Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday June 23 2018, @03:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the unfortunate dept.

According to this article on MSN:

Police in Tempe, Arizona said evidence showed the "safety" driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber was distracted and streaming a television show on her phone right up until about the time of a fatal accident in March, deeming the crash that rocked the nascent industry "entirely avoidable."

A 318-page report from the Tempe Police Department, released late on Thursday in response to a public records request, said the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, repeatedly looked down and not at the road, glancing up just a half second before the car hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing the street at night.

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

Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming television shows and movies, which showed Vasquez's account was playing the television talent show "The Voice" the night of the crash for about 42 minutes, ending at 9:59 p.m., which "coincides with the approximate time of the collision," the report says.

It is not clear if Vasquez will be charged, and police submitted their findings to county prosecutors, who will make the determination.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:09PM (9 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:09PM (#697241) Journal

    Chill on the Personal Responsibility cult for a sec, bro.

    The self-driving software blew it. Had it detected the pedestrian, then it wouldn't have mattered what the human was doing. Further, is not the human present to take over if the software gets confused and sounds an alarm?

    Next, the pedestrian was jaywalking. She was not in a crosswalk. And it was dark. The article doesn't say if she was wearing bright colors, but it does say she was homeless so I think it likely she was in dingy, dull, dirty clothes. Her bike should have had reflectors on it at the least, but if the bike is not well maintained, reflectors would certainly be regarded as an unnecessary luxury. Quite possible the accident would have happened even if the driver had been paying attention.

    Another party to blame is society, for several things. First, why was that pedestrian homeless? If she had mental problems, she should have been getting help for that.

    Should the pedestrian have looked both ways and seen the car coming? Being homeless in America might have made her depressed and reckless to a suicidal degree, and she might not have cared much. America is especially vicious about shaming the downtrodden. Apt to assume it's your fault that you're homeless, think of you as a loser, and treat you with disgust and contempt. After all, we have this Prosperity Gospel idea that says the poor must have sinned. They deserve being poor; God is punishing them with poverty. No Christian Charity there, nope!

    Third, America has had such a long love affair with the car that we have neglected pedestrians. Walking is sooo low class. The neglect is especially severe in southerly states such as Arizona, and that's because A/C first became widely available in the 1950s, at the peak of the automobile transportation era, when society was trying drive-in everything-- theaters, restaurants, and who knows what else. Before A/C, the south was much more lightly settled. People didn't want to put up with the summer heat. So all that growth in the south happened when the car was king. It's a total pain to get anywhere on foot in most US cities, especially southern ones. Lot of bridges were built without a sidewalk. Adds very little cost to make a bridge wider by the width of a walkway. Public transportation is spotty. Thankfully, there's more awareness now, and things are improving for pedestrians.

    So, yeah, lots of blame to go around.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:30PM (7 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:30PM (#697252) Journal

    The self-driving software blew it. Had it detected the pedestrian, then it wouldn't have mattered what the human was doing. Further, is not the human present to take over if the software gets confused and sounds an alarm?

    Wait, wait, wait...

    The self driving software DID detect the pedestrian, over 6 seconds ahead of time.

    In fact The Volvo XC90’s standard advanced driver-assistance system installed on the car (cameras and radar) would have 1) Alerted the driver, and 2) braked the car to a full stop, had not Uber Techs disabled it. So not just negligence, but actively disabling a safety system.
    A stock Volvo XC90 would have avoided this accident!

    The Uber self driving system was not designed to alert the driver of a need to brake, and it didn't trigger any brakes itself.

    The driver had duties that required taking her eyes off the road, such as monitoring the console of streaming messages from the system. She said she was performing those duties, not watching a video.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality [bloomberg.com]
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-arizona-crash-1.4594939 [www.cbc.ca]

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:25PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:25PM (#697298)

      Yes and with 6 seconds, that should have been sufficient for the driver to get eyes on the road and slow. Possibly to a complete stop, but definitely down to the point where the likelihood of a fatality was significantly reduced.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:39AM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:39AM (#697407) Journal

        In all honesty, six seconds is not enough to stop. Perhaps, one day, I'll re-write a real life story in my journal that took place in Texas Canyon. (My original story is on a site that is no longer maintained, and I can't get at it.)

        But, six seconds is more than adequate time to twitch the steering wheel, and to change lanes, while at the same time slowing. The difference of ten or fifteen mph can be the difference between life and death upon impact, if impact is unavoidable. Six seconds is most definitely enough time to avoid an accident, in many cases. Six seconds is definitely enough time to lessen the seriousness of an accident.

