First pedestrian death by autonomous car...

[Rick Law]

Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam
...
Then on Sunday night, an autonomous car operated by Uber — and with an emergency backup driver behind the wheel — struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Ariz. It was believed to be the first pedestrian death associated with self-driving technology. The company quickly suspended testing in Tempe as well as in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto.

The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.
...
...
Above quoted from:
^{https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html}

[Brumby]

One question not directly answered in the article was WTF was the backup "safety" driver doing?

[Marco]

Supposedly this is a picture of the actual point of impact, all the way on the right side of the road. Meanwhile this story says she came from the median. Which would mean she came from the path from the left seen here and crossed two lanes, almost making it across before the thing hit her ... and it didn't fucking brake.

I don't think the camera images will ever see the light in court and I think billion dollar interests coloured the description of the accident we got from the cops just a bit.

[ed_dingle]

One question not directly answered in the article was WTF was the backup "safety" driver doing?

I wonder what legal ramifications the backup driver could face...?

[Halcyon]

I don't think the camera images will ever see the light in court and I think billion dollar interests coloured the description of the accident we got from the cops just a bit.

On the contrary, the vehicle would have been seized by Police for examination. The photos and videos will form part of the report to the coroner. Money has little to do with it. If need be, Police have the powers to rip that vehicle to pieces to gather evidence and the manufacturer will probably be compelled to assist.

[Marco]

"Tempe police chief says early probe shows no fault by Uber"

"Herzberg was crossing Mill Avenue from west to east, according to Elcock."

Crossing two lanes and getting hit on the right side of the fucking car without the car even braking? Either Sgt. Ronald Elcock got it all wrong in his press conference or I stand by my assertion that billion dollar interests probably played some part in police chief Sylvia Moir so quickly exonerating Uber.

[EEVblog]

One question not directly answered in the article was WTF was the backup "safety" driver doing?

I wonder what legal ramifications the backup driver could face...?

Must be negligence, as they are are in legal control of the car. Uber won't save them.

[Halcyon]

Crossing two lanes and getting hit on the right side of the fucking car without the car even breaking? Either Sgt. Ronald Elcock got it all wrong in his press conference or I stand by my assertion that billion dollar interests probably played some part in police chief Sylvia Moir so quickly exonerating Uber.

No one here knows the facts. I speak on experience after investigating fatal vehicle crashes before.

However it seems that based on early reports the pedestrian suddenly crossed in a place she shouldn't have been crossing. Take away the autonomous car for a moment and put you behind the wheel. At 60 km/hr on a typical dry road using a typical car, it takes about 20 metres from the start of braking to come to a complete stop. Add to that the reaction of a driver and you're looking at 40-50 metres minimum.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the pedestrian was at fault?

[Marco]

No one here knows the facts.

We know what reporters told us the police told them and we know for a fact she was hit on the right side of the car.

it takes about 20 metres from the start of braking to come to a complete stop. Add to that the reaction of a driver and you're looking at 40-50 metres minimum.

One of the thing the reporters told us the police told them is that the car didn't brake before impact, so that is neither here nor there.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the pedestrian was at fault?

At fault yes, almost certainly avoidable by a human driver paying attention, also yes. Hit on the right corner after crossing nearly the entire road and the car couldn't nudge left a little in time to avoid her?

Brilliant self driving cars which can react in milliseconds couldn't manage that?

[Halcyon]

it takes about 20 metres from the start of braking to come to a complete stop. Add to that the reaction of a driver and you're looking at 40-50 metres minimum.

One of the thing the reporters told us the police told them is that the car didn't brake before impact, so that is neither here nor there.

Based on what? The word of one Police boss? I doubt very much that the ECU had been extracted at that point and the footage viewed, I'd say the comment was probably a bit premature. I have my doubts. Firstly, cars fitted with ABS don't leave long tyre marks, there is barely any mark. Secondly, I'd expect more damage to the vehicle higher up the bonnet and/or windscreen in a crash at that speed. Of course I'm going on nothing more than the wide shot photograph, but there seems to be a bit of Chinese whispers going on here.

"Autonomous vehicle kills pedestrian" sells more papers and clicks than "Pedestrian did the wrong thing, run over by car".

