# Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows”—don’t believe it



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstec...-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/?amp=1


----------



## UberfiST (Oct 10, 2017)

Uber probably paid him double his yearly salary to say that publicly


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

We doubt if the Uber's XC90 was safe to be tested or driven to start with. That XC90 car should be impounded for forensic analysis like headlight functions alone. Was it on high or low beam when it approached the Curry intersection? Is the horn working or not? Could that car pass a night vision test like most drivers are required?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.

I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


The point is not about whether a human would have stopped in time. Which IS something that can be determined by reconstructing the scene in similar lighting conditions.

The point is, regardless of "the shadows", LiDAR and radar should have seen the victim in plenty of time to avoid the accident.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberfiST said:


> Uber probably paid him double his yearly salary to say that publicly


Collusion !



Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


The camera only records 2 frames per second.
So the depicted chain of events as recorded by that device
Were not in Real Time.

Collision.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

Dead jaywalker who crossed right where there’s a sign urging people not to cross versus Uber felon sitting in a robocar.. not sure who I should show the least apathy toward


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


100% garunteed that the accident happened.
And
ABSOLUTELY NO AVOIDANCE TACTICS WERE EMPLOYED.
NOT BY MALFUNCTIONING CAR.
NOT BY INATTENTIVE BACKUP DRIVER.

COLLUSION COLLISION.



HotUberMess said:


> Dead jaywalker who crossed right where there's a sign urging people not to cross versus Uber felon sitting in a robocar.. not sure who I should show the least apathy toward


Simple.
REMOVE ROBO CARS FROM OUR ROADS.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

One accident = remove robocars?

Not gonna happen, don’t delude yourself. Don’t worry, there will always be a segment of society that wants real human drivers for their car.


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/?amp=1


I've watched the video repeatedly & it looks like the vic did indeed come out of the shadows. But she's still visible moments before the car hits her.

In the moments before the crash, where the driver's face is shown, there are clearly moments where he's not watching the road. I think if he had been watching, he would have seen the pedestrian in time to react by braking and/or swerving, but idk if that would have been enough to entirely avoid hitting her.

I was astonished that the pedestrian was crossing in that location, with a car, headlights on, coming at her. How did *she* not see him coming?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

WeirdBob said:


> The point is not about whether a human would have stopped in time. Which IS something that can be determined by reconstructing the scene in similar lighting conditions.
> The point is, regardless of "the shadows", LiDAR and radar should have seen the victim in plenty of time to avoid the accident.


No, you don't get to stipulate what the point of the crash is. To easy prevent this type of crash, all you have to do is promote "look before you cross". That's it.



HotUberMess said:


> Dead jaywalker who crossed right where there's a sign urging people not to cross versus Uber felon sitting in a robocar.. not sure who I should show the least apathy toward


No jaywalker = no accident. Guaranteed
jaywalker hoping for heroic act to save him = not guranteed



KellyC said:


> In the moments before the crash, where the driver's face is shown, there are clearly moments where he's not watching the road. I think if he had been watching, he would have seen the pedestrian in time to react by braking and/or swerving,
> 
> I was astonished that the pedestrian was crossing in that location, with a car, headlights on, coming at her. How did *she* not see him coming?


If the driver jammed on his brakes or swerved, can you guarantee us he wouldnt have caused another accident or injured or even endangered any other innocent people? Why should the driver be put in such a peril situation?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

HotUberMess said:


> One accident = remove robocars?
> 
> Not gonna happen, don't delude yourself. Don't worry, there will always be a segment of society that wants real human drivers for their car.


I live 36 miles drom the Gulf of Mexico.
Many( MANY) of my friends are well paid Captains or crew in Gulf of Mexico.

Automation seeks to Eliminate these jobs.
Do you know how many jobs that is here ?

Last oilfield downturn
Banks Repossessed offshore vessels.
Then homes went for sale.
Then banks closed.
Then 1/2 the city was for sale.

Many support industries for the boats.
Catering crews.
Food.
Supplies.
Automation wants to eliminate humans from transportation.
Boats, busses, planes, trains.

Where exactly will people need to go ?
When they are All broke & unemployed ?

What will that do to the economy ?

Buy Land.
Learn to farm.
Before its Illegal !


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> No, you don't get to stipulate what the point of the crash is. To easy prevent this type of crash, all you have to do is promote "look before you cross". That's it.
> 
> No jaywalker = no accident. Guaranteed
> jaywalker hoping for heroic act to save him = not guranteed
> ...


Of course I can't guarantee it; I believe I specifically said I didn't know if it would be enough to avoid the crash. He didn't react at all, tho, until the actual crash. He wasn't looking. He was relying on the technology, which failed.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

KellyC said:


> Of course I can't guarantee it; I believe I specifically said I didn't know if it would be enough to avoid the crash. He didn't react at all, tho, until the actual crash. He wasn't looking. He was relying on the technology, which failed.


Well yeah. If I buy an autonomous vehicle, but I still have to pay attention to traffic, I've just wasted thousands of dollars.

I never debated that Uber's technology may have failed.

I'm just wondering why people keep overlooking why this crash happened in the first place, instead of why somebody else did avoid the pedestrians initial illegal negligent mistake....


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

For all of us that have driven on a road at night with perfect lighting, it's perfectly easy to see hundreds of feet in front of us.

It's even easier for radar to see in front since lighting doesn't matter at all.

All of us know this crash should never have happened.

The article sums it up perfectly,


> "
> the more likely explanation is that the Uber vehicle's dashcam was poorly configured for nighttime recording, and so the video gives a misleading impression of how bright the scene was and how much warning the driver had.
> 
> And even if it's true that the road were poorly lit, it's not clear if that would exonerate Uber. Uber's cars have lidar and radar sensors in addition to cameras, and those sensors don't require ambient light to function. So the vehicle should have spotted Herzberg even if the road was pitch black."


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm confident that if i was driving I could have slammed on the brakes or swerved to avoid her.

Would I have hit her?

I don't know...

But i would have slammed on the brakes at the last second.

Would that have been enough to save her life?

I don't know...

Could slamming on the brakes or swerving I theoretically could have hit her a lot slower and at a less direct angle. Both probobly would have resulted in less injuries and could have been the difference.


There's a HUGE difference between getting hit by a car going 30 and a car going 40.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

KellyC said:


> I've watched the video repeatedly & it looks like the vic did indeed come out of the shadows. But she's still visible moments before the car hits her.
> 
> In the moments before the crash, where the driver's face is shown, there are clearly moments where he's not watching the road. I think if he had been watching, he would have seen the pedestrian in time to react by braking and/or swerving, but idk if that would have been enough to entirely avoid hitting her.
> 
> I was astonished that the pedestrian was crossing in that location, with a car, headlights on, coming at her. How did *she* not see him coming?


1. What shadows? A shadow of doubts? There's no cloud of shadows according to Lidar weather forecast.
2. She/he could have been instructed to look for some displayed data for test in progress periodically. 
3. Uber SDC could be just as invisible to her or moving too fast by exceeding the posted speed limit. We'd ask why no horn or audible warning if poor victim is vision impaired.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

HotUberMess said:


> One accident = remove robocars?
> 
> Not gonna happen, don't delude yourself. Don't worry, there will always be a segment of society that wants real human drivers for their car.


See... this argument is stupid... "oh it was one Uber car accident"..... v.s how many Uber cars on the road?

Can you tell me how many Uber vehicles are on the road right now that you can say "just one accident"? because I guarantee you the amount of humans driving on the road right now v.s the percentage of fatal accidents is better than the amount of Uber vehicles on the road v.s percentage of accidents

Don't say "one accident" if you aren't going to back it up. If there's let's say 10 Uber cars on the road right now in Arizona or where ever this accident happened that comes out to 10% fatality rate.... can you imagine if 10% of the vehicles on the road right now in the world caused a fatality?


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well yeah. If I buy an autonomous vehicle, but I still have to pay attention to traffic, I've just wasted thousands of dollars.
> 
> I never debated that Uber's technology may have failed.
> 
> I'm just wondering why people keep overlooking why this crash happened in the first place, instead of why somebody else did avoid the pedestrians initial illegal negligent mistake....


We'd buy a autonomous flying vehicle before an Uber's altered XC90 ready for sale. 
The crash occurred because there was a speeding Uber altered XC90 failed to move responsibly while in autonomous mode. The solution is easy, send police out to ban the unsafe test vehicles to kill more. Well, no police needed. Uber self policing finally kicked into place. No more test on public road until NTSB or more credible investigation is completed and deemed US public roads are proper venue for the test again. We need to have a level field for fair use of the public roads.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows.


You mean from the video that Uber supplied everyone with ?

It's likely Uber altered the video to make it look as ridiculous as it does.

Somehow it's only dark right at the point where the Uber car hits the pax. It's not dark anywhere else. You can see everything else in the shot as clear as day.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

It's looking like the pics/video uber is providing is a crapily configured dash camera that isn't set up for night recording (Really uber) and even with a super Elcheapo camera it's very easy to tell that the street in question is much more well lit than uber makes it seem.\





Same street/intersection late night with a better camera.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You mean from the video that Uber supplied everyone with ?
> 
> It's likely Uber altered the video to make it look as ridiculous as it does.
> 
> Somehow it's only dark right at the point where the Uber car hits the pax. It's not dark anywhere else. You can see everything else in the shot as clear as day.


We'll see if any US court will accept the shadowy theory, It's really hilarious after greyball story. Are ppl going to call this BlackShadow of 2018?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> I it's very easy to tell that the street in question is much more well lit than uber makes it seem
> .


oh yeah? then why in the world did the pedestrian the the truck coming, OR see the headlights from the truck????????? That's right, we don't want to talk about WHY the crash happened in the 1st place, that would take away from the Uber hate agenda



ntcindetroit said:


> We'll see if any US court will accept the shadowy theory, It's really hilarious after greyball story. Are ppl going to call this BlackShadow of 2018?


Police have already said it doesn't appear Uber was at fault. I can tell you 100% it wasn't Uber's fault that caused the accident. It was the illegal negligent pedestrian that crossed the road


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> oh yeah? then why in the world did the pedestrian the the truck coming, OR see the headlights from the truck????????? That's right, we don't want to talk about WHY the crash happened in the 1st place, that would take away from the Uber hate agenda
> 
> Police have already said it doesn't appear Uber was at fault. I can tell you 100% it wasn't Uber's fault that caused the accident. It was the illegal negligent pedestrian that crossed the road


You're really missing the point. The equipment failed spectacularly. You can't have these cars on the streets in neighborhoods with children that do run into the roads. And I have amazing night sight. I can see shadows and deer about to cross. I can see eyes reflecting in the dark and can anticipate my next move giving whatever is crossing my path me and them a fighting chance.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> oh yeah? then why in the world did the pedestrian the the truck coming, OR see the headlights from the truck????????? That's right, we don't want to talk about WHY the crash happened in the 1st place, that would take away from the Uber hate agenda
> 
> Police have already said it doesn't appear Uber was at fault. I can tell you 100% it wasn't Uber's fault that caused the accident. It was the illegal negligent pedestrian that crossed the road


Just wait for DA office to see who will be named as defendant, if not Uber and/or Volvo, Lidar or radar makers, the traffic engineer at city hall?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> oh yeah? then why in the world did the pedestrian the the truck coming, OR see the headlights from the truck????????? That's right, we don't want to talk about WHY the crash happened in the 1st place, that would take away from the Uber hate agenda
> 
> Police have already said it doesn't appear Uber was at fault. I can tell you 100% it wasn't Uber's fault that caused the accident. It was the illegal negligent pedestrian that crossed the road


When your trying to cross a 4 lane road there's really no waiting for it to 100% clear. that's why it's illegal to cross.

