what we really like is to make generic, stereotypical, disparaging remarks.

Of course, we could wait for the facts to come out, but that takes too long. And we'll ignore them anyway.

Quote from: kalvado on March 23, 2018, 10:13:58 AM

Quote from: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah, anti-car, blah.

How about waiting for the NTSB report before passing judgement on whose fault it is, or if the fault is spread between the two?

Did NTSB say that they are going to be involved? I wouldn't be surprized, since it is a high-profile case; but they definitely not get involved in regular crashes.

Yes, NTSB and NHTSA are both involved.

13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

welcome to real world

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
Blah blah blah anti-car blah

Again, let's wait for the NTSB report before passing judgement like a bunker blast.

Quote from: Bruce on March 23, 2018, 10:41:01 PM
13 miles per intervention for Uber, compared to 5,600 for Waymo. Uber is recklessly trying to be "first" instead of prioritizing public safety, and Arizona is letting them do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Not surprising.  Uber and Lyft are both currently subsidizing fares in order to undercut taxis, hoping that they can get self-driving cars operational and eliminate their drivers before they lose too much money and the confidence of investors.

ars technica: Police chief said Uber victim "came from the shadows" –don't believe it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/)

The dashcam footage from the Uber car appears to be very misleading in regards to the darkness on the road. The road is in fact lit and there is much more ambient light than is apparant from the Uber dashcam. The dashcam does show the light bulbs from the street lights (so they were on).

The Uber dashcam also shows only 1.5 seconds between the first view of the pedestrian and the crash. The headlights of the Volvo are also capable of illuminating the road much further ahead than is apparent on the Uber dashcam video. The dashcam video implies that the headlights of the Volvo have a range of less than 100 ft. In reality, this car's headlights have a range of at least 250 ft at low beam.

Regardless of the lighting situation, lidar should have been able to detect the object on the road, this is in fact one of the easiest circumstances, the pedestrian did not just walk from behind a parked car, but had already crossed one lane so was on the road for a considerable amount of time.

So both a human driver and the autonomous systems should've been able to avoid this accident.

The Uber dashcam footage:
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-22-at-10.34.27-PM-980x470.png)

Video footage by other motorists of that same location:
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/kaufman_tempe-980x545.png)

Quote from: Chris on March 25, 2018, 05:04:51 AM
ars technica: Police chief said Uber victim "came from the shadows" –don't believe it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/)

The dashcam footage from the Uber car appears to be very misleading in regards to the darkness on the road. The road is in fact lit and there is much more ambient light than is apparant from the Uber dashcam. The dashcam does show the light bulbs from the street lights (so they were on).

The Uber dashcam also shows only 1.5 seconds between the first view of the pedestrian and the crash. The headlights of the Volvo are also capable of illuminating the road much further ahead than is apparent on the Uber dashcam video. The dashcam video implies that the headlights of the Volvo have a range of less than 100 ft. In reality, this car's headlights have a range of at least 250 ft at low beam.

Regardless of the lighting situation, lidar should have been able to detect the object on the road, this is in fact one of the easiest circumstances, the pedestrian did not just walk from behind a parked car, but had already crossed one lane so was on the road for a considerable amount of time.

So both a human driver and the autonomous systems should've been able to avoid this accident.

The Uber dashcam footage:
(trimmed)

Video footage by other motorists of that same location:
(trimmed)

Well, vehicle is coming from underpass. Road is likely not level, and grade can change pretty quickly. That means distance to edge of headlights spot can vary quite a bit. As a contributing factor, high-end car like Volvo could have an active control of headlights beam direction.
As for illumination.. relatively low posts with fixtures barely over the edge of the road...  Such lights are visibility killers, not aids for me.
And, apparently, pedestrian should yield to traffic while crossing outside of a crosswalk area - in fact in area with a "do not walk" sign. So legal case will not be cut and dry, and likely would be settled out of court.
Of course, tweaking video and comparison with high-gain cameras is useful to create public perception of oh-so-evil Uber and increasing amount of settlement.

Real question is why sensors didn't see pedestrian - or why control software didn't respond properly.

The two pics were taken at different times; maybe has high beams on, street lights may not have been working the night of the accident, etc.

The comparison photos are meaningless.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
The two pics were taken at different times; maybe has high beams on, street lights may not have been working the night of the accident, etc.

The comparison photos are meaningless.

Not to mention the different angles/vantage points. Is the Uber really from a dash cam? The angle makes it seem more like it was from a camera mounted in or near the grille. And there's always the potential the image could have been doctored (intentionally or unintentionally), depending on the quality/type of camera used to record the image.

The low light capabilities of cameras can vary widely.  Even the best performing low light cameras can produce dark footage at high f-stops.  Here is a picture from a photography website showing different aperture settings of the same night scene:

(https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/When-to-use-larger-apertures-chart.jpg)

The point is there is no way of knowing what the human driver would have seen just by watching that Uber footage.  An interesting test would be to replicate the Uber crash as closely as possible with a low budget dash cam... then mount a $2000 Sony A7S II with great low light capability and optimum aperture settings and post both recreation videos side-by-side.  People may have a different opinion about the Uber footage then, and they may no longer believe the Police Chief when she says the victim "came from the shadows".