I'm not taking one side or another, but having been in the position of investigating crashes, it normally takes days or weeks (sometimes months) for the facts to become known. The fact that Uber is a multi-billion dollar company, has nothing to do with it.

[Marco]

The word of one Police boss?

No the "boss" Sylvia Moir was the one who quickly exonerated Uber. The one who said the car didn't slow down was the spokesman who made a prepared presentation at a press conference ... not exactly an off the cuff remark. He also avoided talking about innocence.

the footage viewed

They've also said they have already viewed camera footage.

I'm not taking one side or another, but having been in the position of investigating crashes, it normally takes days or weeks (sometimes months) for the facts to become known.

The age of the dash cam makes some things easier.

The fact that Uber is a multi-billion dollar company, has nothing to do with it.

Something moved Sylvia Moir to declare Uber innocent so quickly.

[EEVblog]

I bet Uber will pay most of the legal cost and settlement, and use whatever lawyers to get the driver out of trouble.
Otherwise Uber will run short on test drivers for a long time and will turn on the anger of driver community.
And if the victim's family is not stupid enough, they should know suing a driver won't yield in millions of dollars.

But suing Uber maybe a tougher task, because they weren't driving. Anyone with a license should have have by law third party personal injury insurance (at least in this country you do). So suing the person and their insurance company would be a more standard legal case. i.e. higher chance of getting a payout.

[EEVblog]

Something moved Sylvia Moir to declare Uber innocent so quickly.

Yep, that smells fishy. Although there is a lot at stake.

[EEVblog]

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the pedestrian was at fault?

Could very well be. But all the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the driver was not paying attention at the time, and bam, sure fire negligence conviction.
Legally, I'm sure that the autonomous mode would be no different to cruise control. You can't put on cruise control and take a nap, same with an autonomous car.

[EEVblog]

A lot of individual vs big corporate cases end up with off court settlement, and I bet big companies always pay a lot of undisclosed money to reach a settlement, not only for loss of life compensation, but also for the victim's family to shut up.

No doubt.
Doesn't mean they will settle though. They could decide it's more important to them as a legal test case to remove culpability from "drivers" of autonomous cars, otherwise they could simply face this same problem again and again...

[fubar.gr]

The human driver probably zoned out, unable to react in time, as usually happens in self-driven cars.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/16646/waymo-engineers-disturbing-confession-highlights-ignorance-at-heart-of-self-driving-lobby

Kazemi is obviously aware of Waymo's strategic decision to focus exclusively on Level 4 autonomous cars. Their decision was based on research indicating that semi-autonomous systems short of Level 4 led to atrophying skills. As cars march up the SAE/DOT Level definitions, drivers pay less attention—and place more faith in technology—than they should. Waymo's test drivers began falling asleep when using semi-autonomous systems, and were unresponsive to transition warnings alerting them to resume control. Studies have suggested that unprepared passengers might need as long as thirty seconds to do so, and Waymo concluded that no transition warning system would be sufficient to make a semi-autonomous car safe.

Waymo therefore decided to jump from Level 2/ADAS, which is where we are today, straight to R&D for Level 4.

[alan242]

I live about 10 miles (about 16 km) from where the accident occurred. It is a dark area at night. (Although, I thought the self driving cars did not entirely rely on light.) The area borders some office parks, some recreational parks and the Phoenix zoo.

Here are some local links with additional information and some video of the scene.

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/tempe-police-investigating-self-driving-uber-car-involved-in-crash-overnight

http://www.azfamily.com/story/37757581/self-driving-vehicle-strikes-and-kills-pedestrian-in-arizona

http://www.azfamily.com/story/37757233/tempe-pd-uber-self-driving-vehicle-hits-kills-pedestrian

Oh and I'm sure this one will get some wound up on Uber's hiring practices again...

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/19/operator-self-driving-uber-vehicle-killed-pedestrian-felon/440501002/

[Jeroen3]

The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.

The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.

^FTFY

[nctnico]

The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.