However running over a J-walker is still negligent, and when you are negligent and someone dies that's manslaughter.

And I don't think it's uber or the car designers at fault, it's the safety driver!

For the record...

That "not driver" should go to jail for not safely operating that automobile.

And the uber cars should get taken off the roads.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


> You're really missing the point. The equipment failed spectacularly. You can't have these cars on the streets in neighborhoods with children that do run into the roads. And I have amazing night sight. I can see shadows and deer about to cross. I can see eyes the reflect in the dark and can anticipate my next move giving whatever is crossing my path me and them a fighting chance.


Not just kid(s), No US road user(s) begging to be killed by Uber altered XC90, seriously. What if Uber sending their altered XC90's to circle the court? It is not going to work this time, we think.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> You're really missing the point. The equipment failed spectacularly. You can't have these cars on the streets in neighborhoods with children that do run into the roads. And I have amazing night sight. I can see shadows and deer about to cross. I can see eyes the reflect in the dark and can anticipate my next move giving whatever is crossing my path me and them a fighting chance.


Alas, in Bart McCoy 's dark and twisted world view, jay walking is a capital offense.

They just cannot comprehend the concept that even if someone is crossing the street illegally, you are in the wrong if you hit them with your car if you could have safely avoided it.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> oh yeah? then why in the world did the pedestrian the the truck coming, OR see the headlights from the truck????????? That's right, we don't want to talk about WHY the crash happened in the 1st place, that would take away from the Uber hate agenda
> 
> Police have already said it doesn't appear Uber was at fault. I can tell you 100% it wasn't Uber's fault that caused the accident. It was the illegal negligent pedestrian that crossed the road


Rumor Central - A female biker was killed near designated bike path after two traffic signs clearly displayed [Bike Lane] and [Yield to Bikes]. An altered XC90 was caught failed to yield with shadowy video footage, camouflaged as fast and cheapest SDC of 2018. This incident and suspected weapons of public road terrorist(s) has no one claimed the responsibility. All citizen please report any suspicious vehicle behavior to the local or federal authority if sighted. Do not attempt to stop the suspected vehicles, especially if it's cruising above posted speed limit without signs of slow down, steering or braking with occupant(s) or not.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> When your trying to cross a 4 lane road there's really no waiting for it to 100% clear. that's why it's illegal to cross.
> 
> However running over a J-walker is still negligent, and when you are negligent and someone dies that's manslaughter.
> 
> ...





WeirdBob said:


> Alas, in Bart McCoy 's dark and twisted world view, jay walking is a capital offense.
> 
> They just cannot comprehend the concept that even if someone is crossing the street illegally, you are in the wrong if you hit them with your car if you could have safely avoided it.


I can easily and legally run somebody over, is what you guys fail to understand, when I'm not given a decent amount of time prevent doing so.
Just because there's some illegal person who hops in front of me, does not mean I'm guilty if I run them over.
Clearly that's not the law. There are elements to that case that must exist. None exist in this case. Which is why a pedestrian has died, and NO ONE will go to jail for murder. Not Uber not the driver, which disproves y'all saying we can't run people over, but its simply not that clear cut like that


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

There is no dead line to kill a biker on foot or on bike. It's legal and permitted 'jay' walk to go from median to the bike lane on Mill Ave. Traffic engineering Dept. has two big signs out there to alert and direct drivers that can read [Bike Lane] and [Yield to Bikes]. What the altered XC90 does not understand? simply it's inhuman. Shall we road users party and co-mingle with inhuman vehicles?


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> I can easily and legally run somebody over, is what you guys fail to understand, when I'm not given a decent amount of time prevent doing so.
> Just because there's some illegal person who hops in front of me, does not mean I'm guilty if I run them over.
> Clearly that's not the law. There are elements to that case that must exist. None exist in this case. Which is why a pedestrian has died, and NO ONE will go to jail for murder. Not Uber not the driver, which disproves y'all saying we can't run people over, but its simply not that clear cut like that


She did NOT just hop out of nowhere. Most humans and all well designed and functioning SDC systems would have had plenty of time to react.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence presented that proves the inadequacy of the autonomous system in this particular circumstance.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

ntcindetroit said:


> We'd buy a autonomous flying vehicle before an Uber's altered XC90 ready for sale.
> The crash occurred because there was a speeding Uber altered XC90 failed to move responsibly while in autonomous mode. The solution is easy, send police out to ban the unsafe test vehicles to kill more. Well, no police needed. Uber self policing finally kicked into place. No more test on public road until NTSB or more credible investigation is completed and deemed US public roads are proper venue for the test again. We need to have a level field for fair use of the public roads.


Because they KNOW exactly how Liable they are !


----------



## Dude.Sweet. (Nov 15, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> The point is not about whether a human would have stopped in time. Which IS something that can be determined by reconstructing the scene in similar lighting conditions.
> 
> The point is, regardless of "the shadows", LiDAR and radar should have seen the victim in plenty of time to avoid the accident.


Agree. Car should have sensed something in the road. It reminds me of the kid chasing a ball into the street scenario, and as a driver having to react and stop short quickly. Day or night the car should be able to sense people, animals or objects hurtling towards the road from its peripheral areas and react ahead of time. Just last year they were still having trouble detecting kangaroos that were hopping around in the peripheral.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...s-self-driving-cars-are-confused-by-kangaroos

I think we are still several years away form auto driving cars being a thing.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well yeah. If I buy an autonomous vehicle, but I still have to pay attention to traffic, I've just wasted thousands of dollars.
> 
> I never debated that Uber's technology may have failed.
> 
> I'm just wondering why people keep overlooking why this crash happened in the first place, instead of why somebody else did avoid the pedestrians initial illegal negligent mistake....


Mock Jury has found Uber product Defective.
Uber operation of vehicles on public streets Irresponsible.
Uber " Safety Tech. Vetting and hiring Haphazard.
Uber training of safety techs severly lacking.
Uber monitoring of safety techs non existant.

Uber is found Liable and guilty of Criminal Neglect of Public Safety concerns.

Mock Jury Recommends " GET THE ROPE"!

Mock Jury composed of multi background people from diverse cultural and regional backgrounds.
Reasonable to assume any and all juries throughout the country shall arrive at the same conclusions.

( if Uber shows proper atonement and admission of fault, leniency will be granted by using New Rope)



Bart McCoy said:


> I can easily and legally run somebody over, is what you guys fail to understand, when I'm not given a decent amount of time prevent doing so.
> Just because there's some illegal person who hops in front of me, does not mean I'm guilty if I run them over.
> Clearly that's not the law. There are elements to that case that must exist. None exist in this case. Which is why a pedestrian has died, and NO ONE will go to jail for murder. Not Uber not the driver, which disproves y'all saying we can't run people over, but its simply not that clear cut like that


" Legal" Public Slaughter isnt clear cut .
Gotchya !

I am sure the jury will sift through all the muddying of waters and develop a clear image on this.

Unlike Ubers Failed Lidar !

" You have the right to remain silent " . . .

And, might i add, other countries and peoples shall have an even dimmer view of these technology failures !

Cite U.S. Approved G.M.O. Foods BANNED in over 100 countries . . . .


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

ntcindetroit said:


> There is no dead line to kill a biker on foot or on bike. It's legal and permitted 'jay' walk to go from median to the bike lane on Mill Ave. Traffic engineering Dept. has two big signs out there to alert and direct drivers that can read [Bike Lane] and [Yield to Bikes]. What the altered XC90 does not understand? simply it's inhuman. Shall we road users party and co-mingle with inhuman vehicles?


what are you talking about, this really has NOTHING to do with bikes, since nobody was actually riding one. This is about a pedestrian walking along with a bike across the road without looking. The sign is talking about bike going in the same direction, NOT perpendicular to the direction cars are traveling, so please stop it



WeirdBob said:


> She did NOT just hop out of nowhere. Most humans and all well designed and functioning SDC systems would have had plenty of time to react.
> 
> You are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence presented that proves the inadequacy of the autonomous system in this particular circumstance.


I didn't misrepresent any evidence, especially since the solid evidence is that the pedestrian illegally and negligently crossed the road. Pedestrian did NOT have the right of way. Where is the misinterpretation of evidence at? Just because you hate uber you can't make up your own rules and laws


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> When your trying to cross a 4 lane road there's really no waiting for it to 100% clear. that's why it's illegal to cross.
> 
> However running over a J-walker is still negligent, and when you are negligent and someone dies that's manslaughter.


In AZ, it is legal to cross outside of a crosswalk in many instances. In that location, it is not only legal to cross, but characterized as "common practice" to cross there.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> I can easily and legally run somebody over, is what you guys fail to understand, when I'm not given a decent amount of time prevent doing so.
> Just because there's some illegal person who hops in front of me, does not mean I'm guilty if I run them over.
> Clearly that's not the law. There are elements to that case that must exist. None exist in this case. Which is why a pedestrian has died, and NO ONE will go to jail for murder. Not Uber not the driver, which disproves y'all saying we can't run people over, but its simply not that clear cut like that


You're pretty clueless. You're just not getting it. Hopeless.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> what are you talking about, this really has NOTHING to do with bikes, since nobody was actually riding one. This is about a pedestrian walking along with a bike across the road without looking. The sign is talking about bike going in the same direction, NOT perpendicular to the direction cars are traveling, so please stop it
> 
> I didn't misrepresent any evidence, especially since the solid evidence is that the pedestrian illegally and negligently crossed the road. Pedestrian did NOT have the right of way. Where is the misinterpretation of evidence at? Just because you hate uber you can't make up your own rules and laws


A METAL BICYCLE
EASILY DETECTED BY ONBOARD RADAR !
How did all( ALL) systems FAIL !?

Including the EMERGENCY BACKUP HUMAN DRIVER !

Outrageous !
Inexcusable !
Unforgiveable !

These inactions are as UNRETRACTABLE AS THE DEATH THEY CAUSED !



BurgerTiime said:


> You're pretty clueless. You're just not getting. Hopeless.


WILLFULL IGNORANCE.

