# Safety driver in fatal Arizona Uber self-driving car crash charged with homicide



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-u...car-crash-charged-in-death-idUKKBN2663FU?il=0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The back-up safety driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber Technologies UBER.N test vehicle that struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona, in 2018 was charged with negligent homicide, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Rafael Vasquez, age 46, who is also known as Rafaela, pleaded not guilty on Tuesday after being charged in the death of Elaine Herzberg on Aug. 27, court records show. She was released pending trial set for February 2021.

Herzberg died after she was struck while walking a bicycle across a street at night. The first recorded death involving a self-driving vehicle prompted significant safety concerns about the nascent autonomous vehicle industry.

Uber declined comment. A lawyer for Vasquez did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

A Tempe police report said Vasquez was repeatedly looking down instead of keeping her eyes on the road. Prosecutors in March 2019 said Uber was not criminally liable in the crash.

"Distracted driving is an issue of great importance in our community," said Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel. "When a driver gets behind the wheel of a car, they have a responsibility to control and operate that vehicle safely."

Police said previously the crash was "entirely avoidable" and that Vasquez was streaming "The Voice" TV program at the time of the crash.

In November, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) faulted Vasquez's inactions and Uber for inadequate attention to safety and decisions in the company's autonomous vehicle development.

The NTSB said the probable cause was Vasquez's failure to monitor the driving environment "because she was visually distracted throughout the trip by her personal cell phone." She was supposed to act in the event of an emergency.

Uber made a series of development decisions that contributed to the crash's cause, the NTSB said. The software in the modified Volvo XC90 did not properly identify Herzberg as a pedestrian and did not address "operators' automation complacency."

Uber deactivated the automatic emergency braking systems in the Volvo XC90 vehicle and precluded the use of immediate emergency braking, relying instead on the back-up driver.

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Stephen Coates


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

KevinH said:


> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-u...car-crash-charged-in-death-idUKKBN2663FU?il=0
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The back-up safety driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber Technologies UBER.N test vehicle that struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona, in 2018 was charged with negligent homicide, prosecutors said on Tuesday.
> 
> Rafael Vasquez, age 46, who is also known as Rafaela, pleaded not guilty on Tuesday after being charged in the death of Elaine Herzberg on Aug. 27, court records show. She was released pending trial set for February 2021.
> ...


It took them 2 YEARS to Decide This !?!?


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> It took them 2 YEARS to Decide This !?!?


As a side note:
The Warren Commission took only 10 months.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> It took them 2 YEARS to Decide This !?!?


My thoughts exactly!!


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Never has a homeless meth addict caused so much problems by walking in front of a moving vehicle. Stepping in front of that car is easily the best thing she's ever done for her family, especially with the large settlement. 

Leave the poor guineas pig driver alone. Give her community service and move on. The world is better. One less homeless drug addict. Uber lost money. Family made money. Give the woman a ticket to American Idol and a lobster dinner.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Never has a homeless meth addict caused so much problems by walking in front of a moving vehicle. Stepping in front of that car is easily the best thing she's ever done for her family, especially with the large settlement.
> 
> Leave the poor guineas pig driver alone. Give her community service and move on. The world is better. One less homeless drug addict. Uber lost money. Family made money. Give the woman a ticket to American Idol and a lobster dinner.


If the x convict " safety driver" had been doing his / her job . . . the woman with the bicycle would be alive now !


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Yeah... watching tv while sitting in a robo car is just a bad idea.

That person operating the robo car is 100% at fault.

these systems arnt 100% and this is why we have humans being the wheel ready to swerve/break.


thruth is the matter, had she not been watching tv and paying attention to the road that woman wouldn’t be dead.


Uber isn’t criminally at fault because they knew that the car wasn’t 100% and had a human safety driver behind the wheel to operate as a backup.

I’d say that this isn’t anyone’s fault with the exception of the safety driver.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Yeah... watching tv while sitting in a robo car is just a bad idea.
> 
> That person operating the robo car is 100% at fault.
> 
> ...