Now that is jumping to conclusions!
There was someone behind the wheel and that person was not able to brake as well. Remember that automatic braking for pedestrians is a very common feature on new cars so the technology to do that is mature. If a car equiped with a human driver AND an automatic system and someone still gets killed there is only one conclusion: the person who died litterally jumped in front of the car. There is nothing you can do about such situations.
I've had it happen with cat myself during driving lessons. A cat jumped in front of the car and both the instructor and me (both with access to a brake pedal) where unable to react in time. I've also seen footage from an accident where a cyclist crossed a street after a truck passed by. The cyclist overlooked a car from the opposite direction and got hit. For the driver the cyclist appeared out of nowhere. I'm pretty sure this accident is similar.

[Halcyon]

Could very well be. But all the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the driver was not paying attention at the time, and bam, sure fire negligence conviction.
Legally, I'm sure that the autonomous mode would be no different to cruise control. You can't put on cruise control and take a nap, same with an autonomous car.

Yes you're right, but negligence can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. I know the "negligent driving" ticket gets thrown around quite a lot as a "catch all" offence, but I've said this many times before, there is almost always a more appropriate offence. I reckon if you copped a neg. drive, you'd have a good chance of getting off in court.

Short of footage showing the driver asleep, reading a paper, eating a meal etc... I think they'll be hard pressed trying to prove negligence, especially if it's found out that the pedestrian broke the law and there was little to no time for a reasonable person to react in those circumstances. It's not a popular decision among the public when a pedestrian ends up dead and are found at-fault, but it happens more often than most people think.

There have been several cases where pedestrians have been killed by buses or garbage trucks in Sydney, almost every single instance was the fault of the pedestrian, either they were not paying attention and crossed in the wrong location or against a red light or they were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

From the articles I've read so far, it seems as though the pedestrian crossed in the wrong place and was distracted and didn't notice on-coming traffic. Lack of braking directly before the incident could simply mean lack of reactionary gap.

[bd139]

[vk6zgo]

I bet Uber will pay most of the legal cost and settlement, and use whatever lawyers to get the driver out of trouble.
Otherwise Uber will run short on test drivers for a long time and will turn on the anger of driver community.
And if the victim's family is not stupid enough, they should know suing a driver won't yield in millions of dollars.

But suing Uber maybe a tougher task, because they weren't driving. Anyone with a license should have have by law third party personal injury insurance (at least in this country you do). So suing the person and their insurance company would be a more standard legal case. i.e. higher chance of getting a payout.

At least in WA, where the Compulsory Third Party Insurance is paid with the Registration, the person who registered the vehicle is the one who will be sued, not the driver, if they are not one & the same.

If the same rules apply in Arizona, Über ( or perhaps,whichever body is testing the vehicle) would be the registered owner.

[donotdespisethesnake]

Pedestrian crosses road in unexpected place in pitch black conditions, even human driver does not react. I have to say, some pedestrians have zero care for their safety, and seem to assume that because they can see the car, the car driver can see them. When the conditions often make the pedestrian virtually invisible. And then there are those people deliberately trying to get run over - commonplace in Russia... but then anything goes in Russia.

It's sad that this person was homeless and recently out of jail, I wondered who would be walking around there late at night. The road layout was obviously designed for cars not pedestrians, a sidewalk meets the highway, a small sign says "Use crosswalk".

The news reports eventually get around to some salient facts : Uber robot cars have been driving for nearly a year before this accident. One person gets killed on Arizona roads every 9 hours. Yup, humans killed 962 people (2016), robot car kills 1 person. So ban robot cars?

This is the question I raised before : will people accept robot cars, even if they kill a lot less people than human driven cars, but still kill a few?

[orion242]

The backup driver is useless IMO.  If the car is fine 99% (well maybe in AZ where the climate is perfect) of the time, the driver will be used the car driving itself and off in lala land day dreaming.  When that 1% comes, they are simply not going to react fast enough.  Certainly not faster than if they where driving the car 100% of the time.

Don't these cars have lidar, radar, etc that should have detected an object even if it was dark?  Supposed to be "safer" than a human driving right?  Seems pretty shitty if it didn't attempt to slow down or move out of the way slightly.  Should be interesting to see who comes up at fault.

Would like to see these AVs tackle snow covered roads...

[FrankE]

Automotive machine vision isn't particularly adept at telling the difference between a grey sky, grey car, grey buildings, grey suit.
I can't see them working particularly well in Aberdeen The Granite or Silver Grey City.
We grew up not knowing what colour was until the BBC started broadcasting it.