LIKE UBER CORPORATE

LIKE THE ROBOT CAR.
IGNORING ALL INPUT !


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

110% pedestrian should have yielded to the oncoming car.

BUT, even if she were in the legal crosswalk that car would not have stopped. LIDAR is not dependent on light, nor can it recognize lines on the ground.

So, this is a great indicator that something failed within pedestrian safety of the SDC.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


That story wont Spin
Even in a Toilet Bowl.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


> You're pretty clueless. You're just not getting. Hopeless.


You're describing yourself, have a good day



UberLaLa said:


> 110% pedestrian should have yielded to the oncoming car.
> 
> .


Right there we need to close this whole topic, 'nuff said



tohunt4me said:


> That story wont Spin
> Even in a Toilet Bowl.


The truth doesn't spin
Your hate for Uber will


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> 110% pedestrian should have yielded to the oncoming car.
> 
> BUT, even if she were in the legal crosswalk that car would not have stopped. LIDAR is not dependent on light, nor can it recognize lines on the ground.
> 
> So, this is a great indicator that something failed within pedestrian safety of the SDC.


And it was Known in 2016 in San Francisco !
See bicycle weekly Magazine Dec. 2016 !
Same weekCalifornia Enforced Revocation of Uber S.D.C. TESTING !



Bart McCoy said:


> You're describing yourself, have a good day
> 
> Right there we need to close this whole topic, 'nuff said
> 
> ...


I only hate Denial and Deception
And
Their use as Corporate Policy.
I am a simple man.
A Human.

Uber could have been so much better.

Yet they Repeatedly Chose Not To.
A Way of Life . . . for them.

Eventually
We must ISOLATE THE HABITUAL OFFENDER.
FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> You're describing yourself, have a good day
> 
> Right there we need to close this whole topic, 'nuff said
> 
> ...


Seriously. This is a real world test to show that there was a problem with the SDC. In this instance was the SDC at fault? No. But it DID NOT RECOGNIZE a pedestrian. How do you explain that?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> Seriously. This is a real world test to show that there was a problem with the SDC. In this instance was the SDC at fault? No. But it DID NOT RECOGNIZE a pedestrian. How do you explain that?


Same test
Could have been done
On a closed circuit track.
Without killing anyone or harming any animals.

I do not want to be a guinea pig in ubers next experiment.

Get them off the streets !


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

UberLaLa said:


> Seriously. This is a real world test to show that there was a problem with the SDC. In this instance was the SDC at fault? No. But it DID NOT RECOGNIZE a pedestrian. How do you explain that?


If you've been paying any attention to all the replies I've said, I haven't debated uber's technology failure.
Reading is fundamental


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

ntcindetroit said:


> Not just kid(s), No US road user(s) begging to be killed by Uber altered XC90, seriously. What if Uber sending their altered XC90's to circle the court? It is not going to work this time, we think.


Not EVEN with Free ice cream and AN UBER KITTEN ON THE DASHBOARD.

THIS CASE
IS QUICKSAND !

The more they Squirm
The Worse it will be !

ACCOUNTABILITY !
Get some.

There is no Escape & Diversion here.
Duck & Jive looks like a " fish flop" in public light.



Taxi2Uber said:


> In AZ, it is legal to cross outside of a crosswalk in many instances. In that location, it is not only legal to cross, but characterized as "common practice" to cross there.


" Reasonable Expectations"
Disallows " Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" exclusion.

Dont make me get out Juris Prudence and my WesLaw criminal & Civil codebooks and pocket updates !

Grand Jury MUST BRING CASE TO TRIAL !

D.A. better start reading.

Hope they have enough hotels for the media . . .

Now
Did the co plantiff " incorporated area of the city of Tempe"
Hold hearings publicly for citizens to voice concerns prior to granting access ?

Were 3 public notices posted in public newspaper as per law ?

Were testing maps and warning signs publicly displayed ?

Did the public servants of Tempe fulfill their duties to the citizens?
Such as the poor woman tragically killed ?

Hmmmmmmm . . . .


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> If you've been paying any attention to all the replies I've said, I haven't debated uber's technology failure.
> Reading is fundamental


And that technological failure puts them AT PARTIAL blame. And the victim at partial blame.

The victim is not 110%, or 100%, or 90% or 80% or even 70%.

The driver of the vehicle, whether human or software, has an obligation to refrain from hitting a passenger if it is safe to do so, REGARDLESS of whether they were crossing outside of a designated crosswalk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-accident-involving-a-jay-walker-.html_
*11/09/2015*

*Who's at fault in an accident involving a Jay-walker?*

* ​*
*First and foremost, jaywalking is illegal. *
However, does that mean a driver has the right to run you over? Simple answer: No. 

*Question:* So who is at fault when a jaywalker is hit by a car? 

*Answer:* Maybe both. Arizona law requires pedestrians to cross the street at corners and/or designated crosswalks. 
So often, people decide on a quicker and less safe route. Indeed, I cannot even count the number of times I see someone jaywalking---yet with a marked crosswalk maybe 50 feet away.

Arizona law also requires drivers of motor vehicles to pay attention and to drive "reasonably" for all traffic conditions. "All traffic conditions" includes the existence of pedestrians in or near the roadways.

So, should an accident occur between a jaywalker and a car---if shown that the driver could have/should have seen the person and could have/should have been able to avoid, then without question the driver can be held responsible.​


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

I'm pretty sure that Arizona allows vehicles to go full autonomous. If so then that would mean that it wouldn't matter what the driver was doing in terms of his own liability for this death. Anyway, it'll be fascinating to see how the issues that everyone knew would come up, such as who's responsible for SDC - involved deaths, will be dealt with in reality as the body count builds up.

In this case, I would say 50/50 blame. The woman should not have crossed the street into the path of a moving vehicle and the SDC is claimed to have radar / LIDAR / cameras etc that should have detected her presence. As to who should field the blame on the part of the SDC, I think it has to be Uber. I think they dodged a bullet on this one, as the victim was a homeless person who may not have any family that would sue Uber. This will change, though, when a person of higher profile gets mown down by a SDC, such as a member of local government or a media personality etc.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Aint enough ROOM under the bus
For what will happen next.
Circus Extraordinaire.

A.C.L.U. SHOULD SUE ON HER BEHALF.

DONATE PROCEEDS TO HOMELESS

THIS WOMANS HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NO LESS THAN A POLITICIANS !

A.C.L.U. SHOULD SUE ON HER BEHALF.

DONATE PROCEEDS TO HOMELESS

THIS WOMANS HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NO LESS THAN A POLITICIANS !


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

WeirdBob said:


> And that technological failure puts them AT PARTIAL blame. And the victim at partial blame.
> 
> The victim is not 110%, or 100%, or 90% or 80% or even 70%.
> 
> The driver of the vehicle, whether human or software, has an obligation to refrain from hitting a passenger if it is safe to do so, REGARDLESS of whether they were crossing outside of a designated crosswalk.


The pedestrian is 100% at fault for causing the accident. Period. No amount of Uber hate can change that.



The Gift of Fish said:


> In this case, I would say 50/50 blame. The woman should not have crossed the street into the path of a moving vehicle and the SDC is claimed to have radar / LIDAR / cameras etc that should have detected her presence. As to who should field the blame on the part of the SDC, I think it has to be Uber. I think they dodged a bullet on this one, as the victim was a homeless person who may not have any family that would sue Uber. This will change, though, when a person of higher profile gets mown down by a SDC, such as a member of local government or a media personality etc.


There's no 50/50. Woman 100% caused the accident, you guys blame uber because you ASSUME there was enough time to avoid it. Police have already preliminary said UBer driver nor car was at fault (which he pretty much means the accident happened because of the pedestrian).

Stop letting hate cloud your judgement



tohunt4me said:


> Aint enough ROOM under the bus
> For what will happen next.
> Circus Extradinaire.
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight
I can go walk out into the beltway, purposely not look for cars, get hit, then sue the cars for $millions$ for not avoiding hitting me??????????????

If people listen to you, there would be a barage of silly lawsuits of people running into the street and suing, so this makes no sense. The blame HAS to be put on the person going into a roadway


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

A.C.L.U. SHOULD SUE ON HER BEHALF.

DONATE PROCEEDS TO HOMELESS

THIS WOMANS HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NO LESS THAN A POLITICIANS !


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> There's no 50/50. Woman 100% caused the accident, you guys blame uber because you ASSUME there was enough time to avoid it. Police have already preliminary said UBer driver nor car was at fault (which he pretty much means the accident happened because of the pedestrian).
> 
> Stop letting hate cloud your judgement


As I said, it's just my opinion. In any case, when blame or percentages of blame are
apportioned after accidents, it's all only opinion. There is no "ACME accident blame calculation machine", into which reports, videos and statements are fed and it churns out a verdict.

My opinion is based on what I saw in the video. I believe that a human driver paying attention would have been able to see the woman and apply the brakes. Maybe not brake enough to avoid hitting the pedestrian, but maybe enough to slow down so that the impact was injury-only and not death. The fact that no avoidance measures whatsoever seem to have been taken means that the car earns itself some blame in this incident.

If your opinion is that the car or driver are blameless, that's fine too - your opinion is no more and no less valuable than anyone else's.


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well yeah. If I buy an autonomous vehicle, but I still have to pay attention to traffic, I've just wasted thousands of dollars.
> 
> I never debated that Uber's technology may have failed.
> 
> I'm just wondering why people keep overlooking why this crash happened in the first place, instead of why somebody else did avoid the pedestrians initial illegal negligent mistake....


Obviously the pedestrian shouldn't have been crossing the road there. That doesn't mean a driver doesn't have a duty to try to avoid striking pedestrians.

That's a separate issue from whether this driver *could* have avoided her if he had been paying attention. It was hard for me tell from that video.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> It's looking like the pics/video uber is providing is a crapily configured dash camera that isn't set up for night recording (Really uber) and even with a super Elcheapo camera it's very easy to tell that the street in question is much more well lit than uber makes it seem.\
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a huge difference. Doesn't even look like the same road.



WeirdBob said:


> And that technological failure puts them AT PARTIAL blame. And the victim at partial blame.
> 
> The victim is not 110%, or 100%, or 90% or 80% or even 70%.
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm so disappointed to learn that I don't have the right to mow people down with my car


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm pretty sure that Arizona allows vehicles to go full autonomous. If so then that would mean that it wouldn't matter what the driver was doing in terms of his own liability for this death. Anyway, it'll be fascinating to see how the issues that everyone knew would come up, such as who's responsible for SDC - involved deaths, will be dealt with in reality as the body count builds up.
> 
> In this case, I would say 50/50 blame. The woman should not have crossed the street into the path of a moving vehicle and the SDC is claimed to have radar / LIDAR / cameras etc that should have detected her presence. As to who should field the blame on the part of the SDC, I think it has to be Uber. I think they dodged a bullet on this one, as the victim was a homeless person who may not have any family that would sue Uber. This will change, though, when a person of higher profile gets mown down by a SDC, such as a member of local government or a media personality etc.