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 07:59:51 AM
The low light capabilities of cameras can vary widely.  Even the best performing low light cameras can produce dark footage at high f-stops.  Here is a picture from a photography website showing different aperture settings of the same night scene:

(https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/When-to-use-larger-apertures-chart.jpg)

The point is there is no way of knowing what the human driver would have seen just by watching that Uber footage.  An interesting test would be to replicate the Uber crash as closely as possible with a low budget dash cam… then mount a $2000 Sony A7S II with great low light capability and optimum aperture settings and post both recreation videos side-by-side.  People may have a different opinion about the Uber footage then, and they may no longer believe the Police Chief when she says the victim "came from the shadows".

When/if they recreate accident scenes, they use humans, not cameras.  Cameras may be part of the recreation to document what they are doing, but they are using actual people to determine what would've been seen, based on the exact conditions that existed; not conditions that should have existed. 

Of course, in what you said, you are already believing that the Chief lied, and that a more expensive camera will prove that.  In of itself, that's a prejudicial remark, because you don't want to think that the jaywalking pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with.  You don't want a study; you want vindication for your own thoughts.

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 07:59:51 AM
The low light capabilities of cameras can vary widely.  Even the best performing low light cameras can produce dark footage at high f-stops.  Here is a picture from a photography website showing different aperture settings of the same night scene:

The point is there is no way of knowing what the human driver would have seen just by watching that Uber footage.  An interesting test would be to replicate the Uber crash as closely as possible with a low budget dash cam... then mount a $2000 Sony A7S II with great low light capability and optimum aperture settings and post both recreation videos side-by-side.  People may have a different opinion about the Uber footage then, and they may no longer believe the Police Chief when she says the victim "came from the shadows".

Realistically speaking, most people on this site have their license and thousands hours behind the wheel, so lousy video is not the only source of information for us. Uber's camera is not great, but I would say it emulates eye better than high-end one. Crash happened around 10 PM, about 3 hours after sunset (6.39 PM) - so it was actually dark.
There is a link to the accident location somewhere upstream, let me post it again (slightly back from the crash location): https://www.google.com/maps/@33.435806,-111.9420409,3a,75y,347h,98.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHTvoeeS6NPEocIyYNvrCyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
You can clearly see light fixtures are pretty low, and not wide angle. There are 4 on right side of the road above sidewalk, and a lone one on the left..  I would call those sidewalk illumination, nothing else.
Pedestrian is crossing past that lone light source on the left - and looks to me as if there is a tree blocking light next to that pole. There is a pretty sharp shadow line visible in video. That would make for a challenging detection for a human driver, sure.
It just happened that the oncoming car was a self-driving one; situation would be very clear-cut for a human driver.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2018, 08:22:43 AM

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 07:59:51 AM
The low light capabilities of cameras can vary widely.  Even the best performing low light cameras can produce dark footage at high f-stops.  Here is a picture from a photography website showing different aperture settings of the same night scene:

The point is there is no way of knowing what the human driver would have seen just by watching that Uber footage.  An interesting test would be to replicate the Uber crash as closely as possible with a low budget dash cam... then mount a $2000 Sony A7S II with great low light capability and optimum aperture settings and post both recreation videos side-by-side.  People may have a different opinion about the Uber footage then, and they may no longer believe the Police Chief when she says the victim "came from the shadows".

When/if they recreate accident scenes, they use humans, not cameras.  Cameras may be part of the recreation to document what they are doing, but they are using actual people to determine what would've been seen, based on the exact conditions that existed; not conditions that should have existed. 

Of course, in what you said, you are already believing that the Chief lied, and that a more expensive camera will prove that.  In of itself, that's a prejudicial remark, because you don't want to think that the jaywalking pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with.  You don't want a study; you want vindication for your own thoughts.

It is natural for people to protect a poor little guy from powerful and rich evil corporation.
The unwanted part of it is effectively saying that jaywalking in challenging visibility is OK. Those poor souls who choose to believe that message (may them rest in peace) wouldn't make it to headlines, though. So side effects will not be understood and lessons will not be learned...

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 08:33:40 AM
It is natural for people to protect a poor little guy from powerful and rich evil corporation.
The unwanted part of it is effectively saying that jaywalking in challenging visibility is OK. Those poor souls who choose to believe that message (may them rest in peace) wouldn't make it to headlines, though. So side effects will not be understood and lessons will not be learned...

I also noticed in this case that rather than just saying 'a better camera', one takes the time to mention a very specific camera, with specific capabilities.  I'm sure I can adjust my cell phone camera's settings to eventually produce a general image close to one that will support my opinion. 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2018, 08:54:03 AM

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 08:33:40 AM
It is natural for people to protect a poor little guy from powerful and rich evil corporation.
The unwanted part of it is effectively saying that jaywalking in challenging visibility is OK. Those poor souls who choose to believe that message (may them rest in peace) wouldn't make it to headlines, though. So side effects will not be understood and lessons will not be learned...

I also noticed in this case that rather than just saying 'a better camera', one takes the time to mention a very specific camera, with specific capabilities.  I'm sure I can adjust my cell phone camera's settings to eventually produce a general image close to one that will support my opinion.

The way I read trade's message is "better camera could have saved the day - and look, those are available". And frankly speaking, Sony matrices are among the best (with all my dislike to that brand). That is a pretty reasonable thing to say (although I assume camera is not the primary source of data)
And yes, why electronics didn't see pedestrian is THE question for me. And I'm not sure if the camera providing this recording is in fact a part of a system, or just a simple off-the-shelf camera acting an independent witness for cases when things go wrong (or very wrong, as in this case). Which is  a reasonable thing to do - setup an independent recorder in addition to main system.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
Of course, in what you said, you are already believing that the Chief lied, and that a more expensive camera will prove that.  In of itself, that's a prejudicial remark, because you don't want to think that the jaywalking pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with.  You don't want a study; you want vindication for your own thoughts.

