SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A few Soylentils wrote in to tell us about a fatal accident between a pedestrian and an autonomous Uber vehicle.
Update - Video Released of Fatal Uber - Pedestrian Accident
I debated just replying to the original story, but this seemed a pretty significant update to me:
The Uber vehicle was operating in autonomous mode when it crashed into 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on Sunday evening. Herzberg was transported to a hospital, where she later died from her injuries, in what may be the first known pedestrian fatality in a self-driving crash.
The video footage does not conclusively show who is at fault. Tempe police initially reported that Herzberg appeared suddenly; however, the video footage seems to show her coming into view a number of seconds before the crash. It also showed the vehicle operator behind the wheel intermittently looking down while the car was driving itself.
The link shows video of the seconds just before the accident.
The pedestrian did not step out in front of the vehicle, she was essentially out in the middle of the road, and all her lateral movement was nearly irrelevant. She might as well have been a stationary object in the middle of the road. You can see the headlights bring her feet into view first, (meaning she was pretty much in the line before the headlights could see her, and then move up her body; she's already in the middle of the road in front of him when she comes into view.
If I were driving that car, I think I'd have had time to hit brakes (but not stop in time). I also think that that if the camera view is an accurate representation of what was really visible, then the car was overdriving its headlights. Although given my experience with cameras, I wouldn't be surprised if actual visibility was better than what the video shows.
This, in my opinion, is pretty damning.
Police Chief: Uber Self-Driving Car "Likely" Not At Fault In Fatal Crash
The chief of the Tempe Police has told the San Francisco Chronicle that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg. “I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said chief Sylvia Moir.
Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."
After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “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 added that "it is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available."
Self-Driving Car Testing Likely to Continue Unobstructed
Self-Driving Cars Keep Rolling Despite Uber Crash
The death of a woman who was struck by a self-driving Uber in Arizona on Sunday has auto-safety advocates demanding that U.S. regulators and lawmakers slow down the rush to bring autonomous vehicles to the nation's roadways. Don't count on it.
Efforts to streamline regulations to accommodate the emerging technology have been under way since the Obama administration with strong bipartisan support. And the Trump administration's aversion to restrictions and regulations makes it even more unlikely that the accident in Tempe, Arizona, in which an autonomous Uber sport utility vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, will result in significant new barriers, according to former U.S. officials and some safety advocates.
"Honestly, the last thing under this administration that car companies and self-driving vehicle developers have to worry about is heavy regulation," said David Friedman, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administrator under President Barack Obama who's now director of cars and product policy for Consumers Union.
Who is to blame when driverless cars have an accident?
[Partial] or full autonomy raises the question of who is to blame in the case of an accident involving a self-driving car? In conventional (human-driven) cars, the answer is simple: the driver is responsible because they are in control. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, it isn't so clear cut. We propose a blockchain-based framework that uses sensor data to ascertain liability in accidents involving self-driving cars.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3 Original Submission #4
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 22 2018, @03:44PM (9 children)
Despite your sarcasm - there is truth in what you say. A pedestrian who exercises zero caution is at fault. A pedestrian who exercises insufficient caution may well be at fault.
I speak as a man who once struck a pedestrian. There were no charges filed. A claim was made against my insurance. Insurance company questioned the claim, then paid off on the medical bills, and a couple hundred dollars more. They didn't WANT TO pay the medical, because every ordinance and law applicable to the case clearly stated that the pedestrian was at fault. However, pedestrians aren't required to carry liability insurance, and all things considered, the insurance company decided that it would be cheapest to just pay the medical bills.
It's kinda like the running of the bulls in Spain. Those damned bulls don't have insurance. If you want to run with the bulls, you better have your own insurance! Don't run with the bulls, they won't run your ass over. Don't play in traffic, the traffic is unlikely to come hunting for you in your own back yard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Thursday March 22 2018, @07:48PM (6 children)
Bull shit Runaway, I know you like to spout plenty of that, but this one is indefensible.
Do you simply not realise that a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?
If they do not have the visibility ahead, then they must slow down to the point where they can do that.
This video shows the Uber is EXACTLY and 100% at fault here.
The woman is clearly in the middle of the road traveling at a constant speed across a straight piece of road with on visual obstacles.
The Uber 'driver' is not watching the road.
The Uber was above the legal speed limit (already admitted).
The Uber appears to make no attempt to brake/swerve, even once the woman is CLEARLY visible.