Thank the GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA FOR THAT ONE.



Bart McCoy said:


> The pedestrian is 100% at fault for causing the accident. Period. No amount of Uber hate can change that.
> 
> There's no 50/50. Woman 100% caused the accident, you guys blame uber because you ASSUME there was enough time to avoid it. Police have already preliminary said UBer driver nor car was at fault (which he pretty much means the accident happened because of the pedestrian).
> 
> ...


My Car is NOT UNPROVEN EXPERIMENTAL MALFUNCTIONING " TECHNOLOGY".

I have not Touted my car as being SAFER THAN HUMAN DRIVERS.
NOR AS THE FUTURE.

SO taking EVERYTHING into consideration in this particular case
Uber has some Splainin to do.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

In other news, in response to the safety risk to road users posed by the large number of Uber SDC vehicles in Arizona, Hertz has announced it will be introducing new vehicles to its Phoenix rental fleets.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

We must
In this light
Reassess the practicality of performing Corporate Development High Risk Tests
At Public Expense.

( see definition of Fascism : Public Risk
Private Profit)

This case Exemplifies
Our current Disengagement Phenomenon
Of elected Politicians with the Constituents of whom they are duly sworn public servants of.

It MUST BE HELD TO LIGHT !

The " EYES OF THE WORLD" are watching.

They are awake.
They are wide open.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

KellyC said:


> Obviously the pedestrian shouldn't have been crossing the road there. That doesn't mean a driver doesn't have a duty to try to avoid striking pedestrians.
> 
> That's a separate issue from whether this driver *could* have avoided her if he had been paying attention. It was hard for me tell from that video.
> 
> ...


The truth and fact will come out through discovery if there's going to be a trial. we're not sure if it was a tampered video or not, but street lights and lamp post(s) were not visible on that footage. Dark cloud descended on Mill ave. indeed that night. we don't want city's traffic engineering to get into this mess.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Next week: Cern applies to collide accelerated particles on Main Street in Arizona !
" We want to see how anti matter reacts in a real world environment."
Governor tells all Mayors to get behind it !
" Handle it! Handle it!"
Anti Matter Dont Matter.



ntcindetroit said:


> The truth and fact will come out through discovery if there's going to be a trial. we're not sure if it was a tampered video or not, but street lights and lamp post(s) were not visible on that footage. Dark cloud descended on Mill ave. indeed that night. we don't want city's traffic engineering to get into this mess.


Quit turning city streets into test track.
Pretty simple.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> The pedestrian is 100% at fault for causing the accident. Period. No amount of Uber hate can change that.
> . . .
> I can go walk out into the beltway, purposely not look for cars, get hit, then sue the cars for $millions$ for not avoiding hitting me??????????????
> . . .
> If people listen to you, there would be a barage of silly lawsuits of people running into the street and suing, so this makes no sense. The blame HAS to be put on the person going into a roadway


Neither of us are lawyers, but ONE of us has been researching this on various attorney's websites. Legally, in this particular circumstance, you are wrong.

BTW, no, I don't hate Uber. I don't like how they have conducted themselves in this and several other circumstances, but I like the concept.

And no, I don't hate self driving cars. I am studying to become a programmer / engineer in vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure systems.

I want them to be as safe as possible. I want the companies who develop and deploy them to be held to a very high standard, instead of corner cutting for rapid deployment.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberLaLa said:


> 110% pedestrian should have yielded to the oncoming car.
> 
> BUT, even if she were in the legal crosswalk that car would not have stopped. LIDAR is not dependent on light, nor can it recognize lines on the ground.
> 
> So, this is a great indicator that something failed within pedestrian safety of the SDC.


This is a great point. Even if the pedestrian was in a crosswalk she woulda got hit. This was a complete breakdown of the fundamental aspect of sdc's.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> This is a great point. Even if the pedestrian was in a crosswalk she woulda got hit. This was a complete breakdown of the fundamental aspect of sdc's.


I'm telling ya, Uber is trying to deflect on these side issues. A Self Driving Car did NOT see a pedestrian and killed her.

PERIOD


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

WeirdBob said:


> Neither of us are lawyers, but ONE of us has been researching this on various attorney's websites. Legally, in this particular circumstance, you are wrong.
> t.


Well let me be the one to tell you that you're wasting your time on those bogus law sites, the pedestrian 100% caused this accident so I am not wrong.

Furthermore, even if you were reading some legit law sites, they still are only making an opinion. As of today the Uber driver, nor Uber have been cited or charged in this incident, so legally, there's no way I can be wrong, so just stop it. There's absolutely NOTHING that says the driver or the truck was in the the wrong, only people who hate Uber opinions have said it was Uber fault. If you didn't know, opinions are not fact, so don't tell me I'm wrong unless you have facts. No court anywhere has agreed with these haters and convicted Uber. No police anywhere have agreed with those haters and even given Uber a ticket, let alone be found guilty of "murder". Yet, just because you browse some weak sites, I am wrong? buhahahahah, some funny stuff is on these forums


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well let me be the one to tell you that you're wasting your time on those bogus law sites, the pedestrian 100% caused this accident so I am not wrong.
> 
> Furthermore, even if you were reading some legit law sites, they still are only making an opinion. As of today the Uber driver, nor Uber have been cited or charged in this incident, so legally, there's no way I can be wrong, so just stop it. There's absolutely NOTHING that says the driver or the truck was in the the wrong, only people who hate Uber opinions have said it was Uber fault. If you didn't know, opinions are not fact, so don't tell me I'm wrong unless you have facts. No court anywhere has agreed with these haters and conicted Uber. No police anywhere have agreed with those haters and even given Uber a ticket, let alone be found guilty of "murder". Yet, just because you browse some weak sites, I am wrong? buhahahahah, some funny stuff is on these forums


clearly you don't realize there is a civil court system


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well let me be the one to tell you that you're wasting your time on those bogus law sites, the pedestrian 100% caused this accident so I am not wrong.
> 
> Furthermore, even if you were reading some legit law sites, they still are only making an opinion. As of today the Uber driver, nor Uber have been cited or charged in this incident, so legally, there's no way I can be wrong, so just stop it. There's absolutely NOTHING that says the driver or the truck was in the the wrong, only people who hate Uber opinions have said it was Uber fault. If you didn't know, opinions are not fact, so don't tell me I'm wrong unless you have facts. No court anywhere has agreed with these haters and conicted Uber. No police anywhere have agreed with those haters and even given Uber a ticket, let alone be found guilty of "murder". Yet, just because you browse some weak sites, I am wrong? buhahahahah, some funny stuff is on these forums


Lmao, you cannot be real.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977304769080496128
Interesting video...
If true, this is huge.

Uber accused of editing video...


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Jo3030 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977304769080496128
> Interesting video...
> If true, this is huge.
> 
> Uber accused of editing video...


I looks suspicious to me. In the video, it looks like the camera cannot make anything out farther than 50 feet ahead of the car. Nobody, human or robot, should be driving at that speed when visibility or obstacle detection is limited to 50 feet.

I prefer the validity of the comparison video that shows visibility is a few hundred feet for a human driver. As for the robot driver, I would have thought that visibility is less relevant anyway given that it also has radar / lidar.

Uber has already shown itself ready and willing to cover up negative events and pay to try to keep them hidden (data breach) so it's entirely possible and believable that they doctored the video. This is an ethics-free company, after all.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Uber Comms just came out refuting the video:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977742627004071936
"The video with our logo is not the original version. It was tweeted by @subictaxi, edited and with a musical track added. Uber did not doctor any video. The original video released by @TempePolice is here:"


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Clowns think they already have flying cars when they haven't yet got the ones that don't leave the ground right.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> clearly you don't realize there is a civil court system


Obviously you don't realize this case hasn't gone to ANY court so there's no way I'm wrong


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Obviously you don't realize this case hasn't gone to ANY court so there's no way I'm wrong


Obviously Uber is grounding their cars because their cars did nothing wrong.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Obviously Uber is grounding their cars because their cars did nothing wrong.


No, they are just using common sense
Whether Uber was at fault or not, any company would still take some time to fully examine what happened. You know, instead of people on here with their Uber hate already convicting Uber of a crime they aren't even charged with..........


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Ground THEM ALL !


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> No, they are just using common sense
> Whether Uber was at fault or not, any company would still take some time to fully examine what happened. You know, instead of people on here with their Uber hate already convicting Uber of a crime they aren't even charged with..........


Wow, you're really raging hard on this one. Why?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Wow, you're really raging hard on this one. Why?


Nope, people convicting Uber of a crime, like I've seen the word murder used on this forum, are clearly the people raging on Uber, when the common sense facts show that the pedestrian caused the whole chain of events because they chose to not follow a simple rule children are taught: look both ways before crossing the street. Especially when you're not in a crosswalk. Especially at night!!!!


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Jo3030 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977304769080496128
> Interesting video...
> If true, this is huge.
> 
> Uber accused of editing video...


We'd give that video the benefit of doubt. Instead we suspect the Uber XC90 had defective headlight(s) as an isolated case or not. Are these Uber XC90 meet FMVSS at the time of import or after Uber Alteration? What if fed find out these altered XC90's failed to meet FMVSS on the date of manufacture, alteration or road test. Personally, we'd prefer not getting into or close to these vehicles and their test ground, be it public roads or not.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

KellyC said:


> I was astonished that the pedestrian was crossing in that location, with a car, headlights on, coming at her. How did *she* not see him coming?


Maybe, when the truth finally comes forth, we will find out that the pedestrian is actually an Über robo pedestrian and her LiDAR was confused with her radar or the bike was actually abducting the victim or.......

I don't think anybody will be shocked anymore as Über's whole operation these days just beggars belief.

.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Ground THEM ALL !


Not going far enough..


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Not going far enough..


With an Executive or Board member in each one !
( Lower Management Costs Means More Money !)


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


So it's ok to run someone over if it's dark?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Nonya busy said:


> So it's ok to run someone over if it's dark?


Yes, because everyone hates Uber and Uber must be defended.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Nonya busy said:


> So it's ok to run someone over if it's dark?


terrible reading comprehension


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> terrible reading comprehension


No. Terrible communication and rational abilities.


----------



## Drive777 (Jan 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> ....when the common sense facts show that the pedestrian caused the whole chain of events because they chose to not follow a simple rule children are taught: look both ways before crossing the street. Especially when you're not in a crosswalk. Especially at night!!!!


What's not being talked about is this pedestrian was crossing the street under a street light. Watch the original video and you'll see an orange lamp almost directly above where she was walking the bike.

The human eye paying attention would have seen that woman walking under a street light from much further back than what headlights show in the video. Uber's night vision quality on this camera is pathetic.