When watching the Uber video, it does look like the pedestrian "came out of the shadows" .  At face value, the Chief's initial description of the crash seems totally valid.  But I question if the Chief's opinion of the crash would have been different if the fatal crash was recorded on a high-end camera with better low light capabilities.  Does the pedestrian "come out of the shadows"  if the aperture settings on the camera had been set higher?  Unfortunately, the video camera settings used may largely dictate how the public views this fatal accident.

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 09:10:53 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
Of course, in what you said, you are already believing that the Chief lied, and that a more expensive camera will prove that.  In of itself, that's a prejudicial remark, because you don't want to think that the jaywalking pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with.  You don't want a study; you want vindication for your own thoughts.

When watching the Uber video, it does look like the pedestrian "came out of the shadows" .  At face value, the Chief's initial description of the crash seems totally valid.  But I question if the Chief's opinion of the crash would have been different if the fatal crash was recorded on a high-end camera with better low light capabilities.  Does the pedestrian "come out of the shadows"  if the aperture settings on the camera had been set higher?  Unfortunately, the video camera settings used may largely dictate how the public views this fatal accident.

Unlike most of us, chief did attend the spot of accident in person and seen it in pretty much same lighting conditions as it was at the time of accident. No need to guess camera settings, everything was presented first hand for careful observation. You don't have to trust that opinion - but you cannot deny that it is an educated one, as police chief likely seen tens, if not hundreds, of such situations during years of police career (and "chief" means some experience for sure).

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 09:22:52 AM

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 09:10:53 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
Of course, in what you said, you are already believing that the Chief lied, and that a more expensive camera will prove that.  In of itself, that's a prejudicial remark, because you don't want to think that the jaywalking pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with.  You don't want a study; you want vindication for your own thoughts.

When watching the Uber video, it does look like the pedestrian "came out of the shadows" .  At face value, the Chief's initial description of the crash seems totally valid.  But I question if the Chief's opinion of the crash would have been different if the fatal crash was recorded on a high-end camera with better low light capabilities.  Does the pedestrian "come out of the shadows"  if the aperture settings on the camera had been set higher?  Unfortunately, the video camera settings used may largely dictate how the public views this fatal accident.

Unlike most of us, chief did attend the spot of accident in person and seen it in pretty much same lighting conditions as it was at the time of accident. No need to guess camera settings, everything was presented first hand for careful observation. You don't have to trust that opinion - but you cannot deny that it is an educated one, as police chief likely seen tens, if not hundreds, of such situations during years of police career (and "chief" means some experience for sure).

The footage inside the Uber of the fatal crash is obviously a key piece of evidence in the investigation.  The Police Chief made her remarks of the pedestrian "coming out of the shadows"  after viewing that Uber video.  I do believe she got ahead of herself with those comments, but the facts will come out when the NTSB releases their final report (after all it's not just the Tempe Police investigating this crash).   My guess is the NTSB will recreate the crash, using high end cameras that far exceed the low light capabilities of a dash cam.  I'm curious to watch their recreation video if/when it is released.

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 10:27:34 AM
The footage inside the Uber of the fatal crash is obviously a key piece of evidence in the investigation.  The Police Chief made her remarks of the pedestrian "coming out of the shadows"  after viewing that Uber video.  I do believe she got ahead of herself with those comments, but the facts will come out when the NTSB releases their final report (after all it's not just the Tempe Police investigating this crash).   My guess is the NTSB will recreate the crash, using high end cameras that far exceed the low light capabilities of a dash cam.  I'm curious to watch their recreation video if/when it is released.

And high end cameras may show everything in finest details - but it wouldn't be what driver saw.
Tempe police definitely was on the spot of accident as first responders, either Tempe or AZ state evidence collection team did work the site. Issue probably escalated pretty quick - but NTSB cannot dispatch investigation team at midnight.
Overall situation is pretty clear, reconstruction wouldn't add much to understanding here.

And I think we're loosing focus here. Here is how I see situation:
-Uber was testing self-driving system. Such system should, by all means, notice pedestrian. It didn't. Why? 1st contributing factor.
-Uber sort of anticipated such problem and did due diligence by putting a human backup driver. Who may or may not paid full attention, but generally provides a layer of backup.
-And backup driver failed to react - possibly due to being unable to spot pedestrian on time. 2nd contributing factor. Was it actually so difficult to spot?(i suspect yes).
-Accident could be avoided if pedestrian would be more noticeable to backup driver. Jaywalking in dark clothes in the dark without yielding to traffic. 3d contributing factor
I think 1st one should be investigated in great depth, second and third are more common than we want them to be. Since video provides insight into 2 and 3 only, we tend to discuss those.. but honestly speaking - such accidents probably occur daily without attracting too much attention.

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 10:52:04 AM
And high end cameras may show everything in finest details - but it wouldn't be what driver saw.
Tempe police definitely was on the spot of accident as first responders, either Tempe or AZ state evidence collection team did work the site. Issue probably escalated pretty quick - but NTSB cannot dispatch investigation team at midnight.
Overall situation is pretty clear, reconstruction wouldn't add much to understanding here.