Homicide though ? Involuntary Manslaughter at best! This is no different than you getting a ping , interacting with your phone and hitting someone while momentarily distracted. Any of us could look at a text or get a ping , and unfortunately hit someone . Just living with the the fact you killed someone will haunt you for life .


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

O-Side Uber said:


> This is no different than you getting a ping , interacting with your phone and hitting someone while momentarily distracted


Momentarily distracted is one thing.
I suppose legally she was a 'distracted driver', but was also a 'negligent driver'.

*How Do I Prove The Other Driver Was Distracted AND Negligent?*
_Whenever a driver operates a motor vehicle on a public road, he or she is required to safely operate that vehicle and owes a duty of reasonable care to pedestrians and other drivers. 
This duty of reasonable care is breached when a driver is distracted and gets into an accident. _

Watching 'The Voice' on her cellphone while being the "safety" driver, I would say is *negligent*.



O-Side Uber said:


> Homicide though ? Involuntary Manslaughter at best!


*Negligent homicide*_ is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. 
It often includes death that is the result of the *negligent* operation of a motor vehicle _


----------



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

O-Side Uber said:


> Homicide though ?


Homicide simply means, literally, the killing of a person. All killings of people are homicides, by definition. The word contains no reference to legality or the conditions in which said killing occurs. When the government executes a prisoner, the cause of death is recorded on the death certificate as homicide. There are also justifiable homicides, for example where a victim of an otherwise lethal attack defends himself and kills the attacker.

It is the modifier "negligent" that denotes in this case that a homicide was a criminal act.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber isn't criminally at fault because they knew that the car wasn't 100% and had a human safety driver behind the wheel to operate as a backup.
> 
> I'd say that this isn't anyone's fault with the exception of the safety driver.


I beg to differ.

Please, if you have the time, read this

https://medium.com/@imispgh/uber-nh...zbergs-death-not-rafaela-vasquez-a179cb2ef98f
"While Rafaela clearly did not obey company policy by watching video, and should receive some form of punishment, she should not receive a murder charge."

"Ms. Vasquez and the world around her are being misled by the industry into believing the process being used is safe and effective and the best or only one that can be used and that the people who die as a result are for the greater good. That is an absolute myth. It is unreasonable and grossly negligent to expect anyone to shadow drive in most complex, critical and dangerous situations."

"Often than handover is either unexpected by the human or the time needed to reacquire proper situational awareness cannot be provided by the AV no matter what monitoring and control system it uses. That time is between 6 and 45 seconds depending on the scenario. NASA, Missy Cummings, a plethora of studies and more recently Waymo, Ford, Chris Urmson and quite hypocritically Volvo, have said the process is dangerous and needs to be skipped. Ford reported their professional drivers fell asleep. NASA has a plethora of data on how ineffective this process is in those situations and has recommended to the AV industry they not use it."

and

"Responsibility and culpability are different things. Your bad employee should have followed company policy. And you should have hired a supervisor to make sure they did. And you should have insured your expensive tools. And gotten a better alarm system. Unlike guilt, responsibility isn't either/or, it falls on many shoulders. In Uber's case, the driver, the company, and engineers involved all neglected a responsibility they had to maintain."


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

The only negligence happening here was to test low tier self driving in public streets, oh and lets not forget hiring the lowest common denominator be a safety brake.

It's like that fast food restaurant in which an employee shits on your food, whose fault is it and who gets sued?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

There’s a difference between being liable and being criminal.

If someone shits in the Taco Bell filling...

Taco Bell is liable in court for civil damages... but unless they ordered that employee to shit in that taco they do not share guilt in that crime.

But to say that Taco Bell corporate is responsible for that employee shitting in a taco and should share her prison sentence that’s a no.

Now if Taco Bell corporate allowed filling known to be contaminated with human feces to be served then they would be liable as well.

The reality is that Uber paid that employee to make sure the car didn’t run anyone over... (and to slam the brakes or serve as nessiasry.)


That’s what she was there for, to ride in the driver seat and keep the robot car from doing anything stupid.


For all effective purposes she was a drivers Ed instructor for a robot.