If anyone's to blame beyond the pedestrian it's this so called "safety" driver who was there (and being paid!) for purposes of a safety back up should the car fail for any reason. That's no light responsibility. Pilots of airplanes are taught to constantly scan instruments as well as outside visual cues in a repetitive manner to be constantly aware of their surroundings.

If this "safety" driver wasn't up to the task of constantly scanning the instruments and the world outside, they shouldn't have been behind the wheel. Period. This isn't a go-kart track. Someone died **partially** because Uber's driver failed and Uber's SDC failed to avoid what could have been any object in the road (a person, a child, a deer) in a simple night environment with no obstructions and plenty of overhead lighting.

Oh and what the police chief said barely a day after the incident shows a sickening bias when clearly it was too early to be making any comments that could unduly persuade an ongoing investigation. See story below:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...t-have-said-uber-crash-unavoidable/454237002/


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

Drive777 said:


> What's not being talked about is this pedestrian was crossing the street under a street light. Watch the original video and you'll see an orange lamp almost directly above where she was walking the bike.
> 
> The human eye paying attention would have seen that woman walking under a street light from much further back than what headlights show in the video. Uber's night vision quality on this camera is pathetic.
> 
> ...


Yes, i have to watch out for pedestrians in the dark all the time.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Drive777 said:


> What's not being talked about is this pedestrian was crossing the street under a street light. Watch the original video and you'll see an orange lamp almost directly above where she was walking the bike.
> 
> The human eye paying attention would have seen that woman walking under a street light from much further back than what headlights show in the video. Uber's night vision quality on this camera is pathetic.
> 
> ...


The safety driver should have been ignoring the instruments... only watching the road.

If the car doesn't run anyone over and can get you from point A to point B, you know your machine is working properly.


----------



## unadhesived (Jul 7, 2017)

Humans can drive but not make a robot car. Especially millenials, not smart enough to make robot cars. Please dont help them either. Very dangerous and stupid.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Now the governor speaks out, everyone listens.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-told-to-stop-testing-driverless-tech-in-arizona/
"...can't start up again without official permission."
Maybe we can't fault you, we are just as clueless as how to get you out this mess.
Uber, we can't wait to see your cars fly again.
Will someday, governor make all Uber drivers become Uber Safety Driver ? we sure hope so.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

ntcindetroit said:


> Now the governor speaks out, everyone listens.
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-told-to-stop-testing-driverless-tech-in-arizona/
> "...can't start up again without official permission."
> Maybe we can't fault you, we are just as clueless as how to get you out this mess.
> ...


"Herzberg's death has shone a spotlight on a state which was already unfriendly to pedestrians-*in the same week *as this fatal crash, *nine other *pedestrians were killed by vehicles."

Ten pedestrians a week!!! In one state!!! Does that not concern anyone?

.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Drive777 said:


> Oh and what the police chief said barely a day after the incident shows a sickening bias when clearly it was too early to be making any comments that could unduly persuade an ongoing investigation. See story below:
> 
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...t-have-said-uber-crash-unavoidable/454237002/


I'm not sure whether she was displaying bias, or just inexperience -- don't know enough about her and her exposure to major case pressures.

She clearly should NOT have said what she did, whatever the motivation. The prudent command person would leave the talking to the media relations sergeant. Reporters are looking for things to report, and there is plenty of information to give them for a story without compromising the investigation. Experienced spokespersons are very good at that.

In press conferences, reporters almost always ask questions they KNOW the representative can't answer. If they don't ask the unanswerable, they are not doing their jobs. And they are perfectly fine with a non-answer. They just have to show their bosses/public that they tried.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Drive777 said:


> What's not being talked about is this pedestrian was crossing the street under a street light. Watch the original video and you'll see an orange lamp almost directly above where she was walking the bike.
> 
> The human eye paying attention would have seen that woman walking under a street light from much further back than what headlights show in the video. Uber's night vision quality on this camera is pathetic.


So you just going to continue to make excuses for somebody negligently crossing the street huh?
You gonna blame the driver's human eye, but you not gonna blame the pedestrian's human eye who should have clearly looked for traffic before crossing, who's eye should have clearly seen headlights from a vehicle(easy to see at night!)????
Obviously there's a lot of hate for Uber in your blood, as you don't address any of those things, that actually CAUSED the dag on accident in the 1st place!



Nonya busy said:


> Yes, i have to watch out for pedestrians in the dark all the time.


We all do, but are we to blame because our eyes aren't like radar at night for folks who negligently cross the street in darkness?????????


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> "Herzberg's death has shone a spotlight on a state which was already unfriendly to pedestrians-*in the same week *as this fatal crash, *nine other *pedestrians were killed by vehicles."
> 
> Ten pedestrians a week!!! In one state!!! Does that not concern anyone?
> 
> .


The other accidents are all expected, but not this one people paid in $70 Billion to develop a vehicular crime to pile on? Come On!


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

*Has anyone actually watched any video of the police chief making the remarks attributed to her?* If you have, a link would be appreciated; I checked youtube but didn't find any actual video -- just news stories.

I'd like to watch the whole thing and see whether the news flashes were accurate, or some reporter/editor's interpretation. Can't find any actual video of her comments.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

JimKE said:


> *Has anyone actually watched any video of the police chief making the remarks attributed to her?* If you have, a link would be appreciated; I checked youtube but didn't find any actual video -- just news stories.
> 
> I'd like to watch the whole thing and see whether the news flashes were accurate, or some reporter/editor's interpretation. Can't find any actual video of her comments.


They said it was chief told SF Chronicle. It was hear-say.
They know it can't be on the records yet.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

ntcindetroit said:


> They said it was chief told SF Chronicle. It was hear-say.
> They know it can't be on the records yet.


Thanks. It would be good to see the actual conversation, because the media has been known to twist things around to match their editorial slant.

I checked the chief's bio and she's certainly experienced enough to know better, so I'd like to know what she really said.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> So you just going to continue to make excuses for somebody negligently crossing the street huh?
> You gonna blame the driver's human eye, but you not gonna blame the pedestrian's human eye who should have clearly looked for traffic before crossing, who's eye should have clearly seen headlights from a vehicle(easy to see at night!)????
> Obviously there's a lot of hate for Uber in your blood, as you don't address any of those things, that actually CAUSED the dag on accident in the 1st place!
> 
> We all do, but are we to blame because our eyes aren't like radar at night for folks who negligently cross the street in darkness?????????


it wasnt in darkness, it was right next to a lightpole, you just wanna always spin things and ignore all logic to defend Uber at all costs


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it wasnt in darkness, it was right next to a lightpole, you just wanna always spin things and ignore all logic to defend Uber at all costs


I'm not spinning ONE thing: The pedestrian caused the accident and you don't want to address that important issue
If you and anybody else says Uber cause the accident, that's the spin of the century then.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> I'm not spinning ONE thing: The pedestrian caused the accident and you don't want to address that important issue
> If you and anybody else says Uber cause the accident, that's the spin of the century then.


they both caused the accident but you are unable to find uber at fault for anything ever


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> I'm not spinning ONE thing: The pedestrian caused the accident and you don't want to address that important issue
> If you and anybody else says Uber cause the accident, that's the spin of the century then.


Governor of the Ozark has since then banned pedestrian(s) from public road in Az., and Uber to spin their SDC's with safety or unsafe driver(s) where human life is valued above zero. Correction, Pedestrian cannot hide in shadows on Az. roads regardless whether they are legal or nor to be there.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

ntcindetroit said:


> Governor of the Ozark has since then banned pedestrian(s) from public road in Az., and Uber to spin their SDC's with safety or unsafe driver(s) where human life is valued above zero. Correction, Pedestrian cannot hide in shadows on Az. roads regardless whether they are legal or nor to be there.


That's the first positive sign I've seen in this whole tragic story.

Obviously, pedestrians should be shot if they leave the sidewalk for any reason.

But...lurk in the shadows??? I think NOT! Good job, Gov Oz!


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> So you just going to continue to make excuses for somebody negligently crossing the street huh?
> You gonna blame the driver's human eye, but you not gonna blame the pedestrian's human eye who should have clearly looked for traffic before crossing, who's eye should have clearly seen headlights from a vehicle(easy to see at night!)????
> Obviously there's a lot of hate for Uber in your blood, as you don't address any of those things, that actually CAUSED the dag on accident in the 1st place!
> 
> We all do, but are we to blame because our eyes aren't like radar at night for folks who negligently cross the street in darkness?????????


Einstein.... pedestrians always cross the street without looking. They have the right of way. It's the driver's responsibility not to hit them.

Where do you drive, on Sesame Street?


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

JimKE said:


> *Has anyone actually watched any video of the police chief making the remarks attributed to her?* If you have, a link would be appreciated; I checked youtube but didn't find any actual video -- just news stories.
> 
> I'd like to watch the whole thing and see whether the news flashes were accurate, or some reporter/editor's interpretation. Can't find any actual video of her comments.


I doubt there is video of it. The SF Chronicle claimed the exclusive, which would mean they broke the story. My guess is, Carolyn Said, the reporter, interviewed the Police Chief via telephone, recorded it, and then printed the Chief's quotes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Investigators recreate fatal crash involving self-driving Uber vehicle*

http://www.azfamily.com/story/37791...e-fatal-crash-involving-self-driving-uber-car

The thing that stood out right away in the video, was how lit that area is at night, compared to that horribly dark Uber video. 
Much more in line with the other vids people posted showing a more realistic view of the area.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> they both caused the accident but you are unable to find uber at fault for anything ever


No, the pedestrian caused the accident, FACT. If you're saying Uber caused it then you're saying every driver has to avoid a negligent crosser or they are to blame. Doesn't make any sense.



ntcindetroit said:


> Governor of the Ozark has since then banned pedestrian(s) from public road in Az., and Uber to spin their SDC's with safety or unsafe driver(s) where human life is valued above zero. Correction, Pedestrian cannot hide in shadows on Az. roads regardless whether they are legal or nor to be there.


This has nothing to do about shadows, it has everything to do with looking before crossing the street. Pretty simple



Nonya busy said:


> Einstein.... pedestrians always cross the street without looking. They have the right of way. It's the driver's responsibility not to hit them.


You obviously don't know the law. Pedestrians do not ALWAYS have the right of way


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

JimKE said:


> That's the first positive sign I've seen in this whole tragic story.
> 
> Obviously, pedestrians should be shot if they leave the sidewalk for any reason.
> 
> But...lurk in the shadows??? I think NOT! Good job, Gov Oz!


But, the evidence shows it's a case of a biker got mowed down as a pedestrian


Bart McCoy said:


> No, the pedestrian caused the accident, FACT. If you're saying Uber caused it then you're saying every driver has to avoid a negligent crosser or they are to blame. Doesn't make any sense.
> 
> This has nothing to do about shadows, it has everything to do with looking before crossing the street. Pretty simple
> 
> You obviously don't know the law. Pedestrians do not ALWAYS have the right away


Can't beleive it(Actually, that's what we have in mind all along). 
This recreation shows that XC90 stopped in front of the sign [Yield to Bikes].