And a low end camera could show everything in poor detail - but it wouldn't be what driver saw.  But in my humble opinion, a high end camera with good low light capabilities would more closely match the details of what a human pupil would see...

The media narrative is that nobody could have seen the pedestrian in time, therefore the pedestrian would have been struck even if an attentive human driver was behind the wheel.  That narrative is based on the dash cam footage of the crash that was released to the public.  But if the camera had better low light capabilities that clearly showed the pedestrian crossing the street several seconds before being struck, that narrative would quickly change.  That's why a detailed recreation of this fatal crash could change people's perception of what happened.

Look at it this way.  Imagine if a vehicle plowed down a pedestrian in broad daylight, but the vehicles dash cam was set up so it looked nearly pitch dark and very little detail could be seen.  Would that dash footage be effective in court to prove that the pedestrian couldn't be seen and that it wasn't the driver's fault that the pedestrian got struck?  Of course not.  It's important to understand the limitations of the camera that was being used when this fatal crash occurred since so much opinion of the crash is gathered from that video. 

Quote from: tradephoric on March 26, 2018, 11:26:41 AM

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 10:52:04 AM
And high end cameras may show everything in finest details - but it wouldn't be what driver saw.
Tempe police definitely was on the spot of accident as first responders, either Tempe or AZ state evidence collection team did work the site. Issue probably escalated pretty quick - but NTSB cannot dispatch investigation team at midnight.
Overall situation is pretty clear, reconstruction wouldn't add much to understanding here.

The media narrative is that nobody could have seen the pedestrian in time, therefore the pedestrian would have been struck even if an attentive human driver was behind the wheel.  That narrative is based on the dash cam footage of the crash that was released to the public.  But if the camera had better low light capabilities that clearly showed the pedestrian crossing the street several seconds before being struck, that narrative would quickly change.  That's why a detailed recreation of this fatal crash could change people's perception of what happened.

Look at it this way.  Imagine if a vehicle plowed down a pedestrian in broad daylight, but the vehicles dash cam was set up so it looked nearly pitch dark and very little detail could be seen.  Would that dash footage be effective in court to prove that the pedestrian couldn't be seen and that it wasn't the driver's fault that the pedestrian got struck?  Of course not.  It's important to understand the limitations of the camera that was being used when this fatal crash occurred since so much opinion of the crash is gathered from that video.

Well, you have a statement of someone who likely saw everything first hand. Regardless of how shity video is, I been in similar situations as a driver, I know how it looks from behind the wheel  - and that part of the story doesn't bother me too much. Uber will pay the family anyway.

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 10:52:04 AM
And I think we're loosing focus here. Here is how I see situation:
-Uber was testing self-driving system. Such system should, by all means, notice pedestrian. It didn't. Why? 1st contributing factor.
-Uber sort of anticipated such problem and did due diligence by putting a human backup driver. Who may or may not paid full attention, but generally provides a layer of backup.
-And backup driver failed to react - possibly due to being unable to spot pedestrian on time. 2nd contributing factor. Was it actually so difficult to spot?(i suspect yes).
-Accident could be avoided if pedestrian would be more noticeable to backup driver. Jaywalking in dark clothes in the dark without yielding to traffic. 3d contributing factor
I think 1st one should be investigated in great depth, second and third are more common than we want them to be. Since video provides insight into 2 and 3 only, we tend to discuss those.. but honestly speaking - such accidents probably occur daily without attracting too much attention.

Exactly.  The investigation really shouldn't focus too much on what the driver saw or not see, but rather what the car's internal systems saw or didn't see.  The accident that occurred is fairly common, and we're fortunate enough to have any video evidence of it in this case.  If the vehicle was a normal vehicle, most of us wouldn't even be aware of this accident, much less trying to talk about camera quality decide how much lighting there was.

Remember, in Trade's numerous roundabout postings, he commonly deflects accident causes at roundabouts to the fact the roundabout was there in the first place. In nearly every case, the investigation won't conclude that the roundabout itself was the cause of the accident.  In this case, he's trying to deflect the accident towards a very pricey camera that will have settings to make it seem brighter than what it was.

The key here is the pedestrian shouldn't have been there whatsoever, which is going to largely be taken into account.  While we can debate about videos, the pedestrian could easily have seen the headlights of the vehicle approaching.  Even if conditions allowed the driver a full view of the pedestrian, the moment the driver processed that info and slammed onto the brakes may be too little too late.  Could the driver have swerved out of the way?  Maybe, maybe not.  Was there a curb or wall there to the right, preventing the driver from fully missing the pedestrian, or being bounced back into the pedestrian?  Could the driver have swerved the other direction, anticipating that the pedestrian would have continued on her path?   If the driver swerved to the left and the pedestrian stopped, it would appear the driver aimed towards the pedestrian.

And yes, I know the first thing that'll come to mind: The driver should've been driving slower.  The vehicle was going about the speed limit.  Might as well make every roadway a 5 mph speed limit to prevent such tragedies.

But again, the key here is the pedestrian was jaywalking.  The 2nd key is that the car's electronic system didn't pick that person up.  Why?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2018, 12:17:27 PM

Remember, in Trade's numerous roundabout postings, he commonly deflects accident causes at roundabouts to the fact the roundabout was there in the first place. In nearly every case, the investigation won't conclude that the roundabout itself was the cause of the accident.  In this case, he's trying to deflect the accident towards a very pricey camera that will have settings to make it seem brighter than what it was.