If your a drivers Ed instructor do you trust them not to run people over and to drive safe?

No....


Let’s instead say...

A drivers ed student runs someone over driving down the road,


Do you put any blame at all on the drivers ed instructor?
Especially if they have a brake attached in the front passenger seat?

Yes?


----------



## IRME4EVER (Feb 17, 2020)

tohunt4me said:


> If the x convict " safety driver" had been doing his / her job . . . the woman with the bicycle would be alive now !


 I live in Mesa, AZ. Drove cab for 12 years. I know the area where the lady was struck and killed. In Tempe and Scottsdale, Arizona there were 45+ Uber autonomous cars. Miles between cities maybe 5. Tempe is a college town ASU.
The lady was on Curry Rd. A lot of curves and hills through that stretch. But well lit at night, if you are paying attention!!
Ok, I had an employee that works for Uber's main office in Phoenix, in my car, in fact, took him to work. We got to talking about this. Uber had paid the family of an undisclosed amount of money. Here's the kicker, the family of the lady that got killed wanted nothing to do with the lady (help out financially, let her fend for herself) all of a sudden they want $$ after she's killed by an Uber driver. If it was anybody else who killed her other than Uber it probably wouldn't have happened. Meaning sue wise!! 
The driver was a felon, spent time in prison. Uber hired IT anyway. He was a man when he went to prison, came out he became a woman. Look at he/she/it photos. 
Thought Uber did background checks on all of us!! Who knows maybe a legal name change was done. You can apply for a new SSN.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> But to say that Taco Bell corporate is responsible for that employee shitting in a taco and should share her prison sentence that's a no


The Uber self driving software in your example is the Taco Bell recipe the company asked their employees to use when preparing tacos for customers.

So, an employee that defecated in the taco because that was the company recipe, is following company guidelines.

If that diarrhea kills the customer, as the self driving system killed the pedestrian, could you blame the employee for using fecal matter as the Taco Bell recipe required it?



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Do you put any blame at all on the drivers ed instructor?


Uber "self driving" systems monitors/backup drivers are not instructors. IMO is a big difference between the rigor, the meticulousness, the traffic realities understanding and the ability to maintain focus while giving active instructions in a driver instructors' case, and what an Uber "self driving" system monitor is required by Uber to do.

Uber not explaining what they are asking these people to do and avoiding to disclose any info about the training these monitors are getting through, is part of the general misunderstanding, leading people to believe how Uber monitors could do or are required to do, more than what they are actually able or required to do.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

Negligence of cross walker should be added into this case as well. I've noticed that many cross walkers have ignored to observe oncoming cars while crossing even when they were not using a crosswalk, looked like they own the streets.
The accident could not be avoidable even if you or I were driving there at that moment. It was too dark and the head light of the car wasn't wide enough to see both side plus the car was moving over 35 mph speed. She walked into the beam from left dark side. Why did she do that? She didn't even star at the car which was coming to her. Was she trying to suicide by car? The driver saw her in time but she failed to steer to the left side or to the right side. She might not be a good driver but I asked myself if I could reach the steering to avoid the crash in time? Probably not.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

IRME4EVER said:


> I live in Mesa, AZ. Drove cab for 12 years. I know the area where the lady was struck and killed. In Tempe and Scottsdale, Arizona there were 45+ Uber autonomous cars. Miles between cities maybe 5. Tempe is a college town ASU.
> The lady was on Curry Rd. A lot of curves and hills through that stretch. But well lit at night, if you are paying attention!!
> Ok, I had an employee that works for Uber's main office in Phoenix, in my car, in fact, took him to work. We got to talking about this. Uber had paid the family of an undisclosed amount of money. Here's the kicker, the family of the lady that got killed wanted nothing to do with the lady (help out financially, let her fend for herself) all of a sudden they want $$ after she's killed by an Uber driver. If it was anybody else who killed her other than Uber it probably wouldn't have happened. Meaning sue wise!!
> The driver was a felon, spent time in prison. Uber hired IT anyway. He was a man when he went to prison, came out he became a woman. Look at he/she/it photos.
> Thought Uber did background checks on all of us!! Who knows maybe a legal name change was done. You can apply for a new SSN.