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I doubt there is video of it. The SF Chronicle claimed the exclusive, which would mean they broke the story. My guess is, Carolyn Said, the reporter, interviewed the Police Chief via telephone, recorded it, and then printed the Chief's quotes.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


Can't believe it(Actually, that's what we have in mind all along). 
This recreation shows that XC90 stopped in front of the sign [Yield to Bikes] every time.
Guess the test driver(s) from fed know(s) how to test drive better than Uber Safety Driver with the robot dictating them like an Uber.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

ntcindetroit said:


> Can't believe it(Actually, that's what we have in mind all along).
> This recreation shows that XC90 stopped in front of the sign [Yield to Bikes] every time.
> Guess the test driver(s) from fed know(s) how to test drive better than Uber Safety Driver with the robot dictating them like an Uber.


Are you honestly telling me you believe the yield to bikes sign is for bikes crossing the streets perpendicular?
Are you being serious right now?
Let alone, the bike wasn't even being ridden


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> No, the pedestrian caused the accident, FACT. If you're saying Uber caused it then you're saying every driver has to avoid a negligent crosser or they are to blame.


Yep, the driver is always required to try to avoid an accident and this accident was easily avoidable by stopping or moving to the side, therefore avoidng killing the pedestrian.

Everyone that isn't blindly attempting to defend Uber knows this.


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yep, the driver is always required to try to avoid an accident and this accident was easily avoidable by stopping or moving to the side, therefore avoidng killing the pedestrian.
> 
> Everyone that isn't blindly attempting to defend Uber knows this.


Well anyone who ever drove a car knows this.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yep, the driver is always required to try to avoid an accident and this accident was easily avoidable by stopping or moving to the side, therefore avoidng killing the pedestrian.
> 
> Everyone that isn't blindly attempting to defend Uber knows this.


Right, so after watching the video, where the pedestrian is only shown in view for a split second, you deem this accident was "easily avoidable". Yeah okay. Clearly you have major hate for Uber,because clearly this wasn't easily avoidable.

The only the easily avoidable would be if the pedestrian looked before crossing. I'm not defending Uber, this really has NOTHING to do with Uber when it comes to fault: it all happened because of the very poor choice the pedestrian made. He crossed the street negligently and hope on Superman swooping in to save him. This is what happens when you take dangerous chances with your life.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Right, so after watching the video, where the pedestrian is only shown in view for a split second, you deem this accident was "easily avoidable". Yeah okay. Clearly you have major hate for Uber,because clearly this wasn't easily avoidable.
> 
> The only the easily avoidable would be if the pedestrian looked before crossing. I'm not defending Uber, this really has NOTHING to do with Uber when it comes to fault: it all happened because of the very poor choice the pedestrian made. He crossed the street negligently and hope on Superman swooping in to save him. This is what happens when you take dangerous chances with your life.


The video has been edited to make it appear she teleported in front of the car and that it was, for some strange reason, only pitch black in the area just in front of the car when the car struck her, which is laughable.

Unless you've never driven a car you know you can see pretty clearly in the same lighting as was in the video. You can see hundreds of feet in front and you can see that the pedestrian was walking very slowly.

Again, both Uber and the pedestrian are at fault for the pedestrians death.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Right, so after watching the video, where the pedestrian is only shown in view for a split second, you deem this accident was "easily avoidable". Yeah okay. Clearly you have major hate for Uber,because clearly this wasn't easily avoidable.
> 
> The only the easily avoidable would be if the pedestrian looked before crossing. I'm not defending Uber, this really has NOTHING to do with Uber when it comes to fault: it all happened because of the very poor choice the pedestrian made. He crossed the street negligently and hope on Superman swooping in to save him. This is what happens when you take dangerous chances with your life.


The lighting, clarity, and visibility in the Uber video you reference is vastly different from other videos on YouTube, and also from the video released by the NTSB today of some of their reenactments of the crash -- using same car, etc, etc.

Makes me wonder a bit -- not that Uber would falsify a video to provide PR cover for killing someone -- but just, you know...curious.

In the Uber video, the only clear sequence was that of the Uber employee staring at his/her phone for at least 5 seconds immediately preceding killing the useless, homeless, jaywalking scofflaw. Obviously, you think she got what she deserved.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

JimKE said:


> The lighting, clarity, and visibility in the Uber video you reference is vastly different from other videos on YouTube, and also from the video released by the NTSB today of some of their reenactments of the crash -- using same car, etc, etc.
> 
> Makes me wonder a bit -- not that Uber would falsify a video to provide PR cover for killing someone -- but just, you know...curious.
> 
> In the Uber video, the only clear sequence was that of the Uber employee staring at his/her phone for at least 5 seconds immediately preceding killing the useless, homeless, jaywalking scofflaw. Obviously, you think she got what she deserved.


Given that we now know that Uber safety drivers have to intervene several times per hour on average, it would be highly unlikely that this is the first time their self driving systems have failed. Its just the first time a grossly incompetent safety driver that was meant to have her hands hovering over the steering wheel decided to look away from the road for over 5 seconds while a pedestrian was crossing the road.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

JimKE said:


> Obviously, you think she got what she deserved.


If I go run out onto the beltway right now and get killed, YES, I get what I deserved. I'm not gonna blame other people for my negligence and stupidity


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> If I go run out onto the beltway right now and get killed, YES, I get what I deserved. I'm not gonna blame other people for my negligence and stupidity


It depends on if the driver has 300 feet and 7 seconds to either stop or move out of the way. If the answer is yes, then yes you will.

However, if you're dead you can't really blame anyone since you're dead. It'll be up to your family to fight for you as will this lady's family, provided she has some.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> If I go run out onto the beltway right now and get killed, YES, I get what I deserved. I'm not gonna blame other people for my negligence and stupidity


You are NEVER going to accept that, regardless of "fault", the car was defective and failed, will you?

Supposing that, instead of being a jaywalker that you can blame, it was a deer, or a wind blown garbage can, and the dead or injured victim was a passenger? Similar circumstance - plenty of optical visibility, low or no surrounding traffic, the car has 10 seconds or more to react, but does not?

Does Uber still get a pass? Is anyone who criticizes them still an Uber hater? Will anything convince you that their efforts to design and deploy their SDC systems on the cheap might not be the safest idea?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It depends on if the driver has 300 feet and 7 seconds to either stop or move out of the way. If the answer is yes, then yes you will.
> .


Did you see the pedestrian for 300 feet? did you see the pedestrian on the dashcam for 7 seconds? did you even see the pedestrian for 1 second? yet you want the Uber car to play superhero



WeirdBob said:


> You are NEVER going to accept that, regardless of "fault", the car was defective and failed, will you?
> ?


If you actually read and comprehended my replies, you never heard me say the Uber truck was NOT defective, never heard me say the Uber truck DIDN'T FAIL.

The problem is people are assuming the accident could have been avoided. Nobody knows for sure. Again, if you do, then you should know the winning lottery numbers as well!!

The only 100% way the accident could have been avoided is if the pedestrian didn't illegally, recklessly, and negligently cross that street without looking. That's the only SURE 100% positive way it could have been avoided. Folks won't accept that though due to their pure hate for Uber.

Please re-read my stance on this issue. Its basically the cause of the crash, and that has nothing to do with Uber or the uber driver. NONE of this happens, not even this TOPIC, if the pedestrian simply looks before crossing. Something we teach kindergarten kids!!!


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> The only 100% way the accident could have been avoided is if the pedestrian didn't illegally, recklessly, and negligently cross that street without looking. That's the only SURE 100% positive way it could have been avoided.


That's not the only way -- it's *one* way.

Another way would have been for the *Uber to be going the speed limit*. The Uber was going 38 mph in a 35 mph zone. 38 mph = 55 feet per second; 35 mph = 51 feet per second. In the 7-9 seconds it took her to cross to the point of collision, the Uber would have been at least 28 feet from her, and would have missed her.

Another way would have been for the *Uber to take another route*. That is absolutely no different than saying she was killed because she was crossing Mill Avenue. If the Uber hadn't traveled up Mill Avenue, no accident would have occurred -- or at least not with this victim. They may have killed someone else, but not this lady.

Another way would have been if the *SDC system* on the Uber had *functioned properly*. It obviously didn't.

Another way would have been for the *human "safety" driver to be paying even a little bit of attention* to what she was doing. She didn't.

It should surprise nobody that *Uber settled so quickly with this heinous outlaw's family!*


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Did you see the pedestrian for 300 feet? did you see the pedestrian on the dashcam for 7 seconds? did you even see the pedestrian for 1 second? yet you want the Uber car to play superhero
> 
> !!


wow you're still trying to take this angle? do your bosses know how moronic you sound or do they just not really care? are they going after the if you repeat a lie enough times the lemmings will start to believe it strategy?

kiddo, guess what? cameras have different abilities. that camera was low resolution and couldn't operate well in low ambient light. that area is extremely well lit: 




any human driver who was paying attention could have easily seen the pedestrian 300 feet in advance. Or perhaps you just could care less?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> So you just going to continue to make excuses for somebody negligently crossing the street huh?
> You gonna blame the driver's human eye, but you not gonna blame the pedestrian's human eye who should have clearly looked for traffic before crossing, who's eye should have clearly seen headlights from a vehicle(easy to see at night!)????
> Obviously there's a lot of hate for Uber in your blood, as you don't address any of those things, that actually CAUSED the dag on accident in the 1st place!
> 
> We all do, but are we to blame because our eyes aren't like radar at night for folks who negligently cross the street in darkness?????????


UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED !



uberdriverfornow said:


> The video has been edited to make it appear she teleported in front of the car and that it was, for some strange reason, only pitch black in the area just in front of the car when the car struck her, which is laughable.
> 
> Unless you've never driven a car you know you can see pretty clearly in the same lighting as was in the video. You can see hundreds of feet in front and you can see that the pedestrian was walking very slowly.
> 
> Again, both Uber and the pedestrian are at fault for the pedestrians death.


Shadow walking shape shifter materialized in front of Uber car from future to save us from Robot Transhumanist Monstrosities . . .
Ijirait undetectable by Lidar . . .


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

JimKE said:


> That's not the only way -- it's *one* way.
> 
> *!*


We're talking about a way to 100% avoid the accident. What you listed isn't 100%, its probability. The only way 100% is for the dag on pedestrian not to walk out into the road, lets use common sense folks



heynow321 said:


> wow you're still trying to take this angle? do your bosses know how moronic you sound or do they just not really care? are they going after the if you repeat a lie enough times the lemmings will start to believe it strategy?
> ?


So instead of posting the actual video, you post another video that somebody did days after to prove your point? smh. There's a reason why you won't post the ACTUAL video because like I said you don't see the pedestrian for 300 feet NOR do you see him on video for no dag on 7 seconds!!!!