As with roundabout, fact that the road was designed in such a way definitely creates the framework for an accident. Certain design solutions do create extra hazards. Which would be avoided most of the time, but sometimes somewhere something doesn't add up. For this particular case:

There is a peculiar feature of this roadway as discussed above - an X shaped paved island in the median. Which apparently creates a jaywalk-prone spot, enough to warrant some signs. Is that a contributing factor here? Somewhat. Does it deserve investigative efforts? Probably not. Would you recommend installing those elsewhere? Me not...

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 12:34:16 PM
There is a peculiar feature of this roadway as discussed above - an X shaped paved island in the median. Which apparently creates a jaywalk-prone spot, enough to warrant some signs. Is that a contributing factor here? Somewhat. Does it deserve investigative efforts? Probably not. Would you recommend installing those elsewhere? Me not...

Very interesting - looks like they were there back in 2007; with the current curbing being installed just after 2008.  I'm guessing they built and/or refurbishing the bridges just to the south of this location.  The No Ped Crossing signs have been up the whole time.  Not sure why they would leave those crossovers there.

That said, the signage certainly does reinforce that pedestrians shouldn't be crossing there. And depending on the exact point of crossing, shows that a driver would've had very little time to react if the pedestrian came out of a marked "No Pedestrian Crossing" area hidden by existing shrubbery and foliage.  Bicyclists and pedestrians wouldn't benefit from crossing at this point with a signal so close.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2018, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: kalvado on March 26, 2018, 12:34:16 PM
There is a peculiar feature of this roadway as discussed above - an X shaped paved island in the median. Which apparently creates a jaywalk-prone spot, enough to warrant some signs. Is that a contributing factor here? Somewhat. Does it deserve investigative efforts? Probably not. Would you recommend installing those elsewhere? Me not...

Very interesting - looks like they were there back in 2007; with the current curbing being installed just after 2008.  I'm guessing they built and/or refurbishing the bridges just to the south of this location.  The No Ped Crossing signs have been up the whole time.  Not sure why they would leave those crossovers there.

That said, the signage certainly does reinforce that pedestrians shouldn't be crossing there. And depending on the exact point of crossing, shows that a driver would've had very little time to react if the pedestrian came out of a marked "No Pedestrian Crossing" area hidden by existing shrubbery and foliage.  Bicyclists and pedestrians wouldn't benefit from crossing at this point with a signal so close.

Yet it is a feature which possibly affected the situation. Now since that wasn't roundabout, it was not critical...

Since human vs. electronic capabilities have been brought up a few times, I'll throw this out there: It's pretty-much universally assumed that electronic means of detection are more sensitive and better able at detecting objects and scenarios that a human cannot or would take much longer to detect/process. What about in the eyes of the law? Are the electronic devices only responsible for what the average human would be capable of detecting and responding to? In the Tempe case, if a human would not have been able to react in time, are the electronic devices legally held to a higher standard? Are there Federal standards/laws or industry standards?

Quote from: DaBigE on March 26, 2018, 01:31:01 PM
Since human vs. electronic capabilities have been brought up a few times, I'll throw this out there: It's pretty-much universally assumed that electronic means of detection are more sensitive and better able at detecting objects and scenarios that a human cannot or would take much longer to detect/process. What about in the eyes of the law? Are the electronic devices only responsible for what the average human would be capable of detecting and responding to? In the Tempe case, if a human would not have been able to react in time, are the electronic devices legally held to a higher standard? Are there Federal standards/laws or industry standards?

I suspect this is THE question in legal domain. Something similar was discussed for quite a while, although nobody envisioned such stupid and simple accident.
Probably one of the reasons Uber would try to settle out of court is that a precedent - or lack of it - would affect lots of things. 

I do find it interesting that everyone is focusing on the jaywalking pedestrian.  Not really surprising, though.  The government (Arizona in particular), the media, and the car and technology industries all have vested interests in getting self-driving cars deployed as quickly as possible.  I have NEVER seen the media blame a pedestrian for jaywalking before, but again, not surprising - it keeps people from questioning the technology.  The people who want self-driving cars want to downplay that part of this story because they know that self-driving cars could be set back a decade or more if public outcry is big enough.  Just look at the AV START act.  It legalizes self-driving cars nationwide and preempts any state or local regulation regarding them, and allows the industry to essentially self-regulate.  Just a few months ago, it was expected to sail through Congress unopposed.  Now it's already bogged down in the Senate, and depending on how things shape up with respect to this incident, could very well fail.  They certainly do not want that.  So instead they have everyone talk about the jaywalking.

Quote from: vdeane on March 26, 2018, 05:34:53 PM
I do find it interesting that everyone is focusing on the jaywalking pedestrian.  Not really surprising, though.  The government (Arizona in particular), the media, and the car and technology industries all have vested interests in getting self-driving cars deployed as quickly as possible.  I have NEVER seen the media blame a pedestrian for jaywalking before, but again, not surprising - it keeps people from questioning the technology.  The people who want self-driving cars want to downplay that part of this story because they know that self-driving cars could be set back a decade or more if public outcry is big enough.  Just look at the AV START act.  It legalizes self-driving cars nationwide and preempts any state or local regulation regarding them, and allows the industry to essentially self-regulate.  Just a few months ago, it was expected to sail through Congress unopposed.  Now it's already bogged down in the Senate, and depending on how things shape up with respect to this incident, could very well fail.  They certainly do not want that.  So instead they have everyone talk about the jaywalking.