I'm having trouble understanding what the safety monitors' gender has to do with the outcome. This person was hired to be an observer and a failsafe. Observer failed on both counts, and someone paid with their life. uber should have done a better job of vetting employees. The technology to identify a distracted driver was available and should have been incorporated in the vehicle - especially when there is potential risk of life, therefore Uber shares responsibility, but the heavier burden falls on the observer, who failed horribly at understanding the importance of the job.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

KevinH said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The back-up safety driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber Technologies UBER.N test vehicle that struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona, in 2018 was charged with negligent homicide, prosecutors said on Tuesday.


That seems a bit rough don't you think. She only hit a pedestrian. There's plenty more of those around on the streets.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> That seems a bit rough don't you think. She only hit a pedestrian. There's plenty more of those around on the streets.


Yes.
Negligent Manslaughter maybe.

Negligent Homicide ?

Too Much !

Then Woman with Bicycle is at Fault !

Crossing at Dark not on a crosswalk . . .
Improper Lighting on bicylce at night.
Entering Lane in front of vehicle .

70% the woman with Bicycles Fault !

They better come up with a Lesser Charge.
I would not Convict.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> Please, if you have the time, read this
> 
> ...


What i WANT TO KNOW

IS WHY PUBLIC HIGHWAYS ARE CONSIDERED A " PROVING GROUND "!?

THIS IS NOT WHAT I PAY TAXES FOR !

WILL A COVID-19 VACCINE BE UNLEASHED ONTO THE PUBLIC IN A SIMILAR WAY ?

HUMAN GUNIA PIGS WHO WERE NOT CONSULTED OR WARNED ?

SELF DRIVING CARS SHOULD NOT BE TESTING IN PUBLIC !


----------



## Chocoholic (Aug 7, 2018)

Negligent Homicide is the lesser charge in Arizona.

Many have thought that the NH charge was too much and the charge should be manslaughter. Well, surprise! In AZ, manslaughter ranks as a higher charge than NH. NH is the standard charge for DUI causing a death. Criminally negligent homicide is considered a class 4 felony and comes with a sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison. Manslaughter is considered a class 2 felony and comes with a sentence of five years.

From the website of an AZ homicide defense attorney:

_ Under Arizona law, negligent homicide is a type of involuntary manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than manslaughter or murder. You can be charged with negligent homicide if you accidentally caused the death of another person through criminal negligence.

Criminal negligence is the failure to act with reasonable caution or perceive obvious risks to your actions. Negligent homicide is a Class 4 felony and a first offense carries a 1 year minimum prison sentence and a maximum 3.75 year prison sentence. Second offenses can result in up to 7.5 years in prison. In either situation, you will also lose your firearm license and have a criminal record.
_
https://www.knowleslaw.org/criminal-defense/murder-manslaughter/negligent-homicide/
As for the driver, my opinion is this. Uber should have been far more selective in choosing this driver. An ex-felon with self-identification issues should have thrown up all kinds of red flags. Further, I would expect Uber to put a remote camera in all of those cars and had someone monitoring the drivers while driving, or at least reviewing video of the driver and the car's actions for things like watching TV on their phone instead of the road.

The driver is criminally liable and is being charged appropriately under AZ law. Uber is civilly liable and has already paid out. It's arguable that they may be criminally liable, but that's a big uphill fight.

Anyways, that's both my reporting of facts and my opinions. :cafe


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Chocoholic said:


> Negligent Homicide is the lesser charge in Arizona.
> 
> Many have thought that the NH charge was too much and the charge should be manslaughter. Well, surprise! In AZ, manslaughter ranks as a higher charge than NH. NH is the standard charge for DUI causing a death. Criminally negligent homicide is considered a class 4 felony and comes with a sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison. Manslaughter is considered a class 2 felony and comes with a sentence of five years.
> 
> ...


Well
Uber hired a " Safety Driver"

Who thought watching their phone
Was more important 
Than watching the Vehicle & the Road.

