Uber halts self-driving tests after pedestrian killed in Arizona

[tradephoric]

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

On 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

[AlexandriaVA]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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. 

[jemacedo9]

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

[davewiecking]

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.

[cjk374]

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? 

[kalvado]

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? 

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

[davewiecking]

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.

[webny99]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[DaBigE]

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.

[Bruce]

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 (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.

[DaBigE]

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 (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.

Pushing 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.

[MisterSG1]

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 (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?)

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

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:


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.

[Bruce]

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.

[MisterSG1]

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.

[DaBigE]

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?

From 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.

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.

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)

[DaBigE]

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

[jeffandnicole]

Also, the Uber was speeding (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: 

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.

[english si]

The 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.

[kalvado]

The 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...

[jeffandnicole]

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 (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.

The 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.

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:

From 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.

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).

[Super Mateo]

Also, the Uber was speeding (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.

[Rothman]

Provide evidence she wasn't paying attention.