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> We're talking about a way to 100% avoid the accident. What you listed isn't 100%, its probability. The only way 100% is for the dag on pedestrian not to walk out into the road, lets use common sense folks
> 
> So instead of posting the actual video, you post another video that somebody did days after to prove your point? smh. There's a reason why you won't post the ACTUAL video because like I said you don't see the pedestrian for 300 feet NOR do you see him on video for no dag on 7 seconds!!!!


jesus what a humiliation for georgetown. but yeah, you're right, it would be even more apparent to post the videos side by side.

there's boober and their tub of lard: 




and here's a better quality camera which shows how well lit the area is: 




even someone like bart (and his special handler) could see a jaywalking pedestrian 300 feet in advance.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Meanwhile
The slain womans family has reached a settlement with Uber.
IN 2 WEEKS !
Kudos to Uber damage Control team.
Although not sure these results are in the 
Publics best interests, still a good job on containing that aspect of this situation.

No trial.
No press.
Done Deal 
2 weeks. Record time.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Meanwhile
> The slain womans family has reached a settlement with Uber.
> IN 2 WEEKS !
> Kudos to Uber damage Control team.
> ...


where's the link to settlement?
if they settled, then there's no need to debate this issue anymore, its over


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> where's the link to settlement?


Here you go: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ly-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092

This, theoretically at least, closes the civil lawsuit chapter. There are still two other investigations going on however.

One is the criminal investigation being conducted by the Tempe Police Department. That will take several more weeks, at least, and then the case will go to the County Attorney for a decision on whether or not to criminally prosecute Uber, the driver, both, or neither.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is also conducting an investigation. I'm not sure what authority they have in situations like this, other than to do a very detailed investigation and issue a report.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> where's the link to settlement?
> if they settled, then there's no need to debate this issue anymore, its over


The Civil phase.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Did you see the pedestrian for 300 feet? did you see the pedestrian on the dashcam for 7 seconds? did you even see the pedestrian for 1 second? yet you want the Uber car to play superhero


The car saw the pedestrian for 300 feet and the pedestrian for 7 seconds and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter what I saw.



Bart McCoy said:


> if they settled, then there's no need to debate this issue anymore, its over


What the hell kind of logic is this ? Do you even believe the garbage that comes out of your mouth ?

apparently according to you, when someone settles it completely erases all knowledge of something lol


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The car saw the pedestrian for 300 feet and the pedestrian for 7 seconds and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter what I saw.


Yet DID NOTHING

CRIMINAL


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Yet DID NOTHING
> 
> CRIMINAL


lol apparently to this guy, all Uber had to do was release a clip that only showed the drivers face for a half a second and that's it and that means nothing happened lol


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

JimKE said:


> Here you go: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ly-of-autonomous-vehicle-victim-idUSKBN1H5092
> 
> One is the criminal investigation being conducted by the Tempe Police Department. That will take several more weeks, at least, and then the case will go to the County Attorney for a decision on whether or not to criminally prosecute Uber, the driver, both, or neither.
> 
> .


There will be no criminal charges: NONE



tohunt4me said:


> The Civil phase.


see above



uberdriverfornow said:


> The car saw the pedestrian for 300 feet and the pedestrian for 7 seconds and that's all that matters.


Show me proof of this. I'll wait..................


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> There will be no criminal charges: NONE
> 
> see above
> 
> Show me proof of this. I'll wait..................


It's in the video.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Thats because the aftermarket dashcam that we have seen the footage from is a piece of shit. Are you suggesting that human eyes see the same on that road as that dashcam footage?

Uber settled super quick because their lawyers told them to. If they were innocent and not at all to blame as you have claimed, they wouldn't have settled and would have gone for jury civil trial and prevailed.



Bart McCoy said:


> where's the link to settlement?
> if they settled, then there's no need to debate this issue anymore, its over


How about we keep discussing bullshit like "she jumped out of shadows" and you can continue to get paid for each post defending the noble intentions of Uber.


----------



## Nonya busy (May 18, 2017)

Bart McCoy said:


> We're talking about a way to 100% avoid the accident. What you listed isn't 100%, its probability. The only way 100% is for the dag on pedestrian not to walk out into the road, lets use common sense folks
> 
> So instead of posting the actual video, you post another video that somebody did days after to prove your point? smh. There's a reason why you won't post the ACTUAL video because like I said you don't see the pedestrian for 300 feet NOR do you see him on video for no dag on 7 seconds!!!!


You will be the star in the new headline "Pedestrian killed by Uberdriver who says pedestrians should stay off of the street"



heynow321 said:


> jesus what a humiliation for georgetown. but yeah, you're right, it would be even more apparent to post the videos side by side.
> 
> there's boober and their tub of lard:
> 
> ...


Why you call her a tub of lard? Was she opening a snickers when she hit someone?


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> There will be no criminal charges: NONE


Well, obviously none of us have seen any of the evidence in the case so we really have no idea whether there will be criminal charges against Uber. I'm not sure how that would even work, unless Uber falsified some of what they gave the police. And I am pretty sure they're smart enough not to do that. But we shall see.

The driver is another matter. The fact is he/she struck and killed a woman walking slowly across a 5 lane roadway. Yeah, she was jaywalking -- shame on her. But that doesn't excuse the crash.

I think it's pretty hard to see how the driver does not get charged with the accident. The human driver is ultimately responsible for the vehicle -- that's the sole reason they are in the vehicle.

I can't imagine a prosecutor watching that video of the driver staring at their phone for a full five seconds immediately prior to impact and not charging the driver.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

JimKE said:


> Well, obviously none of us have seen any of the evidence in the case so we really have no idea whether there will be criminal charges against Uber. I'm not sure how that would even work, unless Uber falsified some of what they gave the police. And I am pretty sure they're smart enough not to do that. But we shall see.


You have more faith in Uber than I do.

Now, if Travis was still in charge, I would be inclined to go with falsifying evidence as a likely position.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Yet DID NOTHING
> 
> CRIMINAL


Even if it had slammed on the brakes too late to avoid hitting her...

It could have made all the difference in the world.

Thanks to some handy dandy math...
http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

2000 pounds at a speed of 40 MPH = 1.0697e+5 foot pounds of energy... hitting her
106,970 foot pounds

2000 pounds at a speed of 25 MPH= 4.1787e+4 foot pounds of energy...
41,787 foot pounds

This is a huge difference... 40 MPH is 250% of the energy of 25 MPH.

Just slamming on the breaks would have reduced the energy impacting her by a wide margin.

Even if it was too late to avoid hitting her, the car should have detected her and slammed on the brakes..


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Even if it had slammed on the brakes too late to avoid hitting her...
> 
> It could have made all the difference in the world.
> 
> ...


Right. In the energy formula the speed is SQUARED, so any reduction in speed has much more effect than you'd think.

Also, that Volvo SUV weighs 4,000 pounds -- not 2,000 -- probably somewhat more with all that SDC hardware added.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

JimKE said:


> Well, obviously none of us have seen any of the evidence in the case so we really have no idea whether there will be criminal charges against Uber. I'm not sure how that would even work, unless Uber falsified some of what they gave the police. And I am pretty sure they're smart enough not to do that. But we shall see.
> I can't imagine a prosecutor watching that video of the driver staring at their phone for a full five seconds immediately prior to impact and not charging the driver.


Worst case, driver gets a regular citation for not looking at the road. When I say no charges, I really mean no murder or manslaughter or vehicular homicide charges.

Again prosecutor may give a petty charge, no serious charge though pertaining to death because procecutor knows the pedestrian died because of a pedestrian error. The main reason is that EVEN if the driver WAS looking the whole time, prosecutor simply cannot prove the death or even the collision could have been avoided. Just can't.

this would be an easy case if Uber was in the wrong like driving on the wrong side of the street or up on the sidewalk. Its not easy because the pedestrian was committing a crime and crossing very negligently. Uber truck had the right of way and should not have had to deal with the incident in the first place


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Worst case, driver gets a regular citation for not looking at the road. When I say no charges, I really mean no murder or manslaughter or vehicular homicide charges.
> 
> Again prosecutor may give a petty charge, no serious charge though pertaining to death because procecutor knows the pedestrian died because of a pedestrian error. The main reason is that EVEN if the driver WAS looking the whole time, prosecutor simply cannot prove the death or even the collision could have been avoided. Just can't.
> 
> this would be an easy case if Uber was in the wrong like driving on the wrong side of the street or up on the sidewalk. Its not easy because the pedestrian was committing a crime and crossing very negligently. Uber truck had the right of way and should not have had to deal with the incident in the first place


You mean because STATE & CITY must protect THEMSELVES FROM LIABILITY FOR ALLOWING TESTING !

Which is exactly why investigation should be taken out of their hands.

N.T.S.B.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Worst case, driver gets a regular citation for not looking at the road. When I say no charges, I really mean no murder or manslaughter or vehicular homicide charges.
> 
> Again prosecutor may give a petty charge, no serious charge though pertaining to death because procecutor knows the pedestrian died because of a pedestrian error. The main reason is that EVEN if the driver WAS looking the whole time, prosecutor simply cannot prove the death or even the collision could have been avoided. Just can't.
> 
> this would be an easy case if Uber was in the wrong like driving on the wrong side of the street or up on the sidewalk. Its not easy because the pedestrian was committing a crime and crossing very negligently. Uber truck had the right of way and should not have had to deal with the incident in the first place


We'll have to agree to disagree on the charges.

I can't imagine the driver just getting a ticket. If they do, that County Attorney will be looking at attack ads featuring the Uber video every 5 minutes during his/her reelection campaign!

I don't know Arizona's specific statutes, but in Florida I'm pretty sure the driver would be looking at Manslaughter. It's not murder, and wouldn't meet Florida's vehicular homicide standard, IMHO.

Whether Uber could be charged criminally for the SDC failure is an open question -- uncharted waters, since this is the first fatal crash involving an SDC.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

JimKE said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on the charges.
> 
> .


We can disagree, but right now I'm winning: no charges


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> We can disagree, but right now I'm winning: no charges


Right. But it doesn't matter who's winning during the investigation. What matters is the outcome.

So we'll just have to see.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy Why do you keep insisting there is NO evidence that the car could have avoided the accident when a reconstruction of the accident, using the same vehicle and bicycle, proved it could?

http://www.wfsb.com/story/37791825/...e-fatal-crash-involving-self-driving-uber-car


Bart McCoy said:


> Its not easy because the pedestrian was _committing a crime_ and crossing very negligently.


Jaywalking = CRIME?






Jaywalking is an INFRACTION, not a crime.

Words mean things.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> Bart McCoy Why do you keep insisting there is NO evidence that the car could have avoided the accident when a reconstruction of the accident, using the same vehicle and bicycle, proved it could?
> 
> http://www.wfsb.com/story/37791825/...e-fatal-crash-involving-self-driving-uber-car


This "news" story is another nothing-burger, but it contains one scary comment.

