Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

[jpd80]

If this turns out to be a sensor malfunction then yes, similar to a brake failure

but if this reveals a deeper inability to detect people like in this situation then,

the whole autonomous vehicle validation process ma be thrown into doubt.

 

We are a long way from that but plenty of people will be eagerly watching

to see what becomes of any civil action

Edited March 24, 2018 by jpd80

[MKX1960]

I would imagine that this paragraph from the Ars Technica article will play into it:

 

 

(Emphasis added.) That ain't gonna play well, regardless of who was to blame.

They've since recreated the accident using the same car and the woman's bicycle with the car in normal mode. The driver was able to stop before hitting the bicycle. Of course, the driver knew it would be there so that may have tainted the outcome.

[tzach]

Im glad the observer wasnt charged and I hope this serves as a powerful lesson

to those who eagerly embrace the rapid onrush of autonomous vehicles that this

tech is far from infallible and that maybe it cant do all that their makers claim

If the observers job is as a back up to the cars sensors then she wasn't doing it and should be charged.

[coupe3w]

If the observers job is as a back up to the cars sensors then she wasn't doing it and should be charged.

But, but texting and driving is legal in Arizona. <----- Stupid Law if you ask me.

So be careful driving out there it's YOUR responsibility to watch out for drives not paying attention behind the wheel of a killing machine. (sarcasm)

[SoonerLS]

There's another aspect to this--back in 2016 or 2015, Volvo announced that they would accept liability for accidents involving auto-driving Volvos. (I don't remember the wording of their announcement, but I don't think that meant that they would automatically accept liability in all accidents, just the ones where the car was at fault.) I wonder if this means they'll take the hit for Uber...

[SoonerLS]

But, but texting and driving is legal in Arizona. <----- Stupid Law if you ask me.

There is no law making it legal; there's just no law making it illegal, so it's legal by default.

Edited March 24, 2018 by SoonerLS

[akirby]

how about a software failure?

how about a fundamental failure in the concept itself?

I guess I should have said component failure. Doesn’t really matter whether it’s software or hardware.

[coupe3w]

I guess I should have said component failure. Doesn’t really matter whether it’s software or hardware.

What about the human failure to paying attention? Both parties in this case.

[akirby]

If this was a human driver without automatic braking and the driver was looking at the road but still hit the woman would you hold the driver accountable?

 

I think not, so whether they were paying attention or not is moot to me.

[rperez817]

There's another aspect to this--back in 2016 or 2015, Volvo announced that they would accept liability for accidents involving auto-driving Volvos. (I don't remember the wording of their announcement, but I don't think that meant that they would automatically accept liability in all accidents, just the ones where the car was at fault.) I wonder if this means they'll take the hit for Uber...

 

Volvo Cars CEO Håkan Samuelsson made two promises for its autonomous vehicle program in October 2015. They were in the context of federal guidelines for autonomous driving in the U.S. 1.) Volvo will accept full liability whenever one if its cars is in autonomous mode. 2.) Volvo regards the hacking of a car as a criminal offense.

https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/167975/us-urged-to-establish-nationwide-federal-guidelines-for-autonomous-driving

 

These guidelines don't apply to Uber's XC90 involved in the Tempe, Arizona incident. The autonomous vehicle technology for that particular car wasn't developed by Volvo Cars.

[coupe3w]

If this was a human driver without automatic braking and the driver was looking at the road but still hit the woman would you hold the driver accountable?

 

I think not, so whether they were paying attention or not is moot to me.

I know just because she wasn't in a cross walk you feel that way. But, don't pedestrians have the right of way also? It was a tragic accident for sure but I still think that if the driver was paying attention instead of texting the out come may have been different, I can't be certain and neither can you. I also think that video however it was taken is of poor quality, it is really dark. I saw another video of the same street, same speed taken after the accident and it wasn't as dark as that video. So who knows what the out come may have been. I feel bad for all parties involved.

[jpd80]

If the observers job is as a back up to the cars sensors then she wasn't doing it and should be charged.

This is a sticky point because the police have already absorbed her of any blame,

I expect that the real facts behind the crash will be revealed in a civil suit so this

May be far from over

[2b2]

I guess I should have said component failure. Doesn’t really matter whether it’s software or hardware.

how about "system failure"? ...tho I'd rather say/question "systemIC failure"

 

 

 

something else I've wanted to ask/what*IF*

 

what IF self-driving vehicles can cut accidents by 50% BUT

the accidents end up being a (nearly)completely different 'set' of victims

meaning

if you'd have died with human drivers, you won't with selfdriving YET

would Not have died with human drivers & Would with selfdriving

?

Edited March 24, 2018 by 2b2

[MKX1960]

Police chief said 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/?comments=1

I read that the Police chief has walked back some of his comments.