When I see accidents involving pedestrians in the paper, I tend to find this pattern:

If the motorist was at fault, there will usually be one, if not several, follow-up articles.

If the pedestrian was at fault, there will never, ever be another follow-up article.

Around here, there have been several jaywalking incidents leading to many media stories blaming drivers.  One in particular stands out because the media refused to admit that the person who died was jaywalking until months after the fact.

Uber's use of fewer safety sensors prompts questions after fatal crash
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/ubers-use-of-fewer-safety-sensors-prompts-questions-after-fatal-crash.html

The Volvo sports utility vehicles had one lidar sensor, compared to 7 lidar sensors on the previous Uber fleet of Ford Fusions.  According to Raj Rajkumar, the lack of lidar sensors introduced blind zones around the perimeter of the SUV that could not fully detect pedestrians.  Of course the pedestrian walking their bike across the street was well back from the "perimeter" of the vehicle in the video (before being struck)... shouldn't the main lidar sensor still have spotted the pedestrian in this accident? 

QuoteIn scaling back to a single lidar on the Volvo, Uber introduced a blind zone around the perimeter of the SUV that cannot fully detect pedestrians, according to interviews with former employees and Raj Rajkumar, the head of Carnegie Mellon University's transportation center who has been working on self-driving technology for over a decade.

Self-driving cars used to be one of my worst fears, and I was completely against it, but (before this news even happened I had already developed this mindset, and have had it for a while) now it doesn't seem like such a horrible idea. I suppose if technology gets good enough, it could probably prove to be safer at driving than us imperfect, distracted, and road-rage-prone humans. I think that if we maybe try to safely phase this in, automobile accidents might decrease - and if we can quickly switch to all electric cars, then our air will be in good shape as well - hopefully we will be looking at a bright future in transportation. However, with that said, maybe Uber was rushing into the self-driving vehicle testing in this case - honestly, I was baffled to find out that these things were already on actual roads with actual people (even though the technology isn't perfected yet). It may be more complicated and expensive, but I think they should find some way to test these new cars where there is no real people driving on real roads, so that they can find their faults and then fix them, with no risk of hurting anyone in the trial-and-error process. That may have been a mistake as this happened; then again, it's possible that it could be the pedestrian's fault if they weren't paying attention or being careless - but we may never know the truth as no details have been released. Whatever actually happened, this is truly a tragic incident. Hopefully we can prevent something like this from happening again.  :no:

My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

It's yet to happen to planes, which of course would easily harm many more people at once.  Planes are largely automated and computerized, and have been for a while.  Since most of us don't fly planes, it's out of mind, so you don't think of it that way.

In fact, there's not much I can think of that isn't computerized.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2018, 06:14:46 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

It's yet to happen to planes, which of course would easily harm many more people at once.  Planes are largely automated and computerized, and have been for a while.  Since most of us don't fly planes, it's out of mind, so you don't think of it that way.

In fact, there's not much I can think of that isn't computerized.

Hacking of comuterized "off the shelf" car was demonstrated. DHS claimed they did hack into pretty old and (by today's standard) barely computerized 757, publishing little details. It didn't take any hacking for Toyota to put a computerized clusterf on a road..
I am more concerned about support for massively smart cars. Today's estimate for new car is 20+ years on the road. And there is reasonable mechanical support for those clunkers via junk yard parts and small shops.
That is equivalent to having win98 today in IT world.How much love those old systems would get?

Quote from: tradephoric on March 28, 2018, 06:57:01 PM
Uber's use of fewer safety sensors prompts questions after fatal crash
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/ubers-use-of-fewer-safety-sensors-prompts-questions-after-fatal-crash.html

The Volvo sports utility vehicles had one lidar sensor, compared to 7 lidar sensors on the previous Uber fleet of Ford Fusions.  According to Raj Rajkumar, the lack of lidar sensors introduced blind zones around the perimeter of the SUV that could not fully detect pedestrians.  Of course the pedestrian walking their bike across the street was well back from the "perimeter" of the vehicle in the video (before being struck)... shouldn't the main lidar sensor still have spotted the pedestrian in this accident? 

QuoteIn scaling back to a single lidar on the Volvo, Uber introduced a blind zone around the perimeter of the SUV that cannot fully detect pedestrians, according to interviews with former employees and Raj Rajkumar, the head of Carnegie Mellon University's transportation center who has been working on self-driving technology for over a decade.

Maybe they concluded that optical sensors on the back gets too contaminated too quickly, or that on the sides radars - similar to blind spot detectors - are sufficient. But this was indeed a prime spot accident - something moving into a path of a car... The only possibility I see is that some sensors were inop, and car fell into some backup mode. Why no big red flashing light and pulling over for manual takeover in such condition?...
Although, as with all high level event, there is a strong possibility of some top manager saying "ah, OK, I think it should work this way" regarding the most incredible problem in the system.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

That does sound scary as hell.  :paranoid:

Maybe when they finish making self-driving cars, they should include an emergency switch of some sort that us humans have control over, in case something crazy like that happened.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 29, 2018, 11:14:29 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

That does sound scary as hell.  :paranoid:

Maybe when they finish making self-driving cars, they should include an emergency switch of some sort that us humans have control over, in case something crazy like that happened.

A switch will do you no good if there is no steering wheel, as Chevy was proposing in one of their test vehicles. The news stations that carried that story were of course filled with people freaking out about the concept of a steering wheel-less car.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 29, 2018, 11:14:29 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

That does sound scary as hell.  :paranoid:

Maybe when they finish making self-driving cars, they should include an emergency switch of some sort that us humans have control over, in case something crazy like that happened.