There is NO news in the story. It's full of stage placement and posturing to make the talking heads seem important, but basically what happened is the NTSB conducted some breaking tests. Yawn...

The accident reconstruction expert said nothing, except letting area lawyers know he was available for hire...which they already know. That doesn't mean he's not great; he may well be -- but it contributes nothing to the conversation about the accident.

The SCARY thing was the tangential remark by the reporter that the Uber vehicle was "...back on the street." I'm hoping it's just bad reporting, not truth.

*If that vehicle was not impounded and still sitting in a Tempe PD Property & Evidence warehouse or impound yard, the investigation is totally incompetent. * Every square inch of that vehicle is evidence, and especially the computer equipment/lidar/radar/video stuff. It should be thoroughly searched by Tempe PD personnel or contractors, rather than relying on what Uber tells them. If they gave it back to Uber, every scrap of digital evidence is gone.



> Jaywalking = CRIME?
> 
> Jaywalking is an INFRACTION, not a crime.
> 
> Words mean things.


Yeah, that's just Bart being Bart. Ignore him.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> Bart McCoy Why do you keep insisting there is NO evidence that the car could have avoided the accident when a reconstruction of the accident, using the same vehicle and bicycle, proved it could?
> 
> http://www.wfsb.com/story/37791825/...e-fatal-crash-involving-self-driving-uber-car
> 
> ...


While in that article they are doing everything in their power not to say this accident was preventable, this article makes it clear as we already all know, that this accident was preventable.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/37791...says-autonomous-uber-accident-was-preventable

A Scottsdale driving instructor is offering a view of the driver-less Uber crash* he believes shows the accident was preventable.*

Rich Wojtczak, owner of Driving MBA, programmed his driving simulator to mimic some of the conditions present the night of the crash in Tempe.

"*What occurred here is an unfortunate circumstance where for whatever reason the programming failed*," says Wojtczak. *"[The driver] could have braked in time or actually utilized the steering wheel."*


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

WeirdBob said:


> Bart McCoy Why do you keep insisting there is NO evidence that the car could have avoided the accident when a reconstruction of the accident, using the same vehicle and bicycle, proved it could?
> 
> Jaywalking = CRIME?


I never said it couldn't possibly be avoided. You can't quote me ANYWHERE that I said such a thing. I said none of you guys know 100% that the death could have been avoided(meaning you can't guarantee me the accident wouldn't have happened, just a possibly ). There's a difference.



uberdriverfornow said:


> A Scottsdale driving instructor is offering a view of the driver-less Uber crash* he believes shows the accident was preventable.*
> 
> "*What occurred here is an unfortunate circumstance where for whatever reason the programming failed*," says Wojtczak. *"[The driver] could have braked in time or actually utilized the steering wheel."*


You have people stating their opinions, none of it is fact. None of them can say for 100% sure the accident could have been avoided. None of can predict the future of what could have happened. How come y'all don't understand that? The only person that would know for sure the outcome is the little genie lady that lives in the brass lamp.....


----------



## Chris Verdi (Nov 7, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> 100% garunteed that the accident happened.
> And
> ABSOLUTELY NO AVOIDANCE TACTICS WERE EMPLOYED.
> NOT BY MALFUNCTIONING CAR.
> ...


Nope lol



uberdriverfornow said:


> While in that article they are doing everything in their power not to say this accident was preventable, this article makes it clear as we already all know, that this accident was preventable.
> 
> http://www.azfamily.com/story/37791...says-autonomous-uber-accident-was-preventable
> 
> ...


Stick your hotdog in a blender its going get blended so drink your hotdog milkshake.

Lady was at fault you yeild to a massive car.
Laws are nice but logic and outcome will always win as shown here. Mother nature does not care.
Bike lady was at fault hell she wanted to die.

I hope her death was long slow painful and drawn out


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Chris Verdi said:


> I hope her death was long slow painful and drawn out


Back atcha, psychopath!

Ugggh.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Whoah, how did I miss Chris Verdi's comment


Just like the rest of us.

You were too excited about the MAJOR GLOBAL LIVESTREAM ANNOUNCEMENT to notice anything else. The thrill of it left us all breathless and unable to function normally.


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

Mars Troll Number 4 said:


> It's looking like the pics/video uber is providing is a crapily configured dash camera that isn't set up for night recording (Really uber) and even with a super Elcheapo camera it's very easy to tell that the street in question is much more well lit than uber makes it seem.\
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but but but, we were promised that Auto-mated Self-Aware Driver-less Miracle horseless carriages were MORE SAFE than people.

We were told all sorts of BS like these cars got radar and sensors that we mere humans cannot even begin to imagine.










In other words, their "if this was a human, they would have hit her too" defense, with a good lawyer, should fall flat on it's face given that autopiloted cars have to pass a much higher level of safety than a human.

And the whole Airplanes are on auto-pilot doesn't hold up here, since despite warning of Airspace "crowding" there is NO airspace crowding, one only has to look up to see that. Whereas a car has much much higher degree of awareness that is necessary, there are literally hundreds of degrees more variables involved in driving that in flying.

in conclusion, automated cars are vapor-ware garbage, maybe MAYBE 20 years away. SELL SHORT PEOPLE.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> in conclusion, automated cars are vapor-ware garbage


That's OFFENSIVE!!! 

Robots and similar...um, _things_...have feelings too, you know!



> SELL SHORT PEOPLE.


Okay...seriously now. Please do NOT sell short people. Have you not read Uber's guidance on human trafficking?


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

JimKE said:


> That's OFFENSIVE!!!
> 
> Robots and similar...um, _things_...have feelings too, you know!


I agree, any form of self aware consciousness is precious, and should be afforded the same rights as people.

...Let me know when that happens. These "AI" cars run little more than a bunch of algorithms jammed together with sloppy cheap foreign H1-B sourced spaghetti code.

I mean comon folks, let's be real here, siri still cannot understand a damn word beyond 'directions to starbucks' and 'call mom' ...but all of a sudden these same folks have all jumped on the automated car bandwagon?


----------



## DJWolford (Aug 6, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/?amp=1


i hate anyone that doesn't put full blame on there person walking across the HIGHWAY

How about, don't walk across the HIGHWAYYYY --- cars are hauling ass --- when there is a car coming right at you.

any sensible person --- any person with an IQ of 30 and up wouldn't get hit by that car


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

DJWolford said:


> i hate anyone that doesn't put full blame on there person walking across the HIGHWAY
> 
> How about, don't walk across the HIGHWAYYYY --- cars are hauling ass --- when there is a car coming right at you.
> 
> any sensible person --- any person with an IQ of 30 and up wouldn't get hit by that car


...and I'm not:

_Self Driving cars are garbage Vapor-ware. Siri, Alexa. Cortarda, barely understands anything, and you want these same companies making self-driving cars?_

_girl please!_

_







_

_Maybe in 20 years, but not now, what's the rush anyway?_

_*with that said, victim was at fault.*_​
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-settles-with-family-of-autonomous-collision-victim.250518/page-4

Especially in these urban centers, people just walk across the streets, wearing dark clothing, ALL THE DAMN TIME. In Los Angeles, this sems to be ingrained in the culture for some reason.

It takes a lot of effort to drive defensively, when you got people like this walking the streets, but now they are claiming that they have enough technology to create cars that will be better than people, with all sorts of night vision, and radar, and lidar, and heat vision, and all sorts of other claims and babble...and this accident, proves that it's all a bunch of crap lies.

Uber should stick to what they are good at. Hacking Lyft drivers and pouting to their drivers about how good they got it.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

ntcindetroit said:


> We doubt if the Uber's XC90 was safe to be tested or driven to start with. That XC90 car should be impounded for forensic analysis like headlight functions alone. Was it on high or low beam when it approached the Curry intersection? Is the horn working or not? Could that car pass a night vision test like most drivers are required?


It's a new car, I'm sure it has those blindingly bright blue lights they're peddling now.



ntcindetroit said:


> We'd buy a autonomous flying vehicle before an Uber's altered XC90 ready for sale.
> The crash occurred because there was a speeding Uber altered XC90 failed to move responsibly while in autonomous mode. The solution is easy, send police out to ban the unsafe test vehicles to kill more. Well, no police needed. Uber self policing finally kicked into place. No more test on public road until NTSB or more credible investigation is completed and deemed US public roads are proper venue for the test again. We need to have a level field for fair use of the public roads.


I have it on good word that Uber does intend to take over policing at some point.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> if you watch the dashcam video, it clearly looks like it came from the shadows. Sorry the Uber vehicle didn't play superhero and save the illegal street crossing pedestrian who for some reason chose not to look for oncoming traffic.
> 
> I 100% guarantee you this accident would not have happened if he yielded the right of way to the car(or in other words, look before you cross). Theres NO 100% guarantee whatsoever that the accident could have been avoided by Uber or any other regular car who would be unfortunate enough to drive down the road and see a human in the street


There are other videos showing that area being much better lit than the Uber video. I believe the Uber video was doctored


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Rat said:


> There are other videos showing that area being much better lit than the Uber video. I believe the Uber video was doctored


In the re-creation, the headlights were much brighter on the than the dash cam, making it appear very dark. I see no reason to think this wasn't avoidable if both car and human had been paying attention.



YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> I agree, any form of self aware consciousness is precious, and should be afforded the same rights as people.
> 
> ...Let me know when that happens. These "AI" cars run little more than a bunch of algorithms jammed together with sloppy cheap foreign H1-B sourced spaghetti code.
> 
> I mean comon folks, let's be real here, siri still cannot understand a damn word beyond 'directions to starbucks' and 'call mom' ...but all of a sudden these same folks have all jumped on the automated car bandwagon?


I'm perplexed that they've done nothing to fix the issue of the rider's gps location toward the back of any large complex or shopping center takes you to a street behind said areas, not even remotely connected. The AI will just bump around on that street waiting. Yet they blame US for navigation errors. I have to regularly ignore gps route in order to be more effective on my part. They are as far outside the box into outer space as they are understanding our questions and concerns, which I am certain start AI at first.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

melusine3 said:


> In the re-creation, the headlights were much brighter on the than the dash cam, making it appear very dark. I see no reason to think this wasn't avoidable if both car and human had been paying attention.
> 
> I'm perplexed that they've done nothing to fix the issue of the rider's gps location toward the back of any large complex or shopping center takes you to a street behind said areas, not even remotely connected. The AI will just bump around on that street waiting. Yet they blame US for navigation errors. I have to regularly ignore gps route in order to be more effective on my part. They are as far outside the box into outer space as they are understanding our questions and concerns, which I am certain start AI at first.


From what I've heard, the apps turn the location entered into the app into a gps coordinate, then send that to the navigation app, that's why we get sent to the back alley all the time


----------