[MKX1960]

There's another aspect to this--back in 2016 or 2015, Volvo announced that they would accept liability for accidents involving auto-driving Volvos. (I don't remember the wording of their announcement, but I don't think that meant that they would automatically accept liability in all accidents, just the ones where the car was at fault.) I wonder if this means they'll take the hit for Uber...

For Volvo Car Group, the answer to the first question is “us.” Volvo Car Group President and CEO Håkan Samuelsson said Thursday that the company will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode. Samuelsson, who made the comments during a seminar on self-driving cars, said Volvo is “one of the first car makers in the world to make such a promise.”

[akirby]

I know just because she wasn't in a cross walk you feel that way. But, don't pedestrians have the right of way also?

 

Pedestrians never have the right of way outside of a crosswalk (outside of an obscure city law somewhere). That’s why they make crosswalks and laws around them. That’s why they tell you not to cross the road outside of a crosswalk.

 

If this accident happened in daytime where the pedestrian could be CLEARLY seen then it may be a different story. But you can’t assume somebody would have seen her at night and would have been able to avoid hitting her. It’s possible but that’s not enough to hold a driver legally responsible.

 

It’s the same with a car. If another driver turns in front of you and you hit them they are at fault for not yielding the right of way, even if it is debatable whether you had time to avoid them. Even if the other driver panics and doesn’t hit the brakes, it’s still the turning vehicle’s fault.

 

The only real way around it is if the pedestrian was already in the road and could have been seen from far enough away for the driver to stop. But not if she steps into the road at the last second.

[SoonerLS]

I know just because she wasn't in a cross walk you feel that way. But, don't pedestrians have the right of way also?

Ask anyone who's ever gotten a ticket for jaywalking.

[rperez817]

Ask anyone who's ever gotten a ticket for jaywalking.

 

Some people cited for jaywalking in Tempe, Arizona had to pay over $200 for the offense. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/tempe-police-crack-down-jaywalking-light-rail-stations-9162590

Edited March 25, 2018 by rperez817

[akirby]

This idea that you can just walk in front of a car and it not be 100% your fault is ridicilous.

[Ron W.]

What akirby said

part of the blame could be componet failure

part of the blame could be the human driver not paying attention

In my opinion MOST of the failure is on the person walking into an on coming car WITH HEAD LIGHTS ON

Was this woman impaired, drugs, alcohol ....

Edited March 25, 2018 by Ron W.

[jpd80]

A bad case of misjudgement as the lady looks towards the car at the last moment

 

Ona different note I wonder if Lidar works only with a person already in the lane

but much further in front of the car, maybe it cant detect late walk in front.

 

I know that there were reports of people testing the lights and stopping distance

of that model Volvo with a human driver and they were able to see and avoid

a person crossing the road at the location

Edited March 25, 2018 by jpd80

[Joe771476]

Ultimately, who will be liable, Uber, Volvo, or the person sitting in the car? If I want to sit in the back seat of my AV, then don't blame me! If I am required to sit in the "driver's " seat and pay attention, then what's the point of AV's? You're never going to see this crap come to fruition. A Transport Topics article ponders the idea of 3.5 million truckers out of a job if trucks are all AV's! I'm wondering if we can train them to become doctors maybe? That would reduce the cost of doctor's visits through competition! A little humor there folks! But why not...........AV's are a joke!

[SoonerLS]

Ona different note I wonder if Lidar works only with a person already in the lane

but much further in front of the car, maybe it cant detect late walk in front.

In the CES coverage from this year or last year on the Know How video podcast, they showed Ford's autonomous Focus booth. It included large monitors that showed what the car's detection systems could see, and it could see everyone and everything within its operational radius (excluding things that were blocked by other objects). And it was doing it in real time.

 

I don't know what differs between the Ford system and the Uber/Volvo system, but with the systems they are reported to have, it should have seen her and taken some avoidance measures.

[akirby]

Ultimately, who will be liable, Uber, Volvo, or the person sitting in the car?

D - the person who walked out in front of a moving vehicle.

 

I know you guys want to focus on the technology fail and I agree about that but neither the vehicle or the technology or the backup driver are responsible for this accident from a liability standpoint.

 

If that was a human driver in a regular vehicle this wouldn’t even be an issue - the driver would not be held liable. Even if re-enactments show that SOME drivers would have been able to avoid the accident. Because you can’t assume a driver can see and anticipate something like that for purposes of liability.

 

The only way the car or driver would be liable is if the person was already in the street for some reason. Then the driver has the responsibility not to hit it.

[jpd80]

So once we establish that the pedestrian is in the wrong

There is absolutely no obligation on the driver, observer

Or AV technology to either avoid a collision or even try

to save a person’s life. Got it.