A switch will do you no good if there is no steering wheel, as Chevy was proposing in one of their test vehicles. The news stations that carried that story were of course filled with people freaking out about the concept of a steering wheel-less car.

A switch will do you no good period.
In some of high profile Toyota crashes, when car started to accelerate uncontrollably - people didn't kick shiftstick into neutral and/or cut off ignition - when they had time for that, and doing so would literally save their life.

Quote from: kalvado on March 29, 2018, 11:43:51 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 29, 2018, 11:14:29 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 29, 2018, 01:46:34 AM
My biggest fear: Hacking and viruses. Eventually, everything will be interconnected whether we like it or not. People have hacked into construction and dynamic overhead signs before (granted, those arguably have some of the weakest security measures in-place). Once we lose control of our cars and they're all interconnected into the real information superhighway, how will we protect against a new type of kidnapping? Someone remotely disabling the safety devices? Someone pushing ransomware on our vehicle(s)?
Maybe this isn't as feasible as I fear it is?

That does sound scary as hell.  :paranoid:

Maybe when they finish making self-driving cars, they should include an emergency switch of some sort that us humans have control over, in case something crazy like that happened.

A switch will do you no good if there is no steering wheel, as Chevy was proposing in one of their test vehicles. The news stations that carried that story were of course filled with people freaking out about the concept of a steering wheel-less car.

A switch will do you no good period.
In some of high profile Toyota crashes, when car started to accelerate uncontrollably - people didn't kick shiftstick into neutral and/or cut off ignition - when they had time for that, and doing so would literally save their life.

Yep.  People's first reactions are "WTF???".

It's kinda like the skidding on ice situation.  There's a correct way to steer out of the slide, but many people can't concentrate enough to do it.

There's an update on the story from the NTSB.

NTSB: Uber's sensors worked; its software utterly failed in fatal crash (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/emergency-brakes-were-disabled-by-ubers-self-driving-software-ntsb-says/)

QuoteThe problem was that Uber's software became confused, according to the NTSB. "As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path," the report says.

This is my major issue with autonomous vehicles - software.

The link to the preliminary NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
There's an update on the story from the NTSB.

NTSB: Uber's sensors worked; its software utterly failed in fatal crash (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/emergency-brakes-were-disabled-by-ubers-self-driving-software-ntsb-says/)

QuoteThe problem was that Uber's software became confused, according to the NTSB. "As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path," the report says.

This is my major issue with autonomous vehicles - software.

The link to the preliminary NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

I like another part better:

Quote
At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision. According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2018, 04:58:11 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
There's an update on the story from the NTSB.

NTSB: Uber's sensors worked; its software utterly failed in fatal crash (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/emergency-brakes-were-disabled-by-ubers-self-driving-software-ntsb-says/)

QuoteThe problem was that Uber's software became confused, according to the NTSB. "As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path," the report says.

This is my major issue with autonomous vehicles - software.

The link to the preliminary NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

I like another part better:

Quote
At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision. According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

That last part is the one that really bothers me the most.

QuoteThe system is not designed to alert the operator.

That's a major programming mistake, IMHO.

If it's on me to intervene when the system isn't prepared for the unexpected, there's no point to a self-driving car.

Rule #1 of driving is expect the unexpected.

In other words, Uber's negligence killed a person.

All self-driving vehicle testing needs to be shut down until some strict regulations can be put in place. There should be scrutiny from the public at every step of the process, and all testing should be done away from public roads until they're foolproof.

Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2018, 11:45:21 PM
In other words, Uber's negligence killed a person.

All self-driving vehicle testing needs to be shut down until some strict regulations can be put in place. There should be scrutiny from the public at every step of the process, and all testing should be done away from public roads until they're foolproof.

Soooo, basically never?

Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2018, 05:14:20 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2018, 04:58:11 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
There's an update on the story from the NTSB.

NTSB: Uber's sensors worked; its software utterly failed in fatal crash (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/emergency-brakes-were-disabled-by-ubers-self-driving-software-ntsb-says/)

QuoteThe problem was that Uber's software became confused, according to the NTSB. "As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path," the report says.

This is my major issue with autonomous vehicles - software.

The link to the preliminary NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf

I like another part better:

Quote
At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision. According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

That last part is the one that really bothers me the most.

QuoteThe system is not designed to alert the operator.

That's a major programming mistake, IMHO.

Even if it had alerted the operator, 1.3 seconds is likely too short of a time to make much of a difference. The driver would be lucky to perceive the issue, let alone have time to react and for the car to stop. Factor in typical perception-reaction time (2.5 seconds), plus the proper amount of time to come to a complete stop, and you might as well have the system shut down and go all-manual in heavy traffic or "confusing" environments.

Quote
In other words, Uber's negligence killed a person.

Correct.  And the penalty in Arizona is 4 to 8 years.  Which is what everybody involved should serve, thus bringing an end to the idiotic idea that cars can drive themselves, and if a few hundred people get killed trying to prove that, its OK.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2018, 09:24:23 AM

Quote
In other words, Uber's negligence killed a person.

Correct.  And the penalty in Arizona is 4 to 8 years.  Which is what everybody involved should serve, thus bringing an end to the idiotic idea that cars can drive themselves, and if a few hundred people get killed trying to prove that, its OK.