So stop being an idiot, there is no 'running with the bulls' crossing a road, there is simple law, and the Uber is heavily on the wrong side of it.
Hitting her while attempting to avoid would likely be Manslaughter.
Ploughing on straight ahead with no attempt to avoid? borders on Murder.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 22 2018, @08:30PM
Yep. I'd add to it that any human - well, not a psychopath - would at least try to steer away even if it would create a danger for him and/or other cars. That's empathy that AI does not have and probably never will.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 22 2018, @09:23PM (1 child)
Florida law states: "Pedestrians shall not leave a place of safety." Meaning: if a pedestrian is standing on a sidewalk and you're driving by, if they suddenly jump off the sidewalk in front of you it's absolutely not your fault. Somewhere between the suicide leap and standing in the middle of the road wearing high visibility clothing in broad daylight, the responsibility does shift back to the driver - when in question, the exact demarkation line is determined by expensive legal proceedings - best to stay on the safe side.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:37AM
In this case the driver was reading a book or using a cell phone. He reacted, but that reaction time was spent regaining control of the vehicle instead of evading. Had he already been in control, he could have evaded or turned the crash into a livable one. Uber and the driver should both be held at fault. Uber because their software clearly sucks and for only having one 'safety' driver and the driver for not paying attention. The lady was an idiot for wearing black and not looking, but she already paid with her life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22 2018, @10:48PM
You are either an idiot or a person with no driving experience, or both.
DO explain to us why you make such moronic comments, won't you, you useless disrespectful cock-gobbling piece of waste ?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 23 2018, @01:28AM
You will note that I did NOT defend Uber. I only commented that the law does require that pedestrians exercise due caution. Hitting a pedestrian who runs out into traffic isn't a crime, and it doesn't result in criminal charges.
In THIS video, the driver isn't paying attention. That bit of data will weigh heavily in any court case. It's just obvious that he's not watching ahead.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:30PM
Most juridsictions, in fact, do state pedestrians are somewhat responsible for their behavior while not in a crosswalk (and in some states, even in a crosswalk if the lights are against them).
That does not mean Uber is or is not at fault here, just that, "a driver is required by law to be able to stop vehicle in the safe road ahead of them AT ALL TIMES?" is patently incorrect.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:00PM
Depends upon jurisdiction.
In Arizona what you say was true when I lived there. Actually, in Arizona (when I lived there) nobody is ever GRANTED the right-of-way in Arizona law. There are only times when the right of way must be yielded, like for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Which is one of the reasons why the Tempe police chief might have ventured an opinion. (Actually, no, I don't understand why the police should have an opinion beyond what they write up in the accident report.)
Actually, I used to work right at where the accident occurred, twenty-five years ago. Across from the theatre is a large amount of land that (AFAIK still belongs to) the Salt River Project. The facility I was based at in security was right there, and I routinely drove past the area of the accident on my patrol route. A lot about that area has changed (the Red Mountain Freeway wasn't there for starters, and I know the entrance to my facility moved to the S on Washington Street instead of the NW corner of Center and Priest), but that area is a gentle-ish hill and curve but it's visually deceptive how much the climb/drop is from Mill/Washington to Center/Priest and Priest/Washington. I didn't watch the video - not going to allow that page past No-Script. But I could see where it could be confusing for a computer to deal with it, at least in the era I worked there. But I digress.
Teh Internets tell me mixed things about California. But this site [ncsl.org] shows that laws regarding pedestrians and crosswalks (and whether a crosswalk being marked is a factor) changes a little in every state. Most states respect marked crosswalks and what occurs outside them varies greatly. But what an auto and pedestrian must do is regulated as part of state law, and the ethics of that appear to change from place to place. But my personal feeling is that a driver should always behave as if a pedestrian will immediately act to get hit (suicide) and that a driver should always be responsibly prepared to make sure that cannot happen. The privilege to drive a powered vehicle should be to make sure it never hurts a pedestrian as much as possible. (Which doesn't say anything about the circumstances of your history Runaway...)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 23 2018, @01:35PM
Addendum that I forgot... Arizona law also has a provision that the right of way shall be yielded at all times to avoid an accident. That general catch-all might still apply and IIRC it was a way a cop could decide whether he or she thought you were at fault or not, to either cite or not cite based on whether the cop thought you had tried to yield or not. I'm sure times have changed.
This sig for rent.