I do not see how Uber is Liable beyond the Civil Obligations they have already satisfied.

I STILL do not think these vehicles should be tested on public roads !

Perhaps Arizona is Liable for Allowing this !


----------



## Timinftl (Sep 7, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Never has a homeless meth addict caused so much problems by walking in front of a moving vehicle. Stepping in front of that car is easily the best thing she's ever done for her family, especially with the large settlement.
> 
> Leave the poor guineas pig driver alone. Give her community service and move on. The world is better. One less homeless drug addict. Uber lost money. Family made money. Give the woman a ticket to American Idol and a lobster dinner.


Ain't supposed to say that in public, PC police will hunt you down ....



Chocoholic said:


> Negligent Homicide is the lesser charge in Arizona.
> 
> Many have thought that the NH charge was too much and the charge should be manslaughter. Well, surprise! In AZ, manslaughter ranks as a higher charge than NH. NH is the standard charge for DUI causing a death. Criminally negligent homicide is considered a class 4 felony and comes with a sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison. Manslaughter is considered a class 2 felony and comes with a sentence of five years.
> 
> ...


How long had she been driving ? And she didn't have a dashcam ? It's survival gear isn't it ?


----------



## Chocoholic (Aug 7, 2018)

Timinftl said:


> Ain't supposed to say that in public, PC police will hunt you down ....
> 
> 
> How long had she been driving ? And she didn't have a dashcam ? It's survival gear isn't it ?


Just remembered. There WAS a dashcam! That's how they knew she was watching videos!

Now, if there was one, why wasn't Uber reviewing previous trips? Why didn't they fire the driver for negligence before the accident? Surely this wasn't the first time she was watching the phone and not doing her job to watch the road!


----------



## Timinftl (Sep 7, 2019)

Chocoholic said:


> Just remembered. There WAS a dashcam! That's how they knew she was accident? Surely this wasn't the first time she was watching the phone and not doing her job to watch the road!


Plot thickens, Just in case, Is there anyone here who didn't know Uber will throw a driver under the bus in a heartbeat ?


----------



## Timinftl (Sep 7, 2019)

Chocoholic said:


> Just remembered. There WAS a dashcam! That's how they knew she was watching videos!
> 
> Now, if there was one, why wasn't Uber reviewing previous trips? Why didn't they fire the driver for negligence before the accident? Surely this wasn't the first time she was watching the phone and not doing her job to watch


Just a thought but I think the whole driverless car thing is way overrated. I don't know about anyone one else but I don't see myself or anyone I know getting into anything touted to operate "without a human" no matter how much hype it's given. I mean seriously, the airlines have had planes that could take off, fly to the destination and land land but do you want the crew to be iasleep at the switch or worse have the automatic systems fail to recognize obstacles. But I'm the guy who believes a military conflict would place all would be participants naked in a pit with Roman 18" swords & get over it while the rest of us continue to live in peace


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> Just living with the the fact you killed someone will haunt you for life .


This does not bother bear at all.


----------



## Timinftl (Sep 7, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> This does not bother bear at all.


No worries, this wasn't a sociopathic event, this is how far the bar has been lowered. Ie: us presidential election 2020


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Timinftl said:


> No worries, this wasn't a sociopathic event, this is how far the bar has been lowered. Ie: us presidential election 2020


Bears aren't allowed to vote.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bears aren't allowed to vote.


Mail it in.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

She/he/it was testing an experimental vehicle, modified by Uber to a higher or lower safety standards, approved by authority to test on public highways in dark? It's not a Volvo without Volvo's safety feature(s). It's an Uber that who know(s) what is/are Uber's safety standard(s) and practices. Personally, I just don't want to get into an Uber car, Be it driven by technology or an Uber driver.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Chocoholic said:


> Just remembered. There WAS a dashcam! That's how they knew she was watching videos!
> 
> Now, if there was one, why wasn't Uber reviewing previous trips? Why didn't they fire the driver for negligence before the accident? Surely this wasn't the first time she was watching the phone and not doing her job to watch the road!


C'mon man!! You know the answer. Because Uber.


----------