Companies kill people all the time.  Wrongful death lawsuits generally go after the company, not a person, even when the death can be attributed to a person not properly doing their job.

But let's ignore all of that, because it's not automobile related.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2018, 09:24:23 AM

Quote
In other words, Uber's negligence killed a person.

Correct.  And the penalty in Arizona is 4 to 8 years.  Which is what everybody involved should serve, thus bringing an end to the idiotic idea that cars can drive themselves, and if a few hundred people get killed trying to prove that, its OK.

4 to 8 years? Doesn't match anything in AZ law.
Negligent homicide is class 4;  1.5-3 years, likely reducible to 1
Manslaughter is class 2; 4 to 10 years, again likely reducable to 2

But what keeps me amazed is how blood thirsty and hateful people are...

Hmm, lets see here.


Pedestrian crosses road, in the dark, wearing dark colored clothing, 360 feet away from the nearest legal place to do so, in front of a well lit motor vehicle that she should have easily seen, that was travelling in the lane farthest away from her at the start, 2 mph below the posted speed limit and it's Uber and the test driver who were negligent????? I guess I am in the minority that believes in personal responsibility anymore.


Although I do agree with others that the automated vehicles should not be allowed in traffic until all the software bugs are worked out, I am not 100 percent convinced in this case that even an alert human driver, paying full attention in a normal car, would have seen the pedestrian in enough time to have affected the outcome.

Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2018, 05:11:36 PM
Hmm, lets see here.


Pedestrian crosses road, in the dark, wearing dark colored clothing, 360 feet away from the nearest legal place to do so, in front of a well lit motor vehicle that she should have easily seen, that was travelling in the lane farthest away from her at the start, 2 mph below the posted speed limit and it's Uber and the test driver who were negligent????? I guess I am in the minority that believes in personal responsibility anymore.


Although I do agree with others that the automated vehicles should not be allowed in traffic until all the software bugs are worked out, I am not 100 percent convinced in this case that even an alert human driver, paying full attention in a normal car, would have seen the pedestrian in enough time to have affected the outcome.

I would say that it is not the driver, but software designer who is negligent. Although that negligence is very far from being criminally prosecutable, there is definitely something wrong with completely disabling emergency fallback function. Fact that software saw something and tried to avoid the hit - but could not do so - adds a lot of insult to that fatal injury.

Quote from: kalvado on May 30, 2018, 05:32:17 PM

Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2018, 05:11:36 PM
Hmm, lets see here.


Pedestrian crosses road, in the dark, wearing dark colored clothing, 360 feet away from the nearest legal place to do so, in front of a well lit motor vehicle that she should have easily seen, that was travelling in the lane farthest away from her at the start, 2 mph below the posted speed limit and it's Uber and the test driver who were negligent????? I guess I am in the minority that believes in personal responsibility anymore.


Although I do agree with others that the automated vehicles should not be allowed in traffic until all the software bugs are worked out, I am not 100 percent convinced in this case that even an alert human driver, paying full attention in a normal car, would have seen the pedestrian in enough time to have affected the outcome.

I would say that it is not the driver, but software designer who is negligent. Although that negligence is very far from being criminally prosecutable, there is definitely something wrong with completely disabling emergency fallback function. Fact that software saw something and tried to avoid the hit - but could not do so - adds a lot of insult to that fatal injury.

I do absolutely agree with you there, 100 percent. Still should the person who was struck even belong where she was when this occurred?

The other side of this, though, is that this could have been another car in the same lane as the Uber where the driver somehow miraculously slammed on the brakes in enough time to stop before hitting the pedestrian, only to get rear ended by the Uber because the driver wan't paying attention and the software wouldn't have stopped the car because it was "instructed" not to. This is why I agree the automated Uber shouldn't have been allowed in live traffic to begin with.

Doesn't matter.  You strike a pedestrian, it's bad news for you.

Shocker...an AARoads discussion of a pedestrian accident devolves to victim blaming

Quote from: Rothman on May 30, 2018, 05:40:20 PM
Doesn't matter.  You strike a pedestrian, it's bad news for you.

Bad news can mean $$$ (Uber will survive that) or a random scapegoat serving the term.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 30, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Shocker...an AARoads discussion of a pedestrian accident devolves to victim blaming

Because victim is always purely innocent... but Charlie knows better!

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 30, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Shocker...an AARoads discussion of a pedestrian accident devolves to victim blaming

This is where we will disagree. I really don't see a "victim" here in the true sense of the word. We do have a tragic death in which there were 3 parties involved with blame to go all around-driver, software designer and the lady who was struck while jaywalking. She was in the best position to avoid this whole mess to start with yet she chose to walk out in front of an oncoming, well lit vehicle. She was equipped with the best, most advanced sensor system with over a million years of development: her eyes.

Look, I get it. I understand that you as a pedestrian have had more than your fair share of scrapes with cars while legally crossing the road in crosswalks. If this had been in the crosswalk, I'd be in the "hang 'em high" crowd too. But she was crossing the road 360 feet from where a reasonable driver would have been looking for a pedestrian to cross, had they been paying attention. This driver was not, because the software was supposed to be doing the driving, and it was programmed to not stop for the sudden obstruction. But I can truthfully say that I am a pretty attentive driver, with vision corrected to 20/20, who drives  a car that has the latest  in HID headlight technology, as well as grill mounted LED fog lights that are always on, and I am not 100 pct sure that I would have seen her in enough time to process the need to stop (based on that crappy video anyway).