        • (Score: 2) by schad on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:34AM (3 children)

          by schad (2398) on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:34AM (#697437)

          From what I've found, a Volvo XC90 can decelerate to a stop from 62mph in 3.1 seconds. In that time it will have traveled 138 feet. Better cars can do it in closer to 110 feet (about 2.5 seconds at 1.1g), but that's probably respectable for a big heavy SUV.

          In short, six seconds is plenty of time. You could probably come to a stop from 80 or maybe even 100 in six seconds, even accounting for human reaction time.

          • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:17AM

            by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:17AM (#697455)

            especially, since modern anti-skid is so effective. I have only used mine once for the intended purpose, and I was genuinely suprised how effective it was.

            Toyota V6 Camry, includes anti-skid, and I keep the tyres in good condition - Interstate 40, decelerate 70-stop and the 200 cars ahead had at least 5 collisions. Fortunately, nothing serious.

            Just remember, seat belts, collapsible steering columns, laminated windscreens, jointed transmission shafts ,collapsible body frames - had a huge effect on survivable collisions before 1980 ( feel free to add to this list).

            Self driving cars, if implemented properly (i.e. fully tested in increasingly less controlled conditions) could say an enormous amount of injury and death.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:20AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:20AM (#697507) Journal

            I don't see where you're including recognition of a hazard, and reaction time in your numbers. If the only thing being considered is the physics of the vehicle, that is, the time and distance AFTER full braking power is applied, then I can accept your numbers.

            In real life, that "safety driver" wasn't fully alert 100% of the time, as others have pointed out. Uber's alarm should have alerted the driver, but it takes a moment to refocus full attention on the road, another moment to recognize the hazard, another to reach for the brakes, and perhaps another moment still to really stand on the brakes for a panic stop. Moments ticking by, while the car continues at or near full speed.

            I could forgive that "safety driver" if he had merely allowed his mind to wander a little bit. That happens to everyone, professional or not. But he was WATCHING A MOVIE!! That is plain and simple dereliction of duty. And, that certainly had an effect on his/her reactions when the emergency occurred.

            If the driver had been paying attention, had he recognized the emergency for what it was, he probably wouldn't have tried to brake at all. Instead, the car could have been steered around the obstacle.

            To the best of my knowledge, there was little traffice, and no traffic close enough to be a hazard in the next lane over.

            I think that all of us have chosen to steer around a hazard, rather than brake for it, haven't we? I have many times!

            • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday June 25 2018, @12:28AM

              by schad (2398) on Monday June 25 2018, @12:28AM (#697848)

              I didn't include that stuff because it didn't matter: the driver was negligently inattentive, and the car had no ability to warn her. If the car had somehow noticed six minutes in advance, it would have made no difference.

              My point was only that six seconds is actually plenty of time to react, assuming that everyone involved actually had the ability to do so. If the driver had been paying attention, six seconds is plenty of time to come to a stop. If the car could sound an alarm, even an initially-inattentive driver could realized the problem and come to a stop (or at least slow enough for the pedestrian to be far more likely to survive). And finally, if the car had the ability to apply the brakes on its own, six seconds is enough time to do so without even needing to "panic stop" (which is dangerous in its own right).

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:22PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:22PM (#697563)

          In all honesty, six seconds is not enough to stop.

          According to the math [nacto.org], in most vehicles the stopping time is in the approximate range of 4 seconds. That can be a very significant distance (in the 0.1 miles range) if you started at highway speeds, and I'm assuming relatively dry road conditions, but it's not impossible to stop in 4 seconds if the human is reacting reasonably quickly. The human in this case was not reacting reasonably quickly because they were busy watching their show and not watching the road.

          And that's why yellow traffic lights are typically in the range of 3-4 seconds, time enough to either stop or accelerate through.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:11PM (#697290)

    That area isn't as dark as Uber's video made it out to be ( https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/ [arstechnica.com] ).

    The car had plenty of time to decide to stop or slow down to make the collision non-fatal. I've done far better at emergency stops and I'm far from the best driver on the road.

    Uber should be banned from testing or making self driving cars for 5 years. With their sort of crappy corporate culture they probably slapped on something like Tesla's autopilot with some mods and then called it self-driving just for the publicity and PR.

    Let the more responsible contenders with actual self-driving car